# Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins



## Leo Chesterton (Sep 29, 2014)

Check out this consultation on closing Loughborough Road and a few others to through traffic and putting some more public space into LJ:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/lj

I live near Cambria Bridge and can vouch for the improvements in atmosphere, safety etc that blocking rat-runs brings.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 29, 2014)

Closing Loughborough Road?


Leo Chesterton said:


> Check out this consultation on closing Loughborough Road and a few others to through traffic and putting some more public space into LJ:
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/lj
> 
> I live near Cambria Bridge and can vouch for the improvements in atmosphere, safety etc that blocking rat-runs brings.


All those closures combined almost completely isolate Loughborough Road from Coldharbour Lane. If you're coming from Herne Hill on Shakespeare or Milkwood roads, trying to get to the 5-way junction at Myatts Fields, you'd have to loop round via Barrington Road or go as far as Denmark Road, 0.5 or 1.5 extra miles respectively. I'm all for reclaiming the streets, and that junction could certainly use some work, but this is ridiculous.


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2014)

Leo Chesterton said:


> Check out this consultation on closing Loughborough Road and a few others to through traffic and putting some more public space into LJ:
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/lj
> 
> I live near Cambria Bridge and can vouch for the improvements in atmosphere, safety etc that blocking rat-runs brings.


I see they've sketched in an "artisan" beer shop  called Brewtique (as pictured in their proposals).


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Sep 29, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Closing Loughborough Road?
> 
> All those closures combined almost completely isolate Loughborough Road from Coldharbour Lane. If you're coming from Herne Hill on Shakespeare or Milkwood roads, trying to get to the 5-way junction at Myatts Fields, you'd have to loop round via Barrington Road or go as far as Denmark Road, 0.5 or 1.5 extra miles respectively. I'm all for reclaiming the streets, and that junction could certainly use some work, but this is ridiculous.



That route is pretty useless because the roads off Five Points are so congested with two way traffic trying squeeze down between double parked cars. No great loss IMHO.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 29, 2014)

Leo Chesterton said:


> That route is pretty useless because the roads off Five Points are so congested with two way traffic trying squeeze down between double parked cars. No great loss IMHO.


I just picked a destination up that way at random. May as well be any address off Loughborough Road. It's already a rather isolated area because of the viaducts. Preventing traffic on all the crossings of the viaduct will only make it worse. Cars and deliveries have to get through somehow. At least keep the Flaxman Road route open.

(And why two-sided parking is permitted on the Western part of Loughborough Road I don't know)


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Sep 29, 2014)

editor said:


> I see they've sketched in an "artisan" beer shop  called Brewtique (as pictured in their proposals).
> 
> View attachment 61809


I missed that - complete with fixy wielding Nathan Barley!


----------



## brixtonblade (Sep 29, 2014)

Slightly mixed feelings.  I think the intention is good and I agree that a nice public space would be good.

Can't help but agree with Crispy about it disconnecting the two sides of the railway - I'm not sure that's a good thing.


----------



## TImPOD (Sep 29, 2014)

As a resident of Lilford Road I fear that these changes will shift the traffic along there instead. It's already pretty hazardous and congested. What changes will be put in place to stop this from happening?


----------



## goldengraham (Sep 29, 2014)

editor said:


> I see they've sketched in an "artisan" beer shop  called Brewtique (as pictured in their proposals).



I'd like to see what the clientele of Save More food and wine make of that!

also they appear to have omitted from their picture the massive stinking pile of rubbish that sits outside those shops for much of the week.


----------



## upthejunction (Sep 30, 2014)

This is an email I have sent to Lambeth and DSDHA (the designers).

"I have just seen this consultation which appears to be ill-thought out and have no regard for the views of the local people and so I would like to ask a few basic questions about it.

1.  What research has there been done (by professionals in this field) of what, if any, the traffic problems in this area are (area being Loughborough Road/Junction/Coldharbour Lane/Brixton Road) e.g. counting cars, identifying areas of blockage, etc?

2.  What research has there been done (by professionals in this field) of how any potential traffic problems in this area could be addressed are (area being Loughborough Road/Junction/Coldharbour Lane)?

3.  What research has there been done (by professionals in this field) of how the proposed scheme would affect traffic problems in this area – namely diverting it to other roads such as Lilford Road, Minet Road, Overton Road, etc).

4.  What research has been done on alternative schemes such as blocking Hinton Road given that the traffic flow being addressed appears to be North/South?

5.  How many people in the area affected have been consulted directly (by face to face or phone or email) given a leaflet drop to the 2000 or so households affected would cost about £200 commercially?

6.  How much research has been done on car and motorbike owners who live locally and their ability to get out of the area given it would cut off access to the South and East?

7.  How much research has been done on vehicular visitors to locals in the area (including local businesses which are already isolated) and the effect on them?

8.  What consideration was given to the necessarily isolating effects on the community who are already isolated from mainstream London and facilities?

9.  What consideration was given to the adverse effect on potential regeneration of the area given its good transport links and proximity to central London?

10.  Were any alternatives thought of and if so, what (including some very obvious ones if public space was being sought in the area)?

Please note that I am a local who has lived here for 14 years and so has good knowledge of the local area, its facilities (or lack thereof), and problems.  My main problem with the scheme is that whoever thought of it does not actually know what the traffic flow in the area is or how to address it (very much cheaper alternatives freeing funds for local facilities that are badly needed could be done) – or what the needs are in terms of public space.  The scheme would proliferate the already complicated local roads problems and lead to increased traffic on relatively lightly used roads.  Of course I could be proved wrong if you have definitive research from trustworthy sources that shows otherwise.

Please answer within 7 days so that your answers can be circulated to local people."


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Oct 1, 2014)

brixtonblade said:


> Slightly mixed feelings.  I think the intention is good and I agree that a nice public space would be good.
> 
> Can't help but agree with Crispy about it disconnecting the two sides of the railway - I'm not sure that's a good thing.



I don't think it would disconnect the two sides - it would help join them up for pedestrians.

The area has some of the lowest car ownership in the country so it is not local residents who would be being cut off by restricting car through-traffic. 

The proposals make provision for deliveries and servicing of businesses etc.


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 1, 2014)

Leo Chesterton said:


> I don't think it would disconnect the two sides - it would help join them up for pedestrians.
> 
> The area has some of the lowest car ownership in the country so it is not local residents who would be being cut off by restricting car through-traffic.
> 
> The proposals make provision for deliveries and servicing of businesses etc.


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 1, 2014)

1. It would, because Coldharbour Lane would operate as now.   It would however join up the great divide between the communities of Styles Gardens and the Loughborough Estate across the DMZ of Loughborough Road.  If I was canvassign opinion it would be to make the Wick Gardens side of the road much wider (nicking a bit of Woolley House and putting speed barriers and a raised road at the top of Barrington going into a properly serviced public space where there is now a rubbish public space (next to the Hero of Switserland) .  BTW My anecdotal investigation with locals round that area is that they have a very jaundiced view of any attempts to consult with them and see the plan as an attempt by the poshies on the Herne Hill side to invade/impose their views on longstanding communities on the Loughborough side.
2.  Are there no local vehicle owners?  And what is the evidene that through traffic is any more problematic than any other area of inner london?  Or that any main road in London has been blocked to ease traffic congestion and assist locals - isn't it always residential roads that are blocked off?  To protect residents?
3. What proposals?  If you look at a local map the area bounded by loughborough road, coldharbour lane and Brixton Road becomes very difficult to go in and out of in any sensible manner for locals or those with legitimate reasons for driving - they will actually increase traffic on peaceful residential roads by closing a useful main road highway (albeit minor main road).  Of course that is my view based on anecdotal evidence which is why I am asking if they have actually done any proper research on this. 
4.  In case anyone is wondering what I think the real traffic problems of the area are (as opposed to imagined ratrun ones that motivate the proposal): 1. Brixton Rd/Loughborough Rd - very quick traffic lights/badly designed parking leading to traffic jams that can back up to Fiveways due to other traffic problem 2. Parking on both sides of road/bad design from Fiveways to overton Road leading to one way traffic and traffic jams at peak hours.  3.  Ratrun to and from  Brixton road/Coldharbour Lane along Wiltshire and Villa Roads - not actually that bad even when bad, if you know what I mean, though would become considerably worse if Loughborough Road was blocked.  None of these are anything to do with Loughborough Junction (where i have yet to see a traffic jam not caused by road works, the police or the Olympic Torch relay) and are unlikely to be affected by the new proposal.  In fact a little thought and creativity would sort them out with minimal cost (ideas in a tin hat please) and in fact the answer is better traffic flow, not less traffic. 3 is not a real problem yet - speed barriers would be good though.
5. As an amateur - 4 people at Loughborough Junction, FIveways, Loughboough/Brixton Rd junction and Villa Road counting from 7am-7pm could give useful data about what the actual problem was (video camera would be good as well - I bet the cops know).  You might need one at gresham/Wiltshire as well as not sure where people entering/exiting ratrun.  I would run it for three days on different days of the week but finances would govern that - I am sure there are poeple who do this kind of thing professionally - where are they?
6.  I am a bit confused as to what the public space is for?  Is it supposed to be like Windrush Square?  But that already was a public space - just badly designed and looked after.  It also had considerable footfall and was surrounded by facilities/places people wanted to visit/shops/bars.  In other words the public space followed the vibe not the other way around.  Provide faciities and encourage more shops/bars into the area (rates rebatesn etc?) and see what happens.


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Oct 1, 2014)

Coldharbour Lane would be easier to navigate east-west, where as you say, there are not huge traffic jams but there are pedestrians waiting to cross.

I'm impressed by your traffic jam knowledge upthejunction - do you drive a cab?  I see it on foot more than car.



upthejunction said:


> 3. What proposals?


http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ consultation visualisations.pdf

They've obviously studied traffic etc but the proposal is actually a trial period which would hopefully answer some of your questions.

To save time:

"
The Proposals
Lambeth is proposing a six month trial closure of Loughborough Road alongside 
five other closures across a wider area. These would be on Barrington Road 
(except buses), Gordon Grove, Lilford Road, Calais Street and Padfield Road 
(see map for the locations). 
The exact way the closures will operate has not been finalised. Some of the 
options under consideration are No Entry signs, gates and bollards. At most of 
the closure points there will be opportunities for public space enhancements, for 
example it may be possible to create a ‘green’ pedestrian area on Gordon Grove 
between the play centre and Elam Street Open Space.
We have had initial discussions about the proposals with Transport for London 
and Southwark Council and will keep them informed during the trial period.
Way forward
If there is support six-month experimental closures will be introduced on 
Loughborough Road, Barrington Road (except buses), Gordon Grove, Lilford 
Road, Calais Street, and Padfield Road.
At some of the closures it may be possible for residents in co-operation with the 
council to design and implement temporary changes to the street layout such as 
planting, seating, or play areas. 
The road closures will be designed in such a way that they could be removed 
early if required. 
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. 
Residents will be invited to submit their experience of living in the area during the road 
closure period through a dedicated web link, by email or by post. 
At the end of the six month trial, another consultation will be carried out to ask residents if 
they want to see the closures made permanent.
"


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 1, 2014)

1. I asked them a long time ago if they had done traffic studies (when I didn't think this would be an actuality some day.  The person I asked was surprised and I understood there were no studies.  I am looking forward ot knowing if there were ones or not - the other local consultations I have seen on traffic have not had them - even cursory ones.  They just propose soemthing that seemed a good idea at the time with no evidence base.
2. Many years ago (early 2007) being peed off with the general approach of government (national and local) to evidence based legislation and their ignoring of it I sent this email to the Home office about a proposal they had.  It seems to me that theer is a pattern with how our leaders approach things and ignore the methodology I propose which not only has scientific validity but is also common sense (to me anyway).  I could be wrong - but I would like to know why if someone says I am.

_"Sorry about the delay in replying.  I have a few questions as I think you may have misunderstood my root concerns.




1.  Being brought up on science and rationality (before I was a lawyer) I always thought that what one did, even in the societal area was have a hypothesis, test such hypothesis according to accepted scientific principles and then suggest remedies.  Only then should you be consulting. Am I wrong in thinking you have not followed this time-worn formula?


2.  The corollary of the above, if one accepts it is that if you have an idea (hypothesis), one then tries to ascertain if it is in fact true.  In this case the hypothesis is that defendant's non-attendance is causing more than trivial problems to the Court.  When one has the results of the research on this (expressed perhaps using Court days lost, agency time lost, money lost, etc) - then one can then consider the possible remedies.


3.  The possible remedies could involve any number, but these amount to hypotheses as well which could be evaluated in terms of Court days served, agency time saved, etc PLUS all the reasonably envisageable knock-on effects of that remedy such as prison cells overfilled, police cells overfilled, Court days wasted on hearings wear a person provides a medical certificate (now normally done on a conditional bail condition of producing such certificate on the next occasion), etc.  Obviously at this stage the costs of evaluating such a strategy would be done by those commissioning the research (and in fact should really have been done before).


4.  Only at this stage should the remedies, if apparently justified by the research lead to the formulation of possible legislation which can then be consulted on.


5.  I suspect none of the above stages have been followed.


6.  When you say "of the major messages we have received from CJS agencies is that backed for bail warrants are a major blockage to improving defendant attendance at court " who are these people and has any quantitative (and/or qualitative) analysis of these messages been done?


7.  When you say  "defence views are crucial" does this mean defence views have not been canvassed since 2004 when you say you have been doing work on this?


8.  When you say  "defence views are crucial and ones which we cannot access as readily as..." does this mean you have not approached the Criminal bar Association (verily easily accessed) or the LCSSA or the Law Society?  They are all easily accessed - you phone them or email them."_

To be fair, three years of work on this proposal (to make it a presumption that someone who fails to appear in Court should be on a warrant not backed for bail) finally got to a consulation where people like me who worked in COurts coudl answer durign the consultation and tell them it was rubbish - which they recognised and junked the proposal.  Likewise I want to know why my, (and my friends), views as local vehicle owners about what the actual traffic and public space problems (havign had to deal with it) have been ignored by not doing any form of study as far as we know.  If there is no traffic problem (I was told rat-running on loughborough road wasa real problem when I originally asked) then woud that affect whether there shold be a trial to prevent the non-existent problem?


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 1, 2014)

Sorry about typos - Have to leave to exploit the roads while I can still drive on them.  Byeeeee


----------



## Winot (Oct 1, 2014)

Almost everyone dealing with Government policy (including the Civil Service) has been trying for years to make it "evidence based".  Politicians won't do that though, or will do it only when it is in accordance with political pressures anyway.


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 1, 2014)

Not quite correct unfortunately.  One of the traditions and history that has disappeared is the impartiality of the civil service.  While in the past it often lead to Sir Humphrey like opposition to any change, the civil service now is often a tool of the government policy then currently in vogue - with the civil service agreeign that is how to act.  This leads to any critical thinking being conisdered to be oppositional, and the consequent groupthink about any idea.  The closest we get to evidence based legislation or action is when there is a public enquiry or Royal  Commission (thoguh at a lower level there is research and some quite effective governmental action).  It doesn't stop people trying though.  My favourite is Ben Goldacre being asked by Michael Gove to do a paper on evidence based educational trials (which he did) - accompanied by the DoE effectively preventing any evidence collection by educational researchers! At some point someone will realise that treating education as a giant experiment for unqualified people to test their half-baked ideas on may be counter-productive.


----------



## Winot (Oct 1, 2014)

Well it's a mixed picture - whilst I'd agree that the upper echelons of the CS are often in cahoots with the politicos, I'm not sure Maude et al. would agree that the CS uncomplainingly follows orders.  Anyway, this is a bit off-topic - apologies for the derail.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2014)

Just got this tweet:


----------



## Jute (Oct 3, 2014)

I grew up in the Myatts field area, and my mum still lives there.  As others have said, these plans have not been thought out properly at all...closing main artery roads/junctions to divert traffic along more residential roads!?  Residents have not been consulted properly, the only reason my mum and her neighours became aware was through the local library.  The council have not carried out any traffic monitoring, despite it saying they have on their website.  The reason they gave for this at wednesday's meeting was that there were road works in place which prohibited them - the road works were there for 2 weeks, on 1 road! Typical council disorganisation and lack of logic.


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 3, 2014)

Hoorah! People agree with me.  I couldn't go to the meeting on Wedenesday (which appears to be the only one where people can voice their views apart from the "consultation").  What was the general feeling?  And anyway, roadworks do not mean you cannot count cars.  This proposal came from Loughborough Junciton Action Group and I thought it was just a discussion they were having with the Council and I gently put  some of my points (about traffic, etc).  I was v surprised to see it become a fully fledged proposal as it was so impractical and obviously not researched (why has no-one thought that we might want to go to Camberwell - or even Peckham).  LJAG is dominated by people on the Herne Hill side of Coldharbour Lane and despite their good will and efforts, they don't quite seem to understand this side, despite wanting to do things on behalf of the community.  We should start a forum about what we think may actually be a good idea for the area.  People have already made suggestions on this thread and once things looked concrete-ish meet at the Hero (free and no probs with the Landlord) or the undercroft at Woolley House for more formal meetings (£35 last time our RA met there).


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 3, 2014)

upthejunction . which RA do you represent ?


----------



## Leo Chesterton (Oct 3, 2014)

upthejunction said:


> LJAG is dominated by people on the Herne Hill side of Coldharbour Lane and despite their good will and efforts, they don't quite seem to understand this side, despite wanting to do things on behalf of the community.  We should start a forum about what we think may actually be a good idea for the area.  People have already made suggestions on this thread and once things looked concrete-ish meet at the Hero (free and no probs with the Landlord) or the undercroft at Woolley House for more formal meetings (£35 last time our RA met there).


Or just go to an LJAG meeting and rebalance things? 

Next one on Tuesday 14th of Oct at 1930. Not sure of venue, but often Sunshine CAFE. If you email jactiongroup@gmail.com they might even be up for having it in the Hero.


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 3, 2014)

Ok to goign to LJAG meeting - it is normally first tuesdya of month but they seem to have loads ofconsultations.  I am sort of in a private RA but we are having problems of our own at the mmoment so I would rather not say in public...


----------



## Jute (Oct 4, 2014)

I don't go through LJ often enough nowadays to confidently assert my opinion on it but will encourage locals I know to get on this forum, act as an intermediary (for those who are not tech savvy), and will re-familiarise myself with the area and attend some meetings if i can -  I live in Southwark now and am having my own issues with their idea of what consultation constitutes.

I’ve passed on the idea of meeting up to discuss alternatives and details of the LJAG meeting, both of which were welcomed.  Leo Chesterton – do council officers attend your meetings?  Also, do you know which department is analysing the consultation survey results?


----------



## Lizzy Mac (Oct 4, 2014)

If the meeting is next Tuesday please let people know.  It's just me coming on here that gives me any info at all.  I showed a neighbour the office block and now there are 2 more local people that want to get involved.


----------



## Jute (Oct 5, 2014)

I've missed anything about an office block - are they planning on building/converting one somewhere?


----------



## LJandproud (Oct 6, 2014)

Jute said:


> I've missed anything about an office block - are they planning on building/converting one somewhere?


Yes! Massive development planned by Parritt Leng for the Higgs Industrial Estate at bottom of Herne Hill Rd (near junction with Coldharbour Lane). Is that what you mean? If so, they're hoping to build five tower blocks - four of them mainly apartments (some inc a small amount of light industry on ground floor) ranging from 6 to 8 storeys high. The fifth would be a TEN STOREY office block - totally speculative so no guarantee it will be actually get used. 

Architecture so unimaginative it makes Brixton Square look like a contender for the Stirling Prize. Developers confident they'll get plans through and they've done a great job of hiding them from the community so far. 

Please comment on Lambeth's website! It's the only thing that will make the planners listen at this stage. Deadline extended for another 3 weeks. 

Many residents are pro-development as recognise huge need for regeneration but this is purely profit-driven - wrong development for this site. Includes no retail and no thought's been given to need for extra school, GP, already dangerously over-full train services etc. 

Mtg of the Loughborough Jn Action Group 7-9 pm tmrw (07.10.14) at the Sunshine Intl Arts Cafe, 209a Coldharbour Lane. Pls spread the word!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 6, 2014)

Am new to this thread and I was away on the car free day so missed all the info but after reading the proposals, I'm really not happy, I live on Styles Gardens and I fear that this will really isolate us. I know that the proposers have good intentions but you can tell that they don't live on the Loughborough Road side of the Junction.

I've lived there for 4 years, I also have a car which I drive regularly and I really don't see the need for this, the road is never that busy in comparison to some other areas so I don't know what has prompted this. The area doesn't have a high accident rate, it does have a high roadworks rate though! The latter incidentally often causes more problems as people try their luck getting round it, unless there is a huge barrier across the road, they move the bollards and drive through! God knows what would happen if the road was permanently blocked off, it would have to be very clear, otherwise they'll find a way around it!

I'm also concerned about the loss of the P5 bus stop by Rathgar Road and Ridgeway Road, these are not stops that are never used, I go past them multiple times every day and there is always people waiting, many quite elderly who I imagine might struggle to walk further down to Barrington Road.

The only outcomes from this that I can see are, 1) causing havoc on nearby roads as everyone tries to get around on their daily business and 2) creating a space for the already quite intimidating groups of drunks and youths to congregate. I'm all in favour of thinking the best of people and hoping that this would make them take some pride in the area they live in but quite frankly I took off my rose tinted glasses a few years ago, this will give them more opportunity and the space to hang around even more and no doubt attract a few others along the way. In the past the area has been subject to a dispersement order, are the proposers going to arrange for one of those too to prevent problems.

Add in the changes to Barrington Road and the other roads and I fear that the area will become a ghetto, no one will be able to get in or out. I know that sounds overly dramatic but the way Styles Gardens and Major Close are designed means there is less traffic and it just attracts the wrong people. Even the local Safer Neghbourhood Police Officers say that, I can't imagine that they will be in favour of creating more spaces for trouble makers to hang out.


----------



## Jute (Oct 6, 2014)

Blocking off loughborough road from coldharbour is pure insanity...it is and always has been a primary route for locals to go from south east to south west, and vice versa.  That's why the road and pavements are wider than most.  I'm not sure who else from locals and a few savvy taxi/delivery drivers would be using this route anyway?

I also lost my rose-coloured glasses a few years back, and as soon as I heard about these proposals I immediately wondered if any property developments were planned (think there is another planned in the old charles edward brook school on cormont road too - along the 'quiet route').  From my own experience in southwark (and hearing about the disgraceful events in elephant and castle), councils set themselves a target to fulfil whatever policy is being heralded at the time (new housing at the moment), and then strive to attain it regardless of any logical, practical or financial reason not to.  (Ref Heygate estate in E&C which cost the council more money to relocate residents than they made from the sale of the prime development land.)

I'll pass on the meeting info to others, and will try to come if i can.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2014)

I've posted up a piece in B Buzz about this:
http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/10/...consultations-over-major-redevelopment-plans/

Apparently the images I've been using show the development off in a good light, so I'm hoping to be forwarded illustrations of some of the even less attractive proposals.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 6, 2014)

I'm confused........is the public space consultation linked to the proposed Higgs Triangle development or are the two unrelated ?


----------



## Crispy (Oct 6, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> I'm confused........is the public space consultation linked to the proposed Higgs Triangle development or are the two unrelated ?


They are unrelated


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> I'm confused........is the public space consultation linked to the proposed Higgs Triangle development or are the two unrelated ?


Sorry about that. I over muti-tasked myself.


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 10, 2014)

I'm back.  The news is this.
1) There is one more public meeting on the LJ roadblocking plan at 6.30 pm on Wednesday 15 October 2014 in Longfield Hall, Knatchbull Road, Myatt’s field
2.  The Higgs developent is not apprrently opposed by LJAG (who have been the representatives of the community in all the discussions about proposed regeneration of the LJ area.  There is a meetign on this on 14 October 2014 - I think at the sunshine cafe.   My view is it could do with a bit of development but apparently lots of local businesses, including natioally known artisans/art people are being driven out of LJ by overpriced rates, etc in favour of these developments.

The normal LJAG meeting has come and gone on 7 October 2014.

I have been promised an asnwer on my email by Lambeth (so they received it) - presumably I will get it on 21 October!  I should also say that the best way to put pressure on them is to contact the coldharbour ward councillors (LB lambeth site makes it easy to find them and their email addresses and it works as I have done it in the past - here it is http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx?XXR=0&AC=WARD&WID=349&sPC=Enter postcode) or Tessa Jowell MP - email her and find a surgery to talk to her before 22 October.  I will try, but up to ears in **rk.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 10, 2014)

upthejunction said:


> 1) There is one more public meeting on the LJ roadblocking plan at 6.30 pm on Wednesday 15 October 2014 in Longfield Hall, Knatchbull Road, Myatt’s field
> 2.  The Higgs developent is not apprrently opposed by LJAG (who have been the representatives of the community in all the discussions about proposed regeneration of the LJ area.  There is a meetign on this on 14 October 2014 - I think at the sunshine cafe.   My view is it could do with a bit of development but apparently lots of local businesses, including natioally known artisans/art people are being driven out of LJ by overpriced rates, etc in favour of these developments.
> I have been promised an asnwer on my email by Lambeth (so they received it) - presumably I will get it on 21 October!  I should also say that the best way to put pressure on them is to contact the coldharbour ward councillors (LB lambeth site makes it easy to find them and their email addresses and it works as I have done it in the past - here it is http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx?XXR=0&AC=WARD&WID=349&sPC=Enter postcode) or Tessa Jowell MP - email her and find a surgery to talk to her before 22 October.  I will try, but up to ears in **rk.


I am confused by your post.

Regarding the road blocking, I made my comments and put them in the box at the community centre. A guy from LETRA asked to interview me on camera fro some reason (I don't think this counts as part of the consultation though). That consultation is still going on until 22nd October - and can also be complete online http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/loughborough-junction-public-space-improvements

Higgs Triangle - what you say about local businesses is quite right IMHO. Regarding LJAG's position - I thought they were hoping to get the application withdrawn until a fuller evaluation of the site by council planners had been made. I don't speak for them mind. (and there is another thread devoted to this BTW)

P.S. The Loughborough Road situation is relevant to Coldharbour councillors, but Higgs Triangle comes under Herne Hill.


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 11, 2014)

I meant though the consultation is gong on until 22 Oct there is another public meeting - these are likely to be more effective means of getting locals views known as the consultation results could easily not reflect the individual views (as has happened on other LA road consultations I have seen), whereas a public meeting is..er...public.

Not sure about LJAG view on Higgs as a whole - they told me they weren't in principle against high rise apartments.  I am not sure what I think about this as I have long thought that LJ was an area which was bound to beome desirable because of its proximity to the centre and good transport links - while this is likely to mean gentrification, if planned and achieved sensitively, I think it would be good given it is pretty much an urban wasteland at the moment in terms of facilities (private and public) - but the jury is out on whether this is happening at the moment.  it is however bad that an area where there are some valued artisans (e.g. a moulder who does stuff for artists like Anish Kapoor, another is a nationally known classic car restorer), which give the area some of its character and which could and should be regarded as valuable resources to Lambeth, are being forced out without any thought or consideration, inlcudign whetehr they could co-habit and/or make it known as a proper artisan area.


----------



## ricbake (Oct 12, 2014)

I am a car owner, I also walk and cycle although I use the car more than I really need to because its convenient and I'm lazy. I accept that I need to be persuaded to change my habits for reasons of sustainability, pollution, fitness, congestion etc. Everyone should be considering making fewer car journeys, particularly the shorter ones.

The idea of closing Loughbourgh Road at Coldharbour Lane to through traffic is principally driven by LJAG in their desire to improve their space, but it is about reduced traffic in the whole Vassall area. The Council will put in the closures, initially temporarily for about 6 months. It is an experiment, instead of traffic modeling because modeling is thought to be too expensive and not very reliable.

*Variations to the current plan*
The whole area should be a designated 20mph zone. The position of the associated closures of Barrington Road, Gordon Grove, Lillford Road and Calais Street, need to be better thought out, moved, made one way or additional one way and/or no entry points added. 
Various routes via Knatchbull Road and Carew Street through to Mostyn Road and the north end of Loughborough Road are still cross routes for through traffic. The Lambeth / Southwark border of Denmark Rd and Flodden Road will see at lot more traffic as it is the obvious alternate route North for many of the cars that currently come from (and return South to) Dulwich, Herne Hill and beyond. These issues need to be addressed before the closures are put in otherwise the experiment will fail.

This radical project is just a step in improving the streets in our area, it is designed to improve the quality of life for the majority of residents and it deserves a chance based on the facts listed below.

The measures that were consulted on in the Neighbourhood Enhancement Program now ready to go in and will also help. These are not designed to solve the commuter parking problems but will change the way that cars use our roads. The Councillors, Council Officers and all of us know a CPZ is the only thing that will solve the parking issue, but the budget has to be found.

I hope to make it to the meeting at Longfield Hall on the 15th, see you there


The Vassall Ward area bordered by Coldharbour Lane, Denmark Road, Flodden Road, Camberwell New Road, Vassall Road, Brixton Road, Gresham Road is an almost entirely residential enclave and sorely in need of controlled parking, a fact very few disagree with for all the reasons identified by the Myatts Field Parking Group.

Less than 1 in four households in Vassall Ward have a car.

The Myatts Field North development is increasing the local population by about 10%, (may be 200 additional cars, at 1/4 households).

London suffers from congestion, and there is a limit to the capacity of the roads

Private cars on through journeys should be keeping to A roads and "rat runs" through residential areas should be discouraged through various traffic calming measures.

Pedestrians should be safe and walking encouraged, particularly routes to the schools and parks

Cycling should be encouraged and be safe

We are well served by public transport with 3 overground stations, 2 underground stations and numerous bus services, not far to walk for most people in this area.

In future a CPZ would reduce traffic further because there will no longer be cars driving round expecting to find free parking.

A CPZ will cost in the region of £400,000 to implement, but money for this project is from a budget that can't used for a CPZ.

The pressure being exerted to get a CPZ is being felt and continuing the pressure will be fruitful in time. It is less than 5 years since the last consultation failed.


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2014)

ricbake said:


> I hope to make it to the meeting at Longfield Hall on the 15th, see you there


If possible, it would be great if you could write it up for B Buzz so more people get to know about the proposals.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 12, 2014)

ricbake said:


> The pressure being exerted to get a CPZ is being felt and continuing the pressure will be fruitful in time. It is less than 5 years since the last consultation failed.



can I just ask what you mean by "failed" ?
surely a consultation just establishes what the majority of residents want


----------



## ricbake (Oct 12, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> can I just ask what you mean by "failed" ?
> surely a consultation just establishes what the majority of residents want


The consultation in 2009/10 was for a proposal for the Camberwell M CPZ - the proposal met a campaign of opposition from a group who put a lot of time and effort into lobbying for negative responses. *The proposal failed*.
I understand that group now have now realized that as the area is grinding to a halt under the pressure of commuter parking and abandonded vehicles etc they are likely to be in favour of a CPZ now.

http://www.vassallview.com/2010/01/residents-consulted-on-proposed.html


----------



## ricbake (Oct 12, 2014)

editor said:


> If possible, it would be great if you could write it up for B Buzz so more people get to know about the proposals.


Will see what I can do...


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 12, 2014)

To ricbake - From the current proposal:
_"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."_

1. I understood from LB Lambeth that they had not done any meaningful monitoring due to roadworks so how are they going to compare anything?
2. My anecdotal evidence would be that the area is not used that much for ratruns so much as for parking as there are no controls (supporting your view) but if there is no primary data what do they know that may justify any experiment or change?  How does anyone know if any roads are used as ratruns, or to what degree, and if they are a problem? What is wrong with getting primary data as a first stage (counting, etc, not traffic modelling - that is a later stage if used & BTW seems to be required by TfL in certain circumstances)?
3. Closure of Loughborough Road does not prevent people who are trying to get to Brixton Road from Herne Hill, etc - as it is people use Wiltshire Road/Villa Road and Lilford Road.  Of course if Lambeth had done any research on the area that they were willing to share we may actually have some facts on which to base our opinions, rather than just guesstimating/speculating like desperate Phil Space type journalists.
4. Why has there been no meaningful effort to consult with locals before any proposal or experiment affects at least some of them?
5. Just because you are an admirably high-minded car driver why should that dictate what is best for everyone else?  It would be difficult for me to do some of my work (being self-employed) if the current experiment runs, let alone take my daughter to various places she goes to that happen to be on the other side of the tracks  (Could someone please record a version of "Across Coldharbour Lane" (a la Bobby Womack) for the next public meeting?)  Of course I don't say that my views/needs should supercede the community's interests, or indeed the planet's if global warming/pollution is the concern.  However, I don't think they should be totally ignored.  Or rather I think they should only be ignored after I, and others like me, have had a chance to input before any proposal is made to change or experiment.  Then, and only then, can they fairly and justly ignore me.
6.  How do you know the costs involved if the area was made a controlled parking zone? Are you involved with an interested group who has actual information?  Please share (the information I mean).


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 12, 2014)

ricbake said:


> The consultation in 2009/10 was for a proposal for the Camberwell M CPZ - the proposal met a campaign of opposition from a group who put a lot of time and effort into lobbying for negative responses. *The proposal failed*.
> I understand that group now have now realized that as the area is grinding to a halt under the pressure of commuter parking and abandonded vehicles etc they are likely to be in favour of a CPZ now.
> 
> http://www.vassallview.com/2010/01/residents-consulted-on-proposed.html



lol .......... where did "the proposal" originate ?


----------



## ricbake (Oct 13, 2014)

[/SIZE][SIZE=4]cuppa tee said:


> felicitations one and all as this is my first post on this forum and i apologise for resurrecting this topic however the council have extended the deadline on the consultation process until the 22 of Jan 2010 and so the issue is still live.
> 
> Now as with the op i am undecided on the issue but i am inclined to reject the idea of cpz's on many points which i hope pro-cpz afficianado's can illuminate me on. .......
> but maybe someone who likes the idea of cpz's could say why i should support this as i have no preconceptions about some ones worth or rights as a human based on what job they do or how much they earn.





cuppa tee said:


> lol .......... where did "the proposal" originate ?



Lambeth Council


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2014)

ricbake said:


> This radical project is just a step in improving the streets in our area, it is designed to improve the quality of life for the majority of residents and it deserves a chance based on the facts listed below.



No offence but very few of the facts that you mention really apply to the closing of the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road, well certainly not right at the junction, we don't have and quite frankly don't really have the need for controlled parking and the junction certainly isn't a rat run, more of an essential artery through the area, maybe nearer to Myatts Fields you get into rat run territory and have the need for a CPZ but I really don't believe that closing the junction is the answer to those issues. I'm all in favour of making areas safer for pedestrians and cyclists but I genuinely think closing that junction will cause far more problems than it will solve. 

RicBake I'm guessing you don't live that close to the actual closed junction, if you did, you would know what havoc it being closed has caused in the past, not just for traffic, which is a nightmare in the surrounding areas but also for anti-social behaviour. I live just minutes from the junction and when the road is closed and people can generally hang around without the fear of traffic, there's more trouble, there's more rubbish which doesn't get collected that often when the junction is open, never mind when it's closed and it's generally not a very pleasant place to be. Are these things that have been thought about during this process? I'm sure these are issues you don't have to put up with near the green open spaces of Myatts Fields but it's a real issue for us, we want to be able to walk home without being intimidated, spat on, shouted at etc and having cars around makes that easier because it stops the big groups of people hanging around. Maybe if the closure coincided with the local shops alcohol licences being removed then it wouldn't be so bad but I doubt that will happen.

I realise this probably makes me sound like a proper drama queen but I just want to be safe walking home from the bus stops/tube stops/train stations you mention and unless the closure comes with extra police/cameras/dispersement order, it's not going to work for me. Of course I would like the area to look better and sure, losing the cars would be nice but having people driving around makes me feel safer.


----------



## ricbake (Oct 13, 2014)

upthejunction said:


> To ricbake - From the current proposal:
> _"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."_
> ...



1.  I don't think LBL have done any monitoring recently - they will probably rely on anecdotal evidence from residents groups involved in the consultations
2.  Anecdotal evidence from the Myatts Field Park groups, PACCA, LJAG and anyone with any experience of Loughborough Road from 5 ways to Brixton Road would suggest there was a problem - 
3. Is that the Angel Park Gardens / Minet Road "rat run"?
4.  The consultation is currently ongoing - see you at Longfield Hall 18:30 on the 15th October - online comment also an option to the 22nd.
5.  Nobody is being ignored - it is about looking for a consensus to deal with a problem - and making the streets more pleasant to walk or cycle with our children/grandchildren.
6.  I've asked. The consultation process; the traffic orders; the signage; the road marking; etc. 

I am connected with a local TRA, Myatts Field Parking Group, contribute to the Stockwell and Vassall Leaseholder Forum and Leasehold Council; I've been involved with Brixton Energy who have 2 projects in the area; I first campaigned for traffic calming in the area as far back as 2001 when my son was 5 and making daily use of Myatts Field Park. You could say I am a concerned and active Local Citizen. 
I also have the advantage of managing a building where the Council rent space giving me some connection with numerous different Council Officers.


----------



## ricbake (Oct 13, 2014)

LadyV said:


> No offence but very few of the facts that you mention really apply to the closing of the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road, well certainly not right at the junction, we don't have and quite frankly don't really have the need for controlled parking and the junction certainly isn't a rat run, more of an essential artery through the area, maybe nearer to Myatts Fields you get into rat run territory and have the need for a CPZ but I really don't believe that closing the junction is the answer to those issues. I'm all in favour of making areas safer for pedestrians and cyclists but I genuinely think closing that junction will cause far more problems than it will solve.
> 
> RicBake I'm guessing you don't live that close to the actual closed junction, if you did, you would know what havoc it being closed has caused in the past, not just for traffic, which is a nightmare in the surrounding areas but also for anti-social behaviour. I live just minutes from the junction and when the road is closed and people can generally hang around without the fear of traffic, there's more trouble, there's more rubbish which doesn't get collected that often when the junction is open, never mind when it's closed and it's generally not a very pleasant place to be. Are these things that have been thought about during this process? I'm sure these are issues you don't have to put up with near the green open spaces of Myatts Fields but it's a real issue for us, we want to be able to walk home without being intimidated, spat on, shouted at etc and having cars around makes that easier because it stops the big groups of people hanging around. Maybe if the closure coincided with the local shops alcohol licences being removed then it wouldn't be so bad but I doubt that will happen.
> 
> I realise this probably makes me sound like a proper drama queen but I just want to be safe walking home from the bus stops/tube stops/train stations you mention and unless the closure comes with extra police/cameras/dispersement order, it's not going to work for me. Of course I would like the area to look better and sure, losing the cars would be nice but having people driving around makes me feel safer.



I am still to be fully persuaded that losing Loughborough Road as a feeder route for vehicles to and from the city centre is viable. But if not there where else could you cut off the through traffic that only bring exhaust fumes and road danger to the local residents?
There is a lot of effort at Coldharbour Lane / Loughborough Road to improve the area  http://7-bridges.org/ http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/take-your-idea-for-a-test-run-in-loughborough-junction


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 14, 2014)

ricbake said:


> Lambeth Council



So the Lambeth councillor who told me the proposal had been put to consultation because of pressure from a small but organised and motivated group of residents centred around Myatts Field Park was incorrect ?


----------



## ricbake (Oct 14, 2014)

cuppa tee said:


> So the Lambeth councillor who told me the proposal had been put to consultation because of pressure from a small but organised and motivated group of residents centred around Myatts Field Park was incorrect ?



Sounds about right...  The Council always jump up and take notice of "small but organised and motivated group of residents"

This is where it originated Camberwell M Controlled Parking Zone 

This is the councils most recent look at the area NEP Consultation

Small relative to what, there are nearly 300 signatures attached to the current campaign? - certainly organised and motivated groups of residents have lobbied and are lobbying to have the issue revisited
http://myattsfieldparking.wordpress.com/abandoned-vehicles/
http://www.minet.org.uk/news/3089455


----------



## CH1 (Oct 14, 2014)

Don't know about the rights and wrongs of all this but I saw a public notice posted on the huge fence surrounding the vacant land on the corner of Minet Road and Lilford Road.

Both LJAG and Lambeth Council get it in the neck.


----------



## Jute (Oct 14, 2014)

ricbake said:


> Various routes via Knatchbull Road and Carew Street through to Mostyn Road and the north end of Loughborough Road are still cross routes for through traffic


 Are you supporting the increased use of these roads for traffic?  Carew road appears to be mostly commercial (correct me if im wrong) but looks relatively narrow so could it take the increase?  Knatchbull road is a wholly residential street with (from what i've seen) a well used local park that serves the area, notably the nearby council estates which don't have the benefit of private gardens - increasing traffic along this route would be counter-productive to improving "the quality of life for the majority of residents".  Shifting the traffic from some residential streets (not to mention a major thoroughfare such as Loughborough road) to other residential streets is not solving the problem, it is shifting it to the sole detriment of those who are unfortunate enough to live on those roads.

I agree that small motivated groups get the attnetion of councils, but it is the council's duty to ensure it properly consults with all residents about their needs and desires, rather than assuming the view of the few is the view of the many.  It would seem to me that the campaigners behind this likely either live in Herne Hill or along the roads that are planned to be closed or otherwise positively affected by the plans (possibly supported by property groups hoping to develop in the area - not to scare-monger but if i lived on the Loughborough Estate i would be very concerned about the longevity of my tenancy).  As for car-use, as up the junction mentions, some residents need to be able to continue using their cars unhindered, either because they are elderly or have children.  Is the traffic really that bad on any single road at the moment?


----------



## se5 (Oct 14, 2014)

As an interested local living near Myatts Fields Park some of the major issues as I see them are

There is a problem with traffic on Loughborough Road as it meets Brixton Road - at most times of the day traffic is queuing to go through as the parked cars either side mean that only one lane of traffic can get through. I have seen several angry incidents and standoffs at this point. Most of the traffic is seeking a shortcut to avoid Brixton town centre.

There is a problem with traffic on Calais Street near Myatts Fields Park. Again the narrow road and parked cars mean that at most times of the day the traffic is queuing to go through again with angry incidents. Most of this traffic is seeking to avoid Camberwell town centre by doing a run down Denmark Road, Calais Street, Lothian Road and then Patmos Road. The Patmos Road/Langton Road/Loithian Road one way system is not good for pedestrians and cyclists.

There is a problem with speeding traffic on Knatchbull Road - the straight road means that if it is clear traffic speeds from the Calais St end down. There is also conflict of traffic as, whilst its wider than Calais, it is hard for two cars to pass when there is parked cars on either side. This results in the P5 bus being slowed down (although I understand that Tfl want to reroute the P5 along Lothian Road)

There are several schools in the area and many families wanting to use Myatts Fields Park - the current traffic and road layout makes crossing hard and dangerous. It should be easy for families to walk to the park or to school without having to negotiate cars passing through residential streets.

There is already a 20mph limit on Loughborough Road - on the occasions when I drive on that road at 20mph I get overtaken by speeding cars. I know  enforcement will still be a problem under the new scheme but I'd like to think that local residents have more of a stake in the area and so will be more likely to comply with speed limits.

There is a desperate need for a controlled parking zone - roads such as Loughborough Road, Lilford Road, Paulet Road, Knatchbull Road, Calais Street,  Cormont Road, Patmos Road, Lothian Road amongst others are filled with cars during the week but less than half full at weekends and on public holidays. Census figures show that 64% of residents in Vassall ward and 69% of residents in Coldharbour ward do not own cars and yet our lives are blighted by the cars parked on the streets. From my observations the cars come from workers at Camberwell bus garage, workers at the hospital and commuters driving in and catching the tube from Oval station amongst others. This is about as far into London you can go travelling from Kent/South East London and get a free parking space. Southwark has controlled parking all the way to border on Denmark Road and on Flodden Road. It is not the job of Lambeth to provide a free parking space to these people.

If a CPZ were introduced in the area the number of cars would be significantly reduced - maybe 50% fewer cars. As a result the roads would become a race track as a result of the lower levels of cars. Traffic calming and traffic restricting measures need to be implemented first to stop the roads becoming more dangeorus if a CPZ is introduced.

When the CPZ 'Camberwell M' was last consulted on in 2009 there was a small majority in favour of not introducing the CPZ - this was after lots of scaremongering from those who would lose their parking spaces and if I recall there was evidence of local TMOs submitting consultation responses in the name of their residents. The main problem was that the 64% of the local population who dont own cars saw no reason to respond - they were not sold a vision of how much more pleasant the area could be withour cars.

Lambeth's policy is to encourage sustainable transport - walking and cycling - and discourage rat running and through traffic. The only way effectively this can be done is by road closures so that the rat running traffic is forced out. My limited reading of the research evidence shows that if routes become too difficult regular drivers soon find another route/ choose other forms of transport.

I think if anything the current proposals will  make it easier for local residents to drive around the area as the through traffic will be removed - however they may have to take a slightly longer route as the cut throughs will not be available.


----------



## brixtonblade (Oct 14, 2014)

If a CPZ will reduce traffic lots why not do that and add more traffic calming rather than close the through roads?


----------



## Jute (Oct 15, 2014)

se5 said:


> There is a problem with traffic on Loughborough Road as it meets Brixton Road


 Couldn't agree more, horrible road for traffic issues and road rage....but this isn't planned to close is it?  Won't the traffic (and so the issues) on this road increase if other through-routes are shut?


----------



## ricbake (Oct 15, 2014)

Hope you're about to make your way to Longfield Hall, Knatchbull Road for the consultation meeting 18:30 this evening.
see you there


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 15, 2014)

ricbake said:


> Sounds about right...  The Council always jump up and take notice of "small but organised and motivated group of residents"



Sorry to come back to this but your sarcastic tone does not hide the fact that they will do if the group and the council want the same outcome, there are plenty of incidences where this happens some have even been discussed on this forum . Regarding what the councillor said to me [see my last post] i should also say  also a letter went out from a vassal councillor after the last consultation "failed" saying that some streets had not agreed with the outcome and were pushing for  their own mini CPZ even though the majority of the ward were against the proposals [54% as mentioned elsewhere], this despite the fact that such a solution would obviously have knock on effects on other parts of the ward, this imo shows contempt for local democracy and illustrates the corrosive effects on the wider community of the piecemeal implementation of cpz's in that once a problem is "solved" in one area it is merely displaced to somewhere else, which I think would account for a lot of the parking stress in Vassal atm, which brings me to this........



> Small relative to what, there are nearly 300 signatures attached to the current campaign? - certainly organised and motivated groups of residents have lobbied and are lobbying to have the issue revisited
> http://myattsfieldparking.wordpress.com/abandoned-vehicles



I looked the petition after seeing the professional looking vinyl banners on the railings around the park and on reading the reasons for signing it becomes apparent that many of the signatories are not motivated by much more than a desire to use their cars more freely, I guess it is a question of one's priorities and whether one feels ones need to pop to Sainsburys is greater than the need of an NHS worker or a bus driver to get to work at an early or late hour  having little choice where to leave their transport because of parking controls closer to their work, who knows some of these might even have had to move out of the area because of rising housing costs, making a car the best option. I have no doubt that a CPZ will come to the area sooner rather than later because the council have said there will be a consultation once Oval Quarter is up and running and I think the new wave of incoming Audi/BMW drivers will jump at the opportunity having plenty of disposable thus swinging the vote to a yes with predictable rises in property values to follow.....


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 15, 2014)

Just been to the first half off the "consultation" meeting which mainly consisted of continuous failure to answer proper and relevant questions and a total belief in the rightness of their plan.  Main points gleaned:
1. There have been NO traffic studies, this supposedly is because of roadworks on Loughborough Road.  They are planning to do one when the roadworks finish (7 days at various traffic points) though they could not say whether this would be before the consultation period finished! They also did not know when the experiment was due to be started!!!  When asked whether there was any basis for saying there was a through traffic problem on Loughborough Road at all they said they had cycled around and seen it!
2. I asked the main man (in the break) about what they thought the traffic problems were and he said a ratrun on Loughborough Road as confirmed by cycling around and asking people.  I said no-one i knew in the area said that - the only traffic problem was not volume, but caused by parking on both sides at the Angell town end of LR casuing only one way traffic to be possible and the impossibly short traffic light timing at the LR/Brixton Road end.  I said the volume was not the problem it was that it was not being able to get through - the exact oppostie of what LB Lambeth said.  He said he would think about it but the lights were controlled by TfL (who are giving the grant for the proposal!).  His answer was that I was looking at it all wrong and from the point of view of someone who wanted to use my car (true, but not exclusive)  and was missing ythe point as the aim was to reduce car usage overall in the area.
3. The LB Lambeth person agreed with me when I said that car ownership in the Loughborough area was between 25-50% what it was in other areas - he said it was 30%. Having reached a point of agreement I proposed to him that what they therefore should be considering if they wished to keep and enhance our environmental credentials was excluding others from high car ownership areas from driving on our roads - in other words blocking their roads and access to our area - in other words Hinton and Herne Hill Road.  He seemed bemused by this logic (thanks to my wife for this suggestions).
4. LB Lambeth (and some of the Vassall people) seemed to support the plan on the basis of a nicer public space at Loughborough Junction without considering the possibility that this could be achieved in other ways (by for example putting better facilites, street lighting, rate rebates for retail businesses, etc in the area) and making a square area on the corner of wick Gdsn, possibly extended to the Hero - He said the voting on the LB Lambeth masterplan supported the current plan) with no others put).  I asked how many people - he didn't have the figures but said they could be made avaialble.  I told him I knew of no-one on Loughborough Road or on our side who supported the road-blocking proposal.
5. Vassall Ward people (mainly in private houses it seemed) want parking restrictions rather than roadblocks (were two shows of hands one was in favour of parkign restrictions, the other against road closures).  The LB Lambeth person confirmed they had not considered what the effect of parking restrictions may be on any potential traffic problem.
6. Loughborough people were bemused with ghetto-isation and lack of need
7.  One of the Vassall people said she could organise a traffic study (as she worked in the field) if LB lambeth thought it was too expensive to do a destination/through traffic study (as they had said!).  Unfortunately I forgot to get her details.  If anyone knows it may be an idea to liaise on the terms of such a study - she said she would just canvas drivers at Loughborough Jnction entering & exiting LR at rush hour.  Obviously this would hugely help in establishing if the problem is just a parking one or a through traffic one but other traffic points may be useful as well if there is the person power with clipboards.

Loughborough Estate are having a meeting to discuss all of this on 21 October 2014 at the Loughborough Community Centre at 7pm.  It would seem (by their reaction) that the LB Lambeth people are a bit taken aback at the less than joyous welcome to their unresearched plan and they kept making noises about being amenable to local concerns without comitting themselves to whether this may affect the experimental phase.  It seems to me if people canvassed locals by individual household with written confirmation if a yea or nay then LB Lambeth may have a problem if enough were nay. There are about 2000 households in this category - a leaflet drop (wwith a very simple leaflet with two boxes and a brief explanation of the plan (or just a map with the proposed closures) coudl do it for about £200 or some other way coudl be found.  Or they may be doing it themselves already - I heard discussion of a petition...

I've just thought of something - if there are no traffic lights, etc at LJ won't the coldharbour lane traffic just speed through making it even more of a transitory wasteland than what the proposal aims to end according to LB Lambeth?  Also is the £800,000 that I understand LJAG have won from TfL to improve the LJ area tied to this plan or is it for general improvements?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 15, 2014)

upthejunction said:


> Just been to the first half off the "consultation" meeting which mainly consisted of continuous failure to answer proper and relevant questions and a total belief in the rightness of their plan.  Main points gleaned:
> 1. There have been NO traffic studies, this supposedly is because of roadworks on Loughborough Road.  They are planning to do one when the roadworks finish (7 days at various traffic points) though they could not say whether this would be before the consultation period finished! They also did not know when the experiment was due to be started!!!  When asked whether there was any basis for saying there was a through traffic problem on Loughborough Road at all they said they had cycled around and seen it!
> 2. I asked the main man (in the break) about what they thought the traffic problems were and he said a ratrun on Loughborough Road as confirmed by cycling around and asking people.  I said no-one i knew in the area said that - the only traffic problem was not volume, but caused by parking on both sides at the Angell town end of LR casuing only one way traffic to be possible and the impossibly short traffic light timing at the LR/Brixton Road end.  I said the volume was not the problem it was that it was not being able to get through - the exact oppostie of what LB Lambeth said.  He said he would think about it but the lights were controlled by TfL (who are giving the grant for the proposal!).  His answer was that I was looking at it all wrong and from the point of view of someone who wanted to use my car (true, but not exclusive)  and was missing ythe point as the aim was to reduce car usage overall in the area.
> 3. The LB Lambeth person agreed with me when I said that car ownership in the Loughborough area was between 25-50% what it was in other areas - he said it was 30%. Having reached a point of agreement I proposed to him that what they therefore should be considering if they wished to keep and enhance our environmental credentials was excluding others from high car ownership areas from driving on our roads - in other words blocking their roads and access to our area - in other words Hinton and Herne Hill Road.  He seemed bemused by this logic (thanks to my wife for this suggestions).
> ...


You could do a leaflet drop for £10-£20 if someone has a laser printer and a guillotine (print 2 reams of A4 and cut them in half).


----------



## CH1 (Oct 15, 2014)

upthejunction said:


> Also is the £800,000 that I understand LJAG have won from TfL to improve the LJ area tied to this plan or is it for general improvements?


Are you sure LJAG have £800,000 from TFL. Sounds more like LB Lambeth than LJAG (which is a recently incorporated charity with no full-time employees or physical office).


----------



## se5 (Oct 15, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Are you sure LJAG have £800,000 from TFL. Sounds more like LB Lambeth than LJAG (which is a recently incorporated charity with no full-time employees or physical office).



I would have thought the LJAG were working with Lambeth to get the money: Lambeth showing that they were reflecting local wishes - its all to do with the LJ masterplan http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf


----------



## se5 (Oct 15, 2014)

I also went to the meeting - I came in about halfway through and heard about 10  minutes of the first meeting and the whole of the second one. The Lambeth team, I felt, didnt sell the overall vision very well - how much more pleasant the area could be if there was reduced through traffic. In a way this is hard to describe until it actually happens as I think people just get on with their lives and dont think how much better things would be if there were fewer cars. 

The second meeting, like the bit of the first I heard, did get a bit bogged down in the CPZ discussions - the officers should have made a point that any CPZ would not be possible without the road closures and other traffic calming measures that the scheme proposes. Other issues were dealt with around the edges of the scheme but generally I would say most people are not actively against it and maybe in favour of it. Its a shame that the meeting was skewed, like I fear many consultation  events, towards the 'organised middle class' drawn mainly from the 24% of Vassall ward residents who own their own homes and the 35% of households who own cars.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 16, 2014)

se5 said:


> Its a shame that the meeting was skewed, like I fear many consultation  events, towards the 'organised middle class' drawn mainly from the 24% of Vassall ward residents who own their own homes and the 35% of households who own cars.



Heard a parent today saying primary schools should have special parking bays giving parents 20 minutes to drop off their kids.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 16, 2014)

upthejunction said:


> Just been to the first half off the "consultation" meeting which mainly consisted of continuous failure to answer proper and relevant questions and a total belief in the rightness of their plan.  Main points gleaned:
> 1. There have been NO traffic studies, this supposedly is because of roadworks on Loughborough Road.  They are planning to do one when the roadworks finish (7 days at various traffic points) though they could not say whether this would be before the consultation period finished! They also did not know when the experiment was due to be started!!!  When asked whether there was any basis for saying there was a through traffic problem on Loughborough Road at all they said they had cycled around and seen it!
> 2. I asked the main man (in the break) about what they thought the traffic problems were and he said a ratrun on Loughborough Road as confirmed by cycling around and asking people.  I said no-one i knew in the area said that - the only traffic problem was not volume, but caused by parking on both sides at the Angell town end of LR casuing only one way traffic to be possible and the impossibly short traffic light timing at the LR/Brixton Road end.  I said the volume was not the problem it was that it was not being able to get through - the exact oppostie of what LB Lambeth said.  He said he would think about it but the lights were controlled by TfL (who are giving the grant for the proposal!).  His answer was that I was looking at it all wrong and from the point of view of someone who wanted to use my car (true, but not exclusive)  and was missing ythe point as the aim was to reduce car usage overall in the area.
> 3. The LB Lambeth person agreed with me when I said that car ownership in the Loughborough area was between 25-50% what it was in other areas - he said it was 30%. Having reached a point of agreement I proposed to him that what they therefore should be considering if they wished to keep and enhance our environmental credentials was excluding others from high car ownership areas from driving on our roads - in other words blocking their roads and access to our area - in other words Hinton and Herne Hill Road.  He seemed bemused by this logic (thanks to my wife for this suggestions).
> ...



Thanks for the update on last night's meeting Upthejunction, I was hoping to go but got stuck at work. I'm glad the meeting didn't go completely the way Lambeth and LJAG wanted it to, from the updates above it sounds like putting in some parking restrictions and maybe enforcing the traffic calming measures that are already in place might do the job. I really hope this makes them feel differently about closing the Coldharbour Lane/Loughborough Road junction, I don't think it will give them the results they want and will cause a whole load of issues for those of us who are closer to the junction.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 16, 2014)

se5 said:


> I would have thought the LJAG were working with Lambeth to get the money: Lambeth showing that they were reflecting local wishes - its all to do with the LJ masterplan http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf



Have just read through the framework plan mentioned above for the first time, it's interesting to see the comments made by people about just the area near the junction LJAG now want to close, so many of them are about refuse collection, anti-social behaviour and parked cars, none of these things will be sorted by closing the junction, sounds like they need to go back to their original framework plan.


----------



## Bobzillard (Oct 16, 2014)

I think the most interesting point from last night’s meeting was that this scheme depends absolutely on the making of a new public space and LJAG arranged the funding with TfL about four years ago. 

In other words we can't have a traffic management scheme for the area without the closing of Loughborough Road (because that would not comply with the funding proposal).


----------



## critical1 (Oct 19, 2014)

Lambeth wants to run rings around you poster found, seen is shops around Loughborough. Looks copyright free... So print as you please.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 19, 2014)

critical1 said:


> Lambeth wants to run rings around you poster found, seen is shops around Loughborough. Looks copyright free... So print as you please.View attachment 62663



Frankly, I'd be happy if they shut every road to private cars.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 19, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Frankly, I'd be happy if they shut every road to private cars.


Why not go to the public meeting for the people affected and make your views known.

*LOUGHBOROUGH ESTATE TENANTS RESIDENTS ASSC. (LETRA)
PUBLIC MEETING 7-8pm 
Tuesday 21st October
Location: Loughborough Community Centre
			   Corner of Loughborough Road & Angell Road *

COME AND HAVE YOUR SAY......


----------



## critical1 (Oct 19, 2014)

Leanderman I note you say every "private car" but what about vital services, deliveries, official taxis, carers, doctors midwives, funeral vehicles etc etc?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 19, 2014)

*All members of the PRESS INVITED & Wider Community.*

*LOUGHBOROUGH ESTATE TENANTS RESIDENTS ASSC. (LETRA)
PUBLIC MEETING 7-8pm 
Tuesday 21st October
Location: Loughborough Community Centre
Corner of Loughborough Road & Angell Road *


----------



## leanderman (Oct 19, 2014)

critical1 said:


> Leanderman I note you say every "private car" but what about vital services, deliveries, official taxis, carers, doctors midwives, funeral vehicles etc etc?



They are 'public cars'.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 19, 2014)

leanderman said:


> They are 'public cars'.


Are they really... Hmm forget those mileage allowances then. DUH!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 20, 2014)

Bobzillard said:


> I think the most interesting point from last night’s meeting was that this scheme depends absolutely on the making of a new public space and LJAG arranged the funding with TfL about four years ago.
> 
> In other words we can't have a traffic management scheme for the area without the closing of Loughborough Road (because that would not comply with the funding proposal).



Oh really? I guess that explains why they're so desperate for it to go through even though it won't necessarily solve any of their issues, maybe they should look somewhere else for their new public space


----------



## critical1 (Oct 20, 2014)

Crispy said:


> Closing Loughborough Road?
> 
> All those closures combined almost completely isolate Loughborough Road from Coldharbour Lane. If you're coming from Herne Hill on Shakespeare or Milkwood roads, trying to get to the 5-way junction at Myatts Fields, you'd have to loop round via Barrington Road or go as far as Denmark Road, 0.5 or 1.5 extra miles respectively. I'm all for reclaiming the streets, and that junction could certainly use some work, but this is ridiculous.



Rat run is from Herne Hill Road and Hinton Road from my experience, but I'm not an expert!


----------



## critical1 (Oct 20, 2014)

ricbake said:


> instead of traffic... modeling is thought to be too expensive and not very reliable.



By whom?	  Can you please elaborate who these "experts" are?
I'm sure that a little bit of £800,000 can be spared to provide evidence.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 21, 2014)

extended now to 31 Oct due to public demand
time to fill in a petition that has been seen going round loughborough road


----------



## Bobzillard (Oct 21, 2014)

extended now to 31 Oct due to public demand

Is that correct? The Lambeth website is still showing tomorrow 22 Oct as the deadline.


----------



## Bobzillard (Oct 23, 2014)

The page on Lambeth website was updated yesterday afternoon to read:
Due to high level of interest the closing date has been extended from Wednesday 22 October to Friday 31 October 2014 at 11pm.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 24, 2014)

someone in lambeth council said lambeth are counting petitions as one petition one vote but one of them that is going round has 10 places for signatures so 10 is 1?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2014)

The Brixton Society made some comments which I reproduce here as there is no council website dealing with this type of "consultation":

(Part of preamble) The Society strongly objects to several features of this scheme, as set out below.  I should make it clear that we welcome the proposed cycle “Quietway” routes, and it is detrimental to this concept that they are being proposed as part of a wider package that is fundamentally flawed.

*1. Inadequate Consultation:*
The proposals will have wide effects so publicity and consultation should have taken place over a wider area, not confined just to Loughborough Junction.
The Brixton Society has not been consulted directly.  Describing the plans as “public space improvements” is gross misrepresentation, when the main elements concern road closures.
No contact point has been included for enquiries, comments or objections.

*2. Conflict with Existing Plans:*
The proposals are a departure from the emerging Lambeth Borough Plan, and would have wider adverse effects on public transport networks and the viability of local business premises, the supply of which is already dwindling. The road closures represent a major change from proposals consulted on previously for local highways and public realm improvements.

*3. Community Safety:*
Local traffic plays a useful role in providing casual surveillance to deter street crime. Removing through traffic from Gordon Grove, Lilford Road and Barrington Road is of particular concern.

*4. Impact on Bus Services:*
Blocking Loughborough Road will disrupt the P5 bus route, which is an important link, allowing the less mobile to reach a wider selection of public transport services around the periphery of the area.  If the route is to be diverted via Barrington Road, it would no longer be practical to serve Loughborough Park, where needs are increasing but the Public Transport Accessibility remains low.

*5. Individual Road Closures:
5.1  Loughborough Road (adjacent Ridgway Road)*
There is a discrepancy between the map and the illustrations. If the illustrated scheme is carried out, there will be no access to the commercial enterprises in the railway arches in Ridgway Road. We are anxious to maintain local employment space in the area.
5.2  *Barrington Road*
The immediate effect would be to increase vehicle traffic in St.James’ Crescent.  Any obstruction of Barrington Road would conflict with efforts to re-open East Brixton Station, as the most promising option for gaining local access to London Overground services.  It follows that such a station needs to be accessible, with opportunities to drop off passengers via Dial-a-Ride or hire cars.
5.3  *Gordon Grove*
Closure would block access to commercial/ industrial sites in Wickwood Street, since vehicle access from Eastlake Road is restricted by a low bridge.
5.4  *Lilford Road (adjacent Carew Street)*
Again this is unacceptable because it would restrict access to commercial/ industrial premises in Lilford Road and Paulet Road. Goods traffic along the western arms of Lilford Road and Loughborough Road would increase.
5.5  *Calais Street (Lothian Road end)*
The effect would be to divert local traffic into Burton Road and Flodden Road, but it is not clear what benefits are intended.  If Lothian Road remains one-way southbound, the number of vehicles turning into Calais Street is limited anyway.  It would have been more practical to prevent northbound traffic from cutting through Tindal Street and Myatt Road.
5.6  *Padfield Road/ Cambria Road*
The map provided is ambiguous – it shows Cambria Road and Wanless Road restored as through routes, which we object to.  We accept the closure shown in Padfield Road because this blind corner is inherently dangerous, but access needs to remain from both ends in order for business premises to remain accessible.

NB - Sites south-east of the Cambria Road railway bridge are outside our area of benefit, and the Herne Hill Society may have their own comments to make.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 31, 2014)

Not totally convinced by the argument that local traffic deters street crime.


----------



## brixtonblade (Oct 31, 2014)

5.3 *Gordon Grove*
Closure would block access to commercial/ industrial sites in Wickwood Street, since vehicle access from Eastlake Road is restricted by a low bridge.


I thought the plan included blocking off that route (I guess by stopping traffic going under the bridge)?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Not totally convinced by the argument that local traffic deters street crime.


Not my document - but I remember separation of vehicle access and pedestrian routyes was considered to be a factor leading to robbery and burglary on various estates, particularly Moorlands and Stockwell Park where they had to be reconfigured to eliminate pedestrian only areas, following which crime fell.

I think in that sense the argument is evidence based.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2014)

brixtonblade said:


> 5.3 *Gordon Grove*
> Closure would block access to commercial/ industrial sites in Wickwood Street, since vehicle access from Eastlake Road is restricted by a low bridge.
> I thought the plan included blocking off that route (I guess by stopping traffic going under the bridge)?


The map shows a blocked off portion on Gordon Grove. That would be a delivery route for lorries etc that could not go under the low railway bridge. Hence the commercial premises would be adversely affected.

Are you missing something, or am I? Map is page 2 

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ consultation visualisations.pdf


----------



## leanderman (Oct 31, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Not my document - but I remember separation of vehicle access and pedestrian routyes was considered to be a factor leading to robbery and burglary on various estates, particularly Moorlands and Stockwell Park where they had to be reconfigured to eliminate pedestrian only areas, following which crime fell.
> 
> I think in that sense the argument is evidence based.



Maybe. But as a general principle it seems rather despairing - and desperate.


----------



## brixtonblade (Oct 31, 2014)

CH1 said:


> The map shows a blocked off portion on Gordon Grove. That would be a delivery route for lorries etc that could not go under the low railway bridge. Hence the commercial premises would be adversely affected.
> 
> Are you missing something, or am I? Map is page 2
> 
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ consultation visualisations.pdf



The closure is further along than I thought it was - I thought it was under the bridge so I was mistaken.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 3, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Not totally convinced by the argument that local traffic deters street crime.



You obviously don't walk around near the junction in question very much then, when the junction has been shut for roadworks, there was a marked increase in anti-social behaviour, try living near it before you support closing it.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 3, 2014)

LadyV said:


> You obviously don't walk around near the junction in question very much then, when the junction has been shut for roadworks, there was a marked increase in anti-social behaviour, try living near it before you support closing it.



When our road was closed to traffic it was great.

If cars are the solution to anti-social behaviour things are badly wrong.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 4, 2014)

LadyV said:


> You obviously don't walk around near the junction in question very much then, when the junction has been shut for roadworks, there was a marked increase in anti-social behaviour, try living near it before you support closing it.


 Really? Was there? Such as? I've not heard of any from any neighbours (not that I support this closure btw) neither did I experience any


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2014)

leanderman said:


> When our road was closed to traffic it was great.
> If cars are the solution to anti-social behaviour things are badly wrong.


Yeah well up by Leander/Josephine Rd etc its so leafy & forested that miscreants have enough cover traffic or no traffic.

My gut reaction as a long-term Brixton resident was that when one has tearful work colleagues with phone snatched etc it is either somewhere like Appach Road where the little mites what done it dissappear into the Tulse Hill estate by a back route with is pedestrian only and know only to locals.

Same on Brixton Road where a fave was to run away into Bedwell House and the Stockwell Park Estate hinterlands.

What I want to know is why the people insisting on pedestrianising Loughborough Road, Barrington Road and Gordon Grove are those who live the the other side of Brixton (and ride bicycles?).  Are we into Hard Green local politics now where the plebs like myself accept enviroguidance from the more well to do and environmentally correct on the other side of town?


----------



## leanderman (Nov 4, 2014)

CH1 said:


> What I want to know is why the people insisting on pedestrianising Loughborough Road, Barrington Road and Gordon Grove are those who live the the other side of Brixton (and ride bicycles?).



You won't catch me on a bike - too dangerous!

Just intrigued at how insistent people are on their right to drive, which itself could be considered anti-social behaviour.

I admit to having a car. But it is rarely used for anything other than camping holidays.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2014)

leanderman said:


> You won't catch me on a bike - too dangerous!
> Just intrigued at how insistent people are on their right to drive, which itself could be considered anti-social behaviour.
> I admit to having a car. But it is rarely used for anything other than camping holidays.


OK. My issue is really with deciding other people's rights to drive in their own area.

I think the obvious solution to all this is simply to close off Hinton Road.
That area is where the traffic is coming from - and apparently the complaints. 

Then the Loughborough Estate area can be left in peace - in both senses.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 4, 2014)

I can assure you that I have no powers to, as you put it, 'insist' or 'decide'!

I merely point out how wedded we are to our cars - with negative consequences for health, the environment, noise, road safety and much else.

And setting up a play street revealed what psychopaths drivers of both sexes become when their short-cut rat run is blocked for an hour.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I can assure you that I have no powers to, as you put it, 'insist' or 'decide'!
> 
> I merely point out how wedded we are to our cars - with negative consequences for health, the environment, noise, road safety and much else.
> 
> And setting up a play street revealed what psychopaths drivers of both sexes become when their short-cut rat run is blocked for an hour.


Well the rat run is Hinton Road, not the Loughborough Estate in this instance.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 4, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Well the rat run is Hinton Road, not the Loughborough Estate in this instance.



True.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 17, 2014)

Well a petition was handed in 700+ and Lambeth says they are refusing to accept it!! never ever heard of a petition not being accepted before, ( has anyone here ever heard of such a thing) BIZZARE...

Anyway here is the letter Lambeth sent out,, there's a meeting at Sunshine Cafe opp the Laundrette on Coldharbour lane, Loughborough Junction, which is open to all on Thursday @ 6:30pm (Thursday 20th November at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU)

Lambeth never consulted the largest estate in Lambeth!! why not? they will not accept the 700+ petition which is unheard of.. (Imagine going to Downing street and they say go away!) 


So below is the response from our co-operative council and following that is a letter in reply from (LETRA) Loughborough Estate Tenants and Residents Assc

*===================*

Dear Loughborough Residents Association


Following your email last week, I am now in a position to reply to your queries concerning the Loughborough Junction Public Space scheme. The statutory consultation ended on 31st October and the responses reveal that there is an overwhelmingly positive reaction to the proposed scheme:


·78% support making Loughborough Road a more pedestrian and cycle friendly space;

·69% support the six month experimental closure of Loughborough Road to through-traffic in the section outside Wyck Gardens

·66% in favour of the experimental closures of Barrington road, Lilford Road, Gordon Grove, Calais Street and Padfield Road.

·64% support in the future, the permanent closure of Loughborough Road to through traffic in the section outside Wyck Gardens and

·60% support, in the future, the introduction of permanent measures to stop through traffic using Barrington Road, Lilford Road, Gordon Grove, Calais Street and Padfield Road.


I note that a petition against the proposed scheme was recently submitted to the council. I must, however, take into account that those who responded to the statutory consultation have had the benefit of, and the opportunity to, review the proposed scheme in detail before forming their opinions and responding. I will nevertheless take into account any concerns about the proposals.


Should the scheme proceed, the road closures will initially be on a temporary basis. This  should give all parties the opportunity to evaluate the impact of the road closures and consider whether or how the proposed scheme needs to be adapted to overcome material concerns.


No decisions will be made until I have had an opportunity to discuss matters with officers, local councillors and community groups. I will of course share a copy of the consultation report as soon as it is available.


Yours sincerely
Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite
Cabinet Member for Environment


*===============================*



Dear Councillor Brathwaite,


I would like to express my disappointment at the manner in which you have responded to us regarding the Loughborough Junction scheme.


The main element of your response that I wish to take issue with is your blasé dismissal of the 700+ signatories to the petition opposing this scheme.


When you began your consultation, you made no attempt to directly inform anyone in the area that the consultation was taking place, or that it consisted of consultation forms placed beside a display board inside a community centre that is sadly underused. There was not even a public advertisement on the outside of the Loughborough Centre that it was there and indeed I met staff in the housing office in the other side of the same building who were not even aware of it.


In that context, the residents who issued a newslettter to every door, put on a special consultation meeting and put up posters to advertise it, as well as gave residents the opportunity to register their views through a petition, should be commended for making the consultation meaningful rather than dismissed as uninformed or ignorant.


By signing the petition residents took part in the consultation process in a way which is every bit as valid as those who filled in your official consultation form.


Indeed I would go further as to assert that your consultation form positively discouraged rather than engaged residents' participation in the consultation and I personally complained about this at the car free day event when the consultation was launched.


A 4-page form, which starts with a question asking people to think of a number of words to describe the area, comes across like a GCSE english exam, and is very alienating for anyone who struggles with literacy, form-filling or with written english.


I strongly suggested that a comment book should also be available alongside these forms for people who would like to make a more straightforward response to the proposals. This was never done.


It is quite offensive,and bordering on discriminatory, that you would choose to only pay regard to those residents who used this daunting consultation form to register their views.


You fail to report how many people actually filled out the forms and I think this would be vital information rather than the percentages which on their own are quite meaningless. LETRA also actively encouraged residents to email Lambeth directly or attend our meetings to voice their opinions. Have you made any attempt to collate the figures for those types of feedback?


You are quoted in the South London Press Nov 14th describing the 'full consultation' that has taken place on these proposals. But it was in response to a litany of complaints, voiced at our public meeting, about the fundamentally flawed nature of the consultation, that your own officers suggested the consultation be suspended rather than extended again as residents had requested.


Some people attending that meeting from neighbouring estates and businesses had only become aware of the consultation on that day and were quite clear that other people they knew would have taken part in the consultation if it was extended or advertised properly.


We all understood that the suspension of the consultation was a recognition that it's findings could *not* be viewed as conclusive and that Lambeth officers recognised the need to engage in a proper discussion with the community whatever the ostensible outcome of this particular consultation.


They promised to "come back to LETRA with the results and more information about options to have a discussion about how to take things forward.  This could mean a fresh consultation, working with LETRA to make sure people on the estate have a say."


Your response, however, gives no indication whatsoever that you understand how completely inadequate the consultation process has been. If you are using these statistics to advise officers and councillors who will make the final decisions then I believe you are entirely misleading them.


I can assure you that the response to the scheme has not been 'overwhelmingly positive' and it is unlikely that people will respond positively to your decision to disregard the petition against it either.


Rather than pressing ahead regardless with these flawed proposals I hope you will listen to all the views expressed by our residents and other people in the local area during the consultation period, and work with us all to develop other options to improve the area.


Yours faithfully
Grace Lally, Secretary LETRA


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2014)

critical1 said:


> Well a petition was handed in 700+ and Lambeth says they are refusing to accept it!! never ever heard of a petition not being accepted before, ( has anyone here ever heard of such a thing) BIZZARE...
> 
> Anyway here is the letter Lambeth sent out,, there's a meeting at Sunshine Cafe opp the Laundrette on Coldharbour lane, Loughborough Junction, which is open to all on Thursday @ 6:30pm (Thursday 20th November at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU)
> 
> Lambeth never consulted the largest estate in Lambeth!! why not? they will not accept the 700+ petition which is unheard of.. (Imagine going to Downing street and they say go away!)


I've publicised this on Brixton Buzz:  
Local residents respond angrily to Loughborough Junction Public Space scheme consultation as petition refused


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 17, 2014)

very interesting read
the thing with this scheme is it is  not about traffic it is about the space between wyck gardens and where the loughborough farm is opposite in other words the road   to create a space for public use

by closing all the roads around that area will kill off all the small buisnesses they cannot survive if traffic is shut out 
how do you say you have run a full consultation when you omit over 3000 residents as it does not just affect people inside the closed off area but every property the other side of the closed roads and every business around the entire area 
not one business has ever been officially consulted or knew of the consultation from LJAG or Lambeth
properties on the other side cut off will also have problems getting into or through the area and  all vehicles visiting delivering or passing through will have to go far out of their way
small side roads will be turned into rat runs and highly congested in rush hour times causing untold trouble 

all for a space for public use between wyck gardens and loughborough farm


----------



## CH1 (Nov 19, 2014)

critical1 said:


> Well a petition was handed in 700+ and Lambeth says they are refusing to accept it!! never ever heard of a petition not being accepted before, ( has anyone here ever heard of such a thing) BIZZARE...
> 
> Anyway here is the letter Lambeth sent out,, there's a meeting at Sunshine Cafe opp the Laundrette on Coldharbour lane, Loughborough Junction, which is open to all on Thursday @ 6:30pm (Thursday 20th November at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU)
> 
> ...





editor said:


> I've publicised this on Brixton Buzz:
> Local residents respond angrily to Loughborough Junction Public Space scheme consultation as petition refused


Cllr Rachel Heywood handed in a petition (presumably this one) today at full council, emphasising that many Loughborough Estate residents were very unhappy with the proposal, and seemed to have every sympathy with the objectors.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 20, 2014)




----------



## snowy_again (Nov 20, 2014)

Not directly related - but I somehow got myself cc'd into a very peculiar email trail between Vauxhall residents over the TfL consultation on the CS5 cycle route. 

Kate Hoey (if it's actually her typing) has got some very strange opinions! Mostly along the lines of 'cyclists will just be passing through Vauxhall and therefore are less important than residents'.


----------



## Winot (Nov 20, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> Not directly related - but I somehow got myself cc'd into a very peculiar email trail between Vauxhall residents over the TfL consultation on the CS5 cycle route.
> 
> Kate Hoey (if it's actually her typing) has got some very strange opinions! Mostly along the lines of 'cyclists will just be passing through Vauxhall and therefore are less important than residents'.



Yes there's been a fair bit of comment about that on the biketwittersphere.  It seems that her main concern is the removal of car parking outside a few residents' houses.

Of course, she has form.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2014)

CH1 said:


> Cllr Rachel Heywood handed in a petition (presumably this one) today at full council, emphasising that many Loughborough Estate residents were very unhappy with the proposal, and seemed to have every sympathy with the objectors.



Yes she did, BIG pat on the back for her this time, the petition consisted of over 700 signatures...


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 20, 2014)

seems lambeth council had over 600 forms including their online forms filled in and suprise suprise the results were in favour of the proposal with each question getting at least 60% in favour
but when the loughborough and business petitions of 750 signatures and also over 100 signatures from vassall ward residents are added in that actually turns the table round with a clear result of people being  against the proposal
considering no residents or businesses in and around loughborough were sent any form of consultation or information on the proposal means the online and hard copy forms must have been filled in by a lot of people living nowhere in or closely near the roads involved in the proposal
wonder what lambeth will say now


----------



## Greebo (Nov 20, 2014)

concerned1 said:


> <snip> wonder what lambeth will say now


Whatever it was going to say anyway </cynic>


----------



## CH1 (Nov 21, 2014)

I suspect it will be  case of having to spend up/down a budget - so they'd better sort it out quick.

If they're lacking a transport related project to spend money on I recommend repaving the whole of Coldharbour Lane northside from Loughborough Junction to Atlantic Road. Never been done since I've lived here (28 years). The pavement is a disgrace.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 24, 2014)

One of the key issues here as someone has already pointed out is the lack of consultation... whole estates and surrounding areas have been left out, omitted, ignored, there has been no formal research as far as anyone can see, there has been no evidence that this was even wanted due to the lack of consultation, if this had been carried out in the proper manner, LJAG would have by now a very clear idea as to the needs, wants and aspirations of the whole area!

Instead LJAG have petitions in their faces and angry people and business who have not been consulted in anyway or form, this is what happens when one gets an idea and goes barging ahead without any proper market research.... now I feel like Lord Alan Sugar on the apprentice duh! but its all true. 

LJAG should really look at whom they are representing and to what purpose, I'm sure that they have a purpose and that is now evident that they supposedly representing those of the Loughborough Junction area, whatever the opinion of a few it is always the majority that has the focus... clearly the petition of the 700+ unconsulted residents and business in the Loughborough Junction area should suffice to state what they want.

LJAG has a responsibility to represent the whole of the Loughborough Area and not a small minority, if a small petition of 100 can get an MP of their butts to write a letter to the press supporting it, why cant a significant petition of 700+ get similar treatment in support and treatment from LJAG! and here the disparities begin, them and us as always.

critically critical
critical1


----------



## critical1 (Nov 25, 2014)

It has been alleged that LJAG are working for Lambeth... but how is that possible? 
I can see similarities between LJAG & Lambeth tho...

they are supposed to be listening to the majority yet act in their own interest hints of Aldus Huxly here, Meeting at the Lambeth Town Hall to clarify what LJAG are about remember it only took 100 objections for LJAG to jump into action (to protect their interests), yet 700+ objections go ignored.

*Tonight*, Tuesday 25 November, at *7pm* in Room 8, Brixton Town Hall, LJAG trustees will put forward residents' concerns about planning applications (Its a real SHAME they don't have any concerns about the residents of Loughborough)

critically critical
critical1


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 25, 2014)

That's quite a lot of accusations!


----------



## critical1 (Nov 27, 2014)

snowy_again said:


> That's quite a lot of accusations!



Really...
"remember it only took 100 objections for LJAG to jump into action (to protect their interests), yet 700+ objections go ignored."


----------



## Spyfly (Dec 31, 2014)

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/the-lambeth-walk-of-shame/6502904.article


----------



## LadyV (Jan 20, 2015)

Does anyone know if there is any update regarding the closure of the junction at Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road or is it stuck in the wheels of Lambeth Council?


----------



## ricbake (Jan 20, 2015)

Next installment due off the press very shortly - but I have no knowledge of where it is up to.

As part of the Borough wide traffic survey put in last week relating to 20 MPH limits there seems to be particularly good coverage of the streets north of Loughborough


----------



## CH1 (Jan 20, 2015)

ricbake said:


> Next installment due off the press very shortly - but I have no knowledge of where it is up to.
> 
> As part of the Borough wide traffic survey put in last week relating to 20 MPH limits there seems to be particularly good coverage of the streets north of Loughborough


I noticed some of those traffic monitoring cables across the road today in Loughborough Road and Akerman Road.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I noticed some of those traffic monitoring cables across the road today in Loughborough Road and Akerman Road.



On this road too


----------



## Winot (Jan 20, 2015)

leanderman said:


> On this road too



And Branksome.


----------



## ricbake (Jan 20, 2015)

I believe there are about 300 across Lambeth put in on the 17th and 18th


----------



## CH1 (Jan 20, 2015)

leanderman said:


> On this road too





Winot said:


> And Branksome.


What's happening? Are the traffic engineers getting active in case they suffer mega departmental cuts?


----------



## ricbake (Jan 20, 2015)

Lambeth policy is to bring in Borough wide 20 mph. They want to know what effect it has on the traffic


----------



## prunus (Jan 20, 2015)

leanderman said:


> On this road too


Herne hill road too


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 20, 2015)

And Railton Road too - hadn't realised how extensive they are. 

The 20mph limit on that road has done nothing to reduce the car / van / care service transport though.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 21, 2015)

It just occurred to me that there is a sort of compromise solution pioneered in Holland and taken up by Boris in South Kensington/Exhibition Road.

Make the cars mix in with the people - it slows them down a lot apparently.

I walk up and down Exhibition Road a fair bit in the summer, and  it does seem to work there.

I would have though that such a scheme in Coldharbour Lane/Atlantic Road round the so-called triangle would work. A large number of people have always jay-walked there - and the vehicles would be on caution to slow down be observant under a mixed use thoroughfare scheme.

The same thing could be done at Loughborough Road - though personally I think that Loughborough Road is mainly about vehicles rather than pedestrians and the current driving force behind closing the road to traffic is idealogical not pragmatic.


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 21, 2015)

That prompted massive complaints from RNIB though.


----------



## prunus (Jan 21, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> That prompted massive complaints from RNIB though.



Blind people really shouldn't be driving anyway.


----------



## Winot (Jan 21, 2015)

prunus said:


> Blind people really shouldn't be driving anyway.



Just spat out my lunch.


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 21, 2015)

Thinking again, it might have been guide dogs doing some of the complaining too (not about how they struggle to see over the steering wheel etc.).


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 21, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> That prompted massive complaints from RNIB though.



I heard that on radio a while back.

I can understand why.

The RNIB were complaining that the border between traffic and pedestrians was unclear for people with poor sight. The surfacing and pattern caused confusion. Many people who are blind have some sight. Enough to see borders.  Exhibition road new look does not clearly differentiate between car and pedestrian areas on colour or texture on the road.

I feel the same cycling. When it first opened it was confusing for traffic. No one was sure what was road , what was space for pedestrians and cyclist. That stretch of road get busy at rush hour.

It looks nice but I do not see the point of it on that stretch of road. It would be good as pedestrian and cyclist only area. But the car lobby would go off on one if that was suggested.


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 22, 2015)

And the museums depend on coaches.


----------



## Jute (Jan 22, 2015)

Apparently there is a meeting about the council's proposals tonight at 6.30 in Longfield Hall (lower hall), Knatchbull Rd.

Don't know who's running it or any other specifics...


----------



## cuppa tee (Jan 22, 2015)

Jute said:


> Apparently there is a meeting about the council's proposals tonight at 6.30 in Longfield Hall (lower hall), Knatchbull Rd.
> 
> Don't know who's running it or any other specifics...



funny handshake business, local democracy in Lambeth seems to be all about secret societies, cliques and cabals


----------



## LadyV (Jan 26, 2015)

Jute said:


> Apparently there is a meeting about the council's proposals tonight at 6.30 in Longfield Hall (lower hall), Knatchbull Rd.
> 
> Don't know who's running it or any other specifics...



How annoying that these things aren't really advertised, I follow as many people related to this as I can on Twitter and I don't remember seeing anything, LJAG didn't mention anything, they've switched to their #LJSardines campaign!

Does anyone know if the meeting went ahead or what was said?


----------



## Beasley (Jan 26, 2015)

LadyV said:


> How annoying that these things aren't really advertised, I follow as many people related to this as I can on Twitter and I don't remember seeing anything, LJAG didn't mention anything, they've switched to their #LJSardines campaign!
> 
> Does anyone know if the meeting went ahead or what was said?



That meeting in Longfield Hall on Thu 22 Jan was held by the Minet "Hub" not LJAG. I hear they touched on Myatt's Fields parking and CPZ issues but not the road closures and it was mainly about the Minet Library and Myatt's Fields Park etc. 
The day before (Wed 21 Jan) Cllr Jenny Brathwaite had a meeting. She is Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability. The meeting was proposed by some people who are opposed to the road closures but others who are in favour went as well so it turned out like another of the consultation meetings. The councillor asked questions and took notes but you might have thought she would know by now. 

As for local democracy in Lambeth: should there not be community councils in place of secret societies and cliques at the most local level? Does anyone have experience of them elsewhere?


----------



## Beasley (Jan 27, 2015)

The consultation report is available on the Lambeth site:
http://lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/loughborough-junction-public-space-improvements


----------



## CH1 (Jan 27, 2015)

Beasley said:


> The consultation report is available on the Lambeth site:
> http://lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/loughborough-junction-public-space-improvements


I couldn't see from that report when it was written - obviously after 31st October 2014, but when?

I read the submission from the Brixton Society which dealt in detail with access needs of the small businesses (mainly car repairs etc) in the Loughborough Junction Area. Nothing of this is in the report as far as I can see.

What annoys me is that the council in the 1990s encouraged such businesses to locate there -Loughborough Junction Motor Park was the buzz-word at Brixton Challenge.

Now Loughbrough Junction is becoming somewhat bourgeois the council feel the are doing a good thing  by easing out small business employment (it no longer fits in an up-and-coming area).

I think the report does not deal with this aspect. I for one oppose relentless gentrification causing loss of employment - especially as it is opposed by local residents (as evidenced by the LETRA petition from the Loughborough Estate tenants).


----------



## Beasley (Jan 27, 2015)

I think the report went out around 20 Jan 2015. Not all submissions were included but Brixton Society does appear on page 8 of the separate Appendices document.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jan 27, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I couldn't see from that report when it was written - obviously after 31st October 2014, but when?
> 
> I read the submission from the Brixton Society which dealt in detail with access needs of the small businesses (mainly car repairs etc) in the Loughborough Junction Area. Nothing of this is in the report as far as I can see.
> 
> ...



You need to edit this to note that it's opposed by 'some' local residents. That would be a fairer representation


----------



## CH1 (Jan 27, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> You need to edit this to note that it's opposed by 'some' local residents. That would be a fairer representation


Obviously it is not opposed by all.

I guess the population of Loughborough old and new estates is 2-3,000 maybe more. LETRA appear to have got a fair chunk of that (750) to sign their petition.


----------



## LadyV (Jan 28, 2015)

Beasley said:


> The consultation report is available on the Lambeth site:
> http://lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/loughborough-junction-public-space-improvements



Thanks for sharing this, it's interesting to read some of the comments and see where the responders came from. I know that the consultation wasn't just about the closure of the Loughborough Road/Coldharbour Lane junction but I'm still disappointed but not surprised to see how few of the responders came from the immediate area that will be the most affected by the closure.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jan 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Obviously it is not opposed by all.
> 
> I guess the population of Loughborough old and new estates is 2-3,000 maybe more. LETRA appear to have got a fair chunk of that (750) to sign their petition.


 
And yet they didn't mobilise the estates to actually engage with the consultation documents to such an extent.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 28, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> And yet they didn't mobilise the estates to actually engage with the consultation documents to such an extent.


Maybe they weren't involved in the consultation from the beginning.
Just asked to rubber stamp the opinions of an elite - that is impression I got from those complaining.

I'm not directly involved - but the "if it ain't broke why fix it" approach suggests the sensible way is to listen to LETRA unless there is a consensus for change.

People who want to make drastic changes have to be in  position to justify those changes to everyone - not just use the council's bureaucracy to force their brilliant idea down people's throats.

Do you think it was LETRA's job to make the case for change if they were not convinced?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jan 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Maybe they weren't involved in the consultation from the beginning.
> Just asked to rubber stamp the opinions of an elite - that is impression I got from those complaining.
> 
> I'm not directly involved - but the "if it ain't broke why fix it" approach suggests the sensible way is to listen to LETRA unless there is a consensus for change.
> ...


 
I'm not sure that a, 'if it ain't broke' approach, is ever sensible.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 2, 2015)

I though it might be a good idea to put Tricky Skills  post from the Loughborough Junction thread here in case it was missed by interested parties...........


Tricky Skills said:


> BBuzz piece on the experimental road closures that are coming to Loughborough Junction. Work is due to start next month.


----------



## LadyV (Mar 2, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> I though it might be a good idea to put Tricky Skills  post from the Loughborough Junction thread here in case it was missed by interested parties...........


Thanks for sharing cuppa tee, it just sucks that they're going ahead with it!


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 2, 2015)

> The Council report [pdf] states:
> 
> " The area feels neglected – pavements are broken, rubbish is dumped.”



Arent those matters the responsibility of the council and something they should have sorted out whereas this........



> the retail offer needs improvement



is just their opinion.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 2, 2015)

The retail offer could do with a pub. Do you think with all these council cuts we might get the Green Man back?
I imagine people have fonder memories of it as a pub than a skill centre.


----------



## LadyV (Mar 9, 2015)

From Loughborough Junction Chitter Chatter group, although as it seems to be a lot of the same people, you've probably all seen it!



critical1 said:


> Email from: Stop Loughborough Junction Road Closure group.
> 
> it makes for very interesting reading... Fascinating really
> 
> http://www.docdroid.net/tufv/loughborough-junction-experimental-response1.pdf.html


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 12, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The retail offer could do with a pub. Do you think with all these council cuts we might get the Green Man back?
> I imagine people have fonder memories of it as a pub than a skill centre.



Or turn Tescos back into a pub. It was a decent sized pub.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 13, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Or turn Tescos back into a pub. It was a decent sized pub.


Not just a pub, but as the Warrior it was a pioneering brewery/pub where you could see the brewing equipment behind glass from the lounge bar.
Unfortunately they were ahead of their time (this was the 1980s), and failed to attract a following.

Eventually the brewing equipment was junked and it and it became "The Junction", a free wheeling weekend only all-night dance venue. One could have the startling experience of an E'd up reveller spilling out semi-naked in front of you on the Sunday morning walk to church (or the Kings College hospital car boot sale - according to taste).

Whilst I loved the Warrior, even I think the Junction was more exciting than Tescos.


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Not just a pub, but as the Warrior it was a pioneering brewery/pub where you could see the brewing equipment behind glass from the lounge bar.
> Unfortunately they were ahead of their time (this was the 1980s), and failed to attract a following.


If only they'd hung on for a bit longer - it was a great old pub.


----------



## Twattor (Mar 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Not just a pub, but as the Warrior it was a pioneering brewery/pub where you could see the brewing equipment behind glass from the lounge bar.
> Unfortunately they were ahead of their time (this was the 1980s), and failed to attract a following.
> 
> Eventually the brewing equipment was junked and it and it became "The Junction", a free wheeling weekend only all-night dance venue. One could have the startling experience of an E'd up reveller spilling out semi-naked in front of you on the Sunday morning walk to church (or the Kings College hospital car boot sale - according to taste).
> ...



Hopefully, in terms of community involvement then the beerhive has real potential to involve people and bring them together.  I'd rather be involved in brewing and tasting something I'm involved in than watching rubbish on sky sports whilst being subjected to generic lager in an identikit pub.


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 13, 2015)

There should be somewhere to watch sport on telly though.  Watched the gold cup in the Canterbury...  not sure where I'll be able to watch it next year.


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> There should be somewhere to watch sport on telly though.  Watched the gold cup in the Canterbury...  not sure where I'll be able to watch it next year.


Sports pub guide here: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/04/...o-the-best-pubs-to-watch-sport-on-in-brixton/ Need to add the Hero in there as they do sports, yes?


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 13, 2015)

editor said:


> Sports pub guide here: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2013/04/...o-the-best-pubs-to-watch-sport-on-in-brixton/ Need to add the Hero in there as they do sports, yes?


Good guide. 

Pretty sure Hero has sports.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 14, 2015)

Twattor said:


> Hopefully, in terms of community involvement then the beerhive has real potential to involve people and bring them together.  I'd rather be involved in brewing and tasting something I'm involved in than watching rubbish on sky sports whilst being subjected to generic lager in an identikit pub.


Dunno. Does it have seating etc? I might like the beer, but as an unwaged metropolitan house husband I can't see me buying too many £4 pints though.
But for the leisured middle classes it will be fine I'm sure.


----------



## Twattor (Mar 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Dunno. Does it have seating etc? I might like the beer, but as an unwaged metropolitan house husband I can't see me buying too many £4 pints though.
> But for the leisured middle classes it will be fine I'm sure.



No idea about seating or the cost per pint; but the idea of a group that allows community brewing with the promise of a beer at the end ticks boxes for me.

Good luck to them.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 15, 2015)

Twattor said:


> No idea about seating or the cost per pint; but the idea of a group that allows community brewing with the promise of a beer at the end ticks boxes for me.
> Good luck to them.


Is it the same group who used to be in arches behind TK Maxx?


----------



## Twattor (Mar 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Is it the same group who used to be in arches behind TK Maxx?



I don't think so.  I think you're thinking of Brixton Beer Labs, who I believe are still going strong.  This lot is on Belinda road.  Is a cooperative brewery.  If it wasn't for the fact that they only use English hops I'd be all over it.


----------



## Ian Clark (Mar 18, 2015)

Hello! Don't mean to intrude but just wanted to say that we are a cooperative brewery which currently houses beers from Clarkshaws (me) and Brixton beer labs too (not English hops). We do have seating and a heater, pints are £3.50 for cask and £4.00 for craft lager. If you haven't been flyered, mention the discount code 8eer4u and we'll knock 50p off your first pint too.

We'd love to be involved in the local community as much as we can, we're already currently trying to work with Loughborough Patchwork Farm and would be interested in other avenues to contribute. We're thinking of hosting board games on Sunday for families, novices and advanced players alike.

Last year we brewed with hops grown in  people's back gardens picked fresh and brought to the brewery within 24 hours of picking to be turned into beer. Everyone who contributed hops got around 10 pints to bring home with them once the beer was finished and we would look to do the same again this year.


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 18, 2015)

Ian Clark said:


> Hello! Don't mean to intrude but just wanted to say that we are a cooperative brewery which currently houses beers from Clarkshaws (me) and Brixton beer labs too (not English hops). We do have seating and a heater, pints are £3.50 for cask and £4.00 for craft lager. If you haven't been flyered, mention the discount code 8eer4u and we'll knock 50p off your first pint too.
> 
> We'd love to be involved in the local community as much as we can, we're already currently trying to work with Loughborough Patchwork Farm and would be interested in other avenues to contribute. We're thinking of hosting board games on Sunday for families, novices and advanced players alike.
> 
> Last year we brewed with hops grown in  people's back gardens picked fresh and brought to the brewery within 24 hours of picking to be turned into beer. Everyone who contributed hops got around 10 pints to bring home with them once the beer was finished and we would look to do the same again this year.



Board games + booze!  I'm in.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 19, 2015)

So pleased abut this plan, living on LR it's literally going to change my life!

I heard it was due to be voted on by the council last week, anyone know?


----------



## Beasley (Mar 20, 2015)

Apparently the date for a decision on this has been put back again until after the election which will be on Thursday 7 May.

The Lambeth website now shows this decision as "not before Monday 11 May."

http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgListPlanItems.aspx?PlanId=575&RP=137 -- (See item 34 on that page).


----------



## LadyV (Mar 23, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Apparently the date for a decision on this has been put back again until after the election which will be on Thursday 7 May.
> 
> The Lambeth website now shows this decision as "not before Monday 11 May."
> 
> http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgListPlanItems.aspx?PlanId=575&RP=137 -- (See item 34 on that page).



I'm all for putting it back, that gives those of us who are against it a bit more time to get in touch with the councillors for our wards who aren't all in favour of it and maybe contact Jenny Braithwaite who is the Council Cabinet member in charge of the decision.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 23, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I'm all for putting it back, that gives those of us who are against it a bit more time to get in touch with the councillors for our wards who aren't all in favour of it and maybe contact Jenny Braithwaite who is the Council Cabinet member in charge of the decision.


Surely it offers all sides that opportunity.

Fwiw, I find it *odd* in the least local people don't want to block this suburban/Croydon rat run and to really dramatically reduce the levels of environmental pollution. trying to stop this sounds about as sensible at the LTDA trying to block the new segregated super highways: welcome to the 1970s!

The concept of Induced Demand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Is this about *fear of change* ...?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 23, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Fwiw, I find it *odd* in the least local people don't want to block this suburban/Croydon rat run and to really dramatically reduce the levels of environmental pollution. trying to stop this sounds about as sensible at the LTDA trying to block the new segregated super highways: welcome to the 1970s!


The rat run is that tiny stretch of Hinton south of Coldharbour Lane.
If that was made for access only it would seriously reduce the attractions of cruising down from Herne Hill via Loughborough Road. And it would cost a lot less to implement.

Instead of isolating the tenants of Loughborough Estate and all the other social housing in that part of Coldharbour Ward AND jeopardising viability of small businesses in all the railway arches and at the back of Loughborough Junction station the transport planners need to go back to their drawing boards.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The rat run is that tiny stretch of Hinton south of Coldharbour Lane.


Sorry but no. The rat run runs from HH station, Milkwood, through Loughborogh Rd to Akerman/Patmos Rd (or Dulwich Village > Red Post Hill, HH R) - ask any Croydon/Palace/etc minicab driver or just put the SatNav on from Bulleah Hill/Crystal Palace Parade. The key is absolutely at the junction with CHL and Loughborough Rd.

Top South London fav of commuters and cabbies alike - you bypass all the actual or potential traffic at the bottom of Denmark Hill or Brixton town centre in like 90 seconds.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 23, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Top South London fav of commuters and cabbies alike - you bypass all the actual or potential traffic at the bottom of Denmark Hill or Brixton town centre in like 90 seconds.



Is  the prospect of the two main routes being even more congested and polluted a good thing ?



CH1 said:


> isolating the tenants of Loughborough Estate and all the other social housing in that part of Coldharbour Ward AND jeopardising viability of small businesses



there is a feeling in the area that this is not just a side effect of the scheme but the desired outcome  of it.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 23, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Is  the prospect of the two main routes being even more congested and polluted a good thing ?


Is it better to have thousands and thousands of cars creating a daily rat run through a really hugely dense residential street with a Junior School half way down? Locals only please.

See above link - Induced Demand.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 23, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> thousands and thousands



source needed


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 23, 2015)

Me, I'm looking at them now out my window


----------



## Beasley (Mar 23, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> The rat run runs from HH station, Milkwood, through Loughborogh Rd to Akerman/Patmos Rd (or Dulwich Village > Red Post Hill, HH R) - ask any Croydon/Palace/etc minicab driver or just put the SatNav on from Bulleah Hill/Crystal Palace Parade



Surely Milkwood and Loughborough roads are a bit big to be described as rat runs. They are part of a long established route and Milkwood is a B road - B222.
It must be an accident of history that LR isn't also classified in that way.


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 23, 2015)

Am I right in thinking that there hasn't been a proper traffic study done or any figures published about desired outcomes of the closure?

My gut feel is that it's probably not a good change as the benefits wont outweigh the inconveniences but it would be nice to have some evidence to base this on.

It'd also help to assess alternative options - CH1's idea seems sensible to me but again that's just based on gut feel.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 23, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Surely Milkwood and Loughborough roads are a bit big to be described as rat runs. They are part of a long established route and Milkwood is a B road - B222.
> It must be an accident of history that LR isn't also classified in that way.


I guess you can define 'rat run' to suit your argument. Fwiw, Wikipedia says:

"Rat running, cut-through driving or shortcut, is using secondary roads, cemetery roads, or residential side streets instead of the intended main roads in urban or suburban areas"

I don't really know your point beyond your suggestion that about 1/3  of a rat run is a B road? It runs between 2 A roads, it is a shortcut (in time), it is a really high density residential area, it has a Junior School ...  back to how I started, 'rat run' probably has as many definitions as people have views ...

However you want to describe it, in my view around 98% of the traffic going past my window is driving through and choosing to avoid Brixton and Camberwell Green.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 23, 2015)

brixtonblade said:


> Am I right in thinking that there hasn't been a proper traffic study done or any figures published about desired outcomes of the closure?


I don't know but I wish to God there was because the issue would be over.

eta: Aha! about 4-5 weeks ago they put in those rubber covered wires across the road - counting traffic! Now it makes sense - the delay until May, I mean.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 24, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Instead of isolating the tenants of Loughborough Estate and all the other social housing in that part of Coldharbour Ward AND jeopardising viability of small businesses in all the railway arches and at the back of Loughborough Junction station





cuppa tee said:


> there is a feeling in the area that this is not just a side effect of the scheme but the desired outcome  of it.



Sounds rather like conspiracy theory to me.


----------



## bolgerp (Mar 24, 2015)

Not sure if this has been posted already so apologies if it has.

https://www.change.org/p/lambeth-co...oughborough-junction-and-myatt-s-fields-areas


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 24, 2015)

The statement at the beginning of that petition either misunderstands or hasn't grassped the basics. There really needs to be a conversation between residents and experts.

If the signatories looked at the consequences of restrictive measures at say,TCR (Crossrail related), they would understand closures actually reduce traffic in secondary streets (to the closures) as well (as the traffic itself selects another route from further out, or just doesn't journey): or, instead, remember back in the day all the doom stories about the roads that fringed the brand new congestion zone - like Park Lane - which would be clogged 24/7 ...

Maybe the point that should be made more clearly  is that this is mostly about drivers selecting a route (themselves or via GPS) from way further out than many local residents seem to assume. Overwhelmingly, drivers do not drive as they did, then bump into the new road layout, then circumvent it. Things just don't work that way, at least not after the first few days


----------



## LadyV (Mar 25, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Fwiw, I find it *odd* in the least local people don't want to block this suburban/Croydon rat run and to really dramatically reduce the levels of environmental pollution. trying to stop this sounds about as sensible at the LTDA trying to block the new segregated super highways: welcome to the 1970s!



You obviously live in the area Up the Junction, I'm not exactly sure where but I don't feel overly polluted where I live, which is 2 minutes away from the junction in question. However at the moment I do feel safe, something I can't see continuing if the road is blocked off. I know from previous comments, you don't believe it but traffic moving through the area is a form of deterrent to crime and anti social behaviour and in the past when the junction has been blocked for roadworks, there has been more drunks and groups of youths than normal hanging around at the junction and trust me as a woman walking through the area on her own, I certainly didn't feel safe, they may seem harmless but they're very intimidating, which doesn't make for a happy life. At the moment, they can only hang out by Save More but this plan will give them seats so they can sit whilst they heckle and abuse people as they go past and presumably also nice planters that they can then use as a toilet! 

For me this isn't necessarily about the traffic situation, I have a car but it isn't my regular method for getting around, this is about my own personal safety, the police already don't like showing their faces around there but at least they have to drive through the area to get places so there is a bit of a presence, if the road is blocked off, that will stop and the police will only come when called.

There are other ways to make the route unpalatable to drivers, speed cameras, get rid of the free parking, make the road narrower, build in proper bike lanes, zebra crossings, pelican crossings, all those things would reduce the traffic and to some extent fulfil your desire for reducing pollution but without making the immediate area near the junction a ghetto.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 25, 2015)

LadyV said:


> You obviously live in the area Up the Junction, I'm not exactly sure where but I don't feel overly polluted where I live, which is 2 minutes away from the junction in question. However at the moment I do feel safe, something I can't see continuing if the road is blocked off. I know from previous comments, you don't believe it but traffic moving through the area is a form of deterrent to crime and anti social behaviour and in the past when the junction has been blocked for roadworks, there has been more drunks and groups of youths than normal hanging around at the junction and trust me as a woman walking through the area on her own, I certainly didn't feel safe, they may seem harmless but they're very intimidating, which doesn't make for a happy life. At the moment, they can only hang out by Save More but this plan will give them seats so they can sit whilst they heckle and abuse people as they go past and presumably also nice planters that they can then use as a toilet!
> 
> For me this isn't necessarily about the traffic situation, I have a car but it isn't my regular method for getting around, this is about my own personal safety, the police already don't like showing their faces around there but at least they have to drive through the area to get places so there is a bit of a presence, if the road is blocked off, that will stop and the police will only come when called.
> 
> There are other ways to make the route unpalatable to drivers, speed cameras, get rid of the free parking, make the road narrower, build in proper bike lanes, zebra crossings, pelican crossings, all those things would reduce the traffic and to some extent fulfil your desire for reducing pollution but without making the immediate area near the junction a ghetto.



Hi Lady V - I live on LR, actually facing the road and so get the full effect of air and noise pollution. It’s made somewhat worse by needing a window open as the building, even with the central heating turned off, is not otherwise bearable. This scheme would make so much difference to me personally..

Understood – your concern is safety. Fwiw, your argument reminds me of the rationale for not fully pedestrianising the Brixton end of Effra Rd (alongside St Marks) which I regret every time I walk through there but, equally, I’m a well-built bloke and there are easier targets …

Is it your view that LJ is unique or at least very different to elsewhere because pedestrianisation and schemes like lie the one proposed have been commonplace for many years now – Herne Hill is the classic local example?


Just to add … the most common terms used by respondents to the survey to describe the current situation were ‘dirty’ ‘dangerous’ and ‘busy’, so it’s widely accepted there are problems now.

What I would say to you – and this is based on my experience in November – just as a lumpy bloke needs to appreciate your position, try also to think how it is for school kids coming out of school or playing with their friends – I’m talking about the ‘dangerous’ characterisation. Fwiw, my bumper touched the leg of a girl who’d run out, her hand went on my bonnet and I can see her looking through the screen at me now. Another ½ second…. And then she ran off across the rest of the road without even looking … it's the Primary school, of course.

So, if we are talking about safety, please also think of school kids running down LR, with their friends lost in their excitement. Or how kids never seem to understand 4-way junctions... the maj view is very much that it is dangerous as it is. 

Do you not think effective CCTV coverage, good lighting, etc, can address your concerns?


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 25, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Sounds rather like conspiracy theory to me.



It is something that I am hearing in the area, perhaps if the council had done a more comprehensive consultation, presented other alternatives, or even acknowledged the petition from reidents
then they might not feel this way, just like other projects that are underway in Brixton and Lambeth generally.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 25, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> It is something that I am hearing in the area, perhaps if the council had done a more comprehensive consultation, presented other alternatives, or even acknowledged the petition from reidents
> then they might not feel this way, just like other projects that are underway in Brixton and Lambeth generally.


There is this consultation - fwiw,it does consider two petitions:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/def...alm-improvements-consultation-report-2015.pdf


----------



## bolgerp (Mar 25, 2015)

Hmmm... a 5.75% response rate to their questionnaires (or 2.7% response rate from those in the affected postcode area) should be a massive warning sign to them that they didn't go about the consultation in the right way. I would get fired if I based any of my work or planning on a response rate so low.


----------



## Up the junction (Mar 25, 2015)

bolgerp said:


> Hmmm... a 5.75% response rate to their questionnaires (or 2.7% response rate from those in the affected postcode area) should be a massive warning sign to them that they didn't go about the consultation in the right way. I would get fired if I based any of my work or planning on a response rate so low.


I see a leaflet distribution of 10,991.

And I see a consultation process involving 4 events, at which 633 questionnaires were completed.

The former is to inform about the latter happening?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 25, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> It is something that I am hearing in the area, perhaps if the council had done a more comprehensive consultation, presented other alternatives, or even acknowledged the petition from reidents
> then they might not feel this way, just like other projects that are underway in Brixton and Lambeth generally.


The people that signed the petition - had they not responded to Lambeth's consultation questionaires, or did they not recieve the leaflets?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 25, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The people that signed the petition - had they not responded to Lambeth's consultation questionaires, or did they not recieve the leaflets?


How were they distributed? If not by Royal Mail, did the contractor have access to all those concierge-guarded flats - many of whose porters (for want of a better word) are often not available.


----------



## LadyV (Mar 26, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Hi Lady V - I live on LR, actually facing the road and so get the full effect of air and noise pollution. It’s made somewhat worse by needing a window open as the building, even with the central heating turned off, is not otherwise bearable. This scheme would make so much difference to me personally..
> 
> Understood – your concern is safety. Fwiw, your argument reminds me of the rationale for not fully pedestrianising the Brixton end of Effra Rd (alongside St Marks) which I regret every time I walk through there but, equally, I’m a well-built bloke and there are easier targets …
> 
> ...



I don't know Herne Hill well enough to be able to comment on what happened there. And I don't think effective CCTV would help tbh, so much of what happens right now is right next to the local Safer Neighbourhoods Team office and it makes no difference so I can't see more CCTV making a difference, maybe we should have it anyway, regardless of the whether the junction closes or not.

The closure certainly won't help with the "dirty" or "busy" concerns about the junction itself as rubbish collections will be harder to carry out on the junction and there are no plans to further control the speed of traffic going down Coldharbour Lane so it will still be dirty and busy. 

I think closures can work on small roads, the closure of Cambria Road for instance but this is not a little cut through, this is a quite a big road and a necessary artery. As for the kids, all of my schools, from primary through to sixth form were based on far busier roads than Loughborough Road and there are ways of managing that, barriers nearer to the school, better road safety teaching and ultimately parents taking responsibility for looking after and teaching their kids. Plus the closure is going to cause more traffic to go down all the little side roads as people find their own rat runs to get round it, this will mean cars going down roads where kids are not used to seeing as much traffic, there's more chance of accidents in those situations. For me it's better to have traffic going down a main road and managing that properly.

I think we might have to agree to disagree, I do appreciate your personal reasons for wanting it but I don't think it's the right answer for this area. I do like the theory behind what they're trying to achieve at the Junction but sadly a lot of money will be spent appeasing the views of the few who wish to gentrify the area and I don't believe the general masses in the area will either appreciate it or look after it, bit like the little farm, great idea but used by probably 100 or so people, if that, a tiny percentage of the population of the area. 

For me, the money could be spent much better on seriously cleaning up the area, more rubbish collections, better traffic management and cameras, some parking restrictions, better crossing facilities and better lighting.  All those things could achieve similar result without the mass disruption this is going to cause.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2015)

LadyV said:


> You obviously live in the area Up the Junction, I'm not exactly sure where but I don't feel overly polluted where I live, which is 2 minutes away from the junction in question. However at the moment I do feel safe, something I can't see continuing if the road is blocked off. I know from previous comments, you don't believe it but traffic moving through the area is a form of deterrent to crime and anti social behaviour and in the past when the junction has been blocked for roadworks, there has been more drunks and groups of youths than normal hanging around at the junction and trust me as a woman walking through the area on her own, I certainly didn't feel safe, they may seem harmless but they're very intimidating, which doesn't make for a happy life. At the moment, they can only hang out by Save More but this plan will give them seats so they can sit whilst they heckle and abuse people as they go past and presumably also nice planters that they can then use as a toilet!



They may seem harmless because they are harmless. This reads as your perception of them rather than about crime.

Has it occurred to you that youths hanging about might have no where else to go? That groups of youths are socialising with each other on street corners as they have done for generations?

You complain that the plans are about gentrification then you also want the streets cleared of groups that you find "intimidating". 

Had these arguments about street drinkers etc in central Brixton. 

Having been around LJ recently a lot more recently unlike central Brixton its dead in the evening. Just food shops. Central Brixton has a lot more going on at all times of day. This makes it feel safe.

The main argument imo to oppose the road closures is affect on business. LJ is still centre of light industry despite Higgs.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 8, 2015)

via the LJAG:

The Loughborough Junction master planners are out and about talking to everyone who lives and works in Loughborough Junction about the future of our neighbourhood.

Here are the dates so please pop along and have a chat. We need your ideas:

*Wednesday 8 April*
12 noon to 3pm - Shakespeare Business Centre, entrance on Shakespeare Road.
5pm to 7pm - Outside Loughborough Junction station

*Saturday 11 April*
11am to 2pm - Loughborough Road, outside the shops by the Hero of Switzerland pub

*Friday 17 April*
8.30am to 10am Milkwood Community Park, Milkwood Road, close to entrance to Jessop School
11am to 1.30pm - Harry Caddick Centre, Lilford Road
3pm to 4pm - St Saviour's School, Herne Hill Road.


----------



## Beasley (Apr 9, 2015)

The questionnaire handed out at the Masterplan event yesterday evening contained no reference to the Loughborough Road "Public Space" proposals, apparently because Lambeth has not yet decided about them.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2015)

I went on Saturday to see the LJ masterplanners.

I did say the light industrial should be protected. This was not on the lists of principles for the masterplan.

Looking at some of the proposals for the arches I was concerned. The arches were the artists studios "Warrior Studios" are there is proposed to be a public access as a pedestrian route. I know that those who use the arches are not happy with that idea.

There are proposals for the arches in Belinda road ( behind Tescos). The arches on the Wyck Gardens side are to be opened up through from Wyck Gardens to Belinda road. It appears the existing business to be relocated. I asked what this would be used for. The officer present said bars etc.

These arches are where the car repair business are. So they may go.

After looking at the proposals I thought this is stage towards giving the area a "Brixton Village" makeover. A step towards gentrification. Hope I am proved wrong as masterplan develops. The officer did say they are revisiting some of the original ideas. I think because of the furore over the road closures.

Which is why I said I wanted existing light industrial to be protected in the masterplan. It was telling that this was not. Officer did say he would note this.

There was a resident from Myatts Fields area there who said the LJAG/ had extended the area covered to near Myatts Fields without consultation. Do not know if this is accurate.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2015)

Beasley said:


> The questionnaire handed out at the Masterplan event yesterday evening contained no reference to the Loughborough Road "Public Space" proposals, apparently because Lambeth has not yet decided about them.



Do you mean the road closures? As the officer there told me that is going ahead as an experiment.


----------



## editor (Apr 13, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> There are proposals for the arches in Belinda road ( behind Tescos). The arches on the Wyck Gardens side are to be opened up through from Wyck Gardens to Belinda road. It appears the existing business to be relocated. I asked what this would be used for. The officer present said bars etc.


That sounds terrible.


----------



## LadyV (Jun 19, 2015)

So it's happening, http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/06/...ollowing-flawed-lambeth-council-consultation/


----------



## CH1 (Jun 19, 2015)

LadyV said:


> So it's happening, http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/06/...ollowing-flawed-lambeth-council-consultation/


Don't know who observed "Loughborough Junction should be seen as a destination in its own right." in that article, but I can't see how this scheme makes LJ more of a place in its own right at all. The Loughborough Estates, old and new will be like those cafés you used to see by A roads that had been turned into dual carriageways. Forlorn and kettled and only accessible to those in the know.

Surely LJAG can see they are just wasting £28,000 of their public realm money?


----------



## Beasley (Jul 7, 2015)

The decision made on 23/6/15 to go ahead with experimental road closures was "called-in" by Cllr Matt Parr on 30/6/15.

See here for more info: http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=3462

The call-in form (under Accompanying Documents at foot of page) gives the background.
See: http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s75671/Call-in Form - Experimental Road closures in Loughborough Junction and Myatts Field Neighbourhoods.pdf


----------



## bolgerp (Jul 8, 2015)

Ooohhh..... interesting.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 17, 2015)

LJAG have the following news:

A decision on the public realm improvements at the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road and the experimental road closures will be taken at the Overview and Scrutiny committee on Tuesday 21 July at 6pm. Emails in support of the proposals should be sent to the chair: Councillor Edward Davie edavie@lambeth.gov.uk and to councillor Jennifer Brathwaite jbrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk.

If you support these proposals we would love to see you at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee which will take place in Room 8 at the Town Hall on Tuesday 21 July. LJAG hopes to address the committee in support of these proposals. And please tweet your support to us @LJAGgers1.

Ten reasons to support the public realm improvements at the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road, and the experimental road closures are set out below.

• The road closures aspect of these proposals is experimental for six months and two thirds of the people who responded to Lambeth council’s consultation were in favour.

• Improving public spaces encourages people to walk and cycle more.

• More people walking and cycling means more people on the streets which promotes trust, neighbourliness and public safety.

• Lower levels of pollution from rat-running vehicles from outside the area through our neighbourhood which has the lowest level of car ownership in Lambeth.

• There will not be a total dispersal of vehicles as some people will opt to walk, cycle or take public transport especially for short journeys.

• A better town centre for Loughborough Junction so it becomes a place we are proud to call home.

• Loughborough Junction – with the exception of the train service during the morning rush hour – has an excellent train and bus service.

• All businesses remain easily accessible.

• In the longer term our cities are only sustainable if more people, who can, make the decision to walk, cycle or take public transport, especially for short journeys, and LJAG shares this vision of the future of our cities.

• LJAG will hold Lambeth council to account for the quality of its consultation during the period of the road closures and encourage adjustments during the experimental closure period if aspects clearly are not working or causing obvious hardship.

I guess if people oppose the proposals they could email the councillors too.
Pity those councillors have nothing to do with Loughborough Junction or Coldharbour Ward - but this seems to be part of the Scrutiny process.


----------



## prunus (Jul 17, 2015)

CH1 said:


> View attachment 74154 LJAG have the following news:
> 
> A decision on the public realm improvements at the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road and the experimental road closures will be taken at the Overview and Scrutiny committee on Tuesday 21 July at 6pm. Emails in support of the proposals should be sent to the chair: Councillor Edward Davie edavie@lambeth.gov.uk and to councillor Jennifer Brathwaite jbrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk.
> 
> ...



That's a really weak list of reasons, I have to say. Sounds pretty desperate.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 18, 2015)

prunus said:


> That's a really weak list of reasons, I have to say. Sounds pretty desperate.


Twee rather than desperate IMHO.

If this is like planning committee it may be that LJAG win because they put up speakers, whereas the opposition to the scheme don't. I don't know if people opposing this scheme have are going to speak to the Scrutiny Committee.


----------



## Up the junction (Jul 18, 2015)

prunus said:


> That's a really weak list of reasons, I have to say. Sounds pretty desperate.


Which sounds most desperate - and, in your opinion, why?


CH1 said:


> • Improving public spaces encourages people to walk and cycle more.
> 
> • More people walking and cycling means more people on the streets which promotes trust, neighbourliness and public safety.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Jul 18, 2015)

Making cities better for pedestrians and cyclists - worse than the Nazis. We need to stamp these dangerous ideas out immediately.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 18, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Making cities better for pedestrians and cyclists - worse than the Nazis. We need to stamp these dangerous ideas out immediately.


Do you think that the scheme is now best not viewed in isolation as Network Rail's plans change the
context drastically, that the sum of the two parts will mean the whole character of the area will change ?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 18, 2015)

Something like this should never be viewed in isolation, of course.

Network Rail's plans may well change the area, regardless of whether this scheme happens or not.

Do you feel that prioritising pedestrians and cyclists is, intrinsically, an act of gentrification and if so why?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 18, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Do you feel that prioritising pedestrians and cyclists is, intrinsically, an act of gentrification and if so why?



You are setting up a straw man.
The issue is that the scheme was proposed by a local activist group whose members live in gentrified parts of Loughborough Junction.
The pedestrianisation does not affect these people themselves - they live some way away.
The people who are affected live around Loughborough Road in social housing.
Loughborough estate and Styles Gardens residents did not ask for the pedestrianisation scheme, and say they don't want it.

If you insist that the scheme is valid - you are actually saying that social housing tenants must submit to the whims of their gentrified "betters" living in different streets altogether.

This is what grates - it is class war in reverse! 

Regarding the businesses in the arches - I think they would be affect adversely by the pedestrianisation. Network Rail have now marked their card. If you think that means the arch businesses no longer matter I would say that is cynical. I also think it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Network Rails' gentrification of Loughborough Junction arches may hit the buffers. I sincerely hope so.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Do you feel that prioritising pedestrians and cyclists is, intrinsically, an act of gentrification and if so why?



That is how its seen. I am not saying I agree with that position.

I spend more time in LJ now than before.  Here are some observations.

Having talked to both sides on this (LJAG and LETRA) I have been sitting on the fence over the issue of road closures. I have had both sides onto me about this.

The opposition to the road closures is bound up with views on LJAG as being middle class do gooders. I think this is a bit simplistic.

One issue is that any improvements to an area , as living in Brixton has made me realise, end up being used by property developers etc to up house prices and shop rentals. In central London the new Crossrail is putting up house prices along the route. The Evil Standard keeps doing articles salivating over this. Not sure what to to about this. Its something ordinary people have cottoned onto. Which explains some of the hostility to LJAG. Its now a rational view, correct imo, that any participation in improving an area will end up with danger of gentrification. Given the way present society works. 

LJ seems to me much more divided by class than Brixton. Geographically the division is stark. Much more than Brixton. In Brixton issues like the shops in arches will get support across class for example. Also central Brixton is much more mixed than LJ- middle class home owners and working class social housing tenants living on same street.

On the broader issue:

There is a lot of hostility to moving away from car culture. Which I as a non car owning cyclist and pedestrian would welcome. I do not own a car as I cannot afford it. Car culture is not sustainable in long term. Nor is it desirable.

Unfortunately this issue is regarded as something that middle classes promote. Something which is not relevant to the lives of the working class but is hobby horse of the well to do. How this happened over the years I am not sure. It was not always the case. Take the Reclaim the Streets protests ( one of which was in Brixton) and opposition to road building back not the long ago. These were part of anti Capitalist protests.

There is a lot of opposition to improvements to cycling in London. For example the opposition to the improvements to the super highway that is going on at Vauxhall and across London. Where at one point the cab drivers rep compared cyclist groups to ISIS. The upgrading of the super highway will affect car traffic. It will take longer on same journey when the works are finished. So a lot argument that this will affect business in central London.

My view is that its not progressive just to support motorised traffic on the roads.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Twee rather than desperate IMHO.
> 
> If this is like planning committee it may be that LJAG win because they put up speakers, whereas the opposition to the scheme don't. I don't know if people opposing this scheme have are going to speak to the Scrutiny Committee.



Cllr Matt Parr was at the LJ masterplan meeting. I got the impression that he will speak to and has been listening to the small business in arches.


----------



## Beasley (Jul 19, 2015)

LJAG's 10th reason is…
"LJAG will hold Lambeth council to account for the quality of its consultation during the period of the road closures and encourage adjustments during the experimental closure period if aspects clearly are not working or causing obvious hardship." 

Now that suggests to me that while still backing their original proposal they are starting to get uneasy about it and want a dignified way of getting out if it all goes wrong.


----------



## Beasley (Jul 19, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Cllr Matt Parr was at the LJ masterplan meeting. I got the impression that he will speak…



Presumably it would be normal for Matt Parr to speak as the councillor who made the call-in. But…will other opponents of the scheme be allowed to speak -- how do call-ins normally work?


----------



## Beasley (Jul 19, 2015)

I just discovered a new ePetition about this on change.org:
https://www.change.org/p/jbrathwait...th-gov-uk-say-no-to-loughborough-road-closure


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Presumably it would be normal for Matt Parr to speak as the councillor who made the call-in. But…will other opponents of the scheme be allowed to speak -- how do call-ins normally work?



I do know that LJAG will be speaking to support the scheme. 

I presume its like planning committee and you have to put your name down.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2015)

Beasley said:


> I just discovered a new ePetition about this on change.org:
> https://www.change.org/p/jbrathwait...th-gov-uk-say-no-to-loughborough-road-closure



Well this is all getting unpleasant.

According to petition letter its outside agitators who are supporting this:



> Nonetheless cycling campaigners have latched onto it and are canvassing support from outside the area and across London.



That was uncalled for.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 20, 2015)

For my part I am not going to the meeting - much as I would like to see how it pans out. Those who are directly affected do have the chance to speak out now - assuming they feel confident enough to speak to the meeting.

Although I do think it would be a bad move to do the pedestrianisation I do accept that Loughborough Road is a cut through and that it would be good to reduce rush hour traffic - but I have suggested how to consultations several times.

I hope the scrutiny committee produces a suitable compromise.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jul 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You are setting up a straw man.
> The issue is that the scheme was proposed by a local activist group whose members live in gentrified parts of Loughborough Junction.
> The pedestrianisation does not affect these people themselves - they live some way away.
> The people who are affected live around Loughborough Road in social housing.
> ...



I was wondering what the gentrified parts of Loughborough Junction are? Could you let me know please.  Just so I can check if I live in one. And could you also advise the rubric you're applying when you say something is a gentrified area. Just so that there's a transparent set of ground rules. Thanks!


----------



## CH1 (Jul 20, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> I was wondering what the gentrified parts of Loughborough Junction are? Could you let me know please.  Just so I can check if I live in one. And could you also advise the rubric you're applying when you say something is a gentrified area. Just so that there's a transparent set of ground rules. Thanks!


If you are pressing me about specific areas I would say the most obviously gentrified part of LJ is that on either side of Herne Hill Road - namely that part which is in SE24 and the part in SE5 at the back of Ruskin Park.

What does a "rubric" bring to the table?

The thread is about the consultation on "Loughborough Junction public space improvements" - which a significant number of residents have opposed. The issue is whether these "improvements" are helpful or unhelpful to local people and businesses.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jul 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> If you are pressing me about specific areas I would say the most obviously gentrified part of LJ is that on either side of Herne Hill Road - namely that part which is in SE24 and the part in SE5 at the back of Ruskin Park.
> 
> What does a "rubric" bring to the table?
> 
> The thread is about the consultation on "Loughborough Junction public space improvements" - which a significant number of residents have opposed. The issue is whether these "improvements" are helpful or unhelpful to local people and businesses.



Your point was, I think, that those who live in the gentrified areas (which you'e now identified, although not explained why you think they are gentrified) are imposing their will on people who live in social housing. 

"If you insist that the scheme is valid - you are actually saying that social housing tenants must submit to the whims of their gentrified "betters" living in different streets altogether."

So your position quite simply put is, if someone supports traffic calming measures in and around Loughbrough Junction, even if they have lived here for many years, then you are oppressing social housing residents. You also think that it's twee to support traffic calming measures. 

Quite simply, you are wrong on this.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2015)

I'm aware there's a feeling among some that LJAG represents LJ's middle classes and that this scheme is being imposed on people that don't want it. I have also heard similar said about the "farm".

But it's unclear how widespread the opposition is. A petition doesn't necessarily mean much. Lambeth say their consultation found a majority in favour. Who knows - as I understand it forms were delivered to all residents on the Loughborough estate. Is someone lying and that did not actually happen?

I don't think it is fair to oppose this scheme on the basis of it being supported by a group who you suspect of not being fully representative of locals. The scheme should be assessed on its own merits - something which an experimental period ought to allow.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 21, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'm aware there's a feeling among some that LJAG represents LJ's middle classes and that this scheme is being imposed on people that don't want it. I have also heard similar said about the "farm".
> 
> But it's unclear how widespread the opposition is. A petition doesn't necessarily mean much. Lambeth say their consultation found a majority in favour. Who knows - as I understand it forms were delivered to all residents on the Loughborough estate. Is someone lying and that did not actually happen?
> 
> I don't think it is fair to oppose this scheme on the basis of it being supported by a group who you suspect of not being fully representative of locals. The scheme should be assessed on its own merits - something which an experimental period ought to allow.


I think it is unwise because it threatens the viability of small business in that immediate area. And also because more limited traffic control measures in the gentrified part of LJAG's area (i.e. south of Coldharbour Lane) would have the beneficial effect but not the adverse effect in terms of traffic control.
What is not to like? It still looks like the Ubermensch of SE24/5 stamping their imprint on us plebs in SW9!


----------



## CH1 (Jul 21, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> Your point was, I think, that those who live in the gentrified areas (which you'e now identified, although not explained why you think they are gentrified) are imposing their will on people who live in social housing.
> 
> "If you insist that the scheme is valid - you are actually saying that social housing tenants must submit to the whims of their gentrified "betters" living in different streets altogether."
> 
> ...


No - my position is that people should support traffic calming in their own area - not impose it on a different area because it would look nice to them, whatever the inconvenience cause to residents of the "colonised" area.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> Your point was, I think, that those who live in the gentrified areas (which you'e now identified, although not explained why you think they are gentrified) are imposing their will on people who live in social housing.
> 
> "If you insist that the scheme is valid - you are actually saying that social housing tenants must submit to the whims of their gentrified "betters" living in different streets altogether."



To support CH1 here I was talking to a couple of peope who live on the Loughborough Estate and what CH1 posted up is how they feel. It more the feeling that the middle classes are trying to tell them whats best for them. There is imo mutual lack of any understanding between both sides. 

The opposition to the road is the battle where this is being fought out. 

Also one of the users of the arches said to me that whilst LJAG mean well the plans they have will encourage the gentrification of the area.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jul 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> No - my position is that people should support traffic calming in their own area - not impose it on a different area because it would look nice to them, whatever the inconvenience cause to residents of the "colonised" area.



Given that the so-called gentrified postcode area of SE5 does in fact partly fall into the area under consideration, I'd argue that these people have a right to have a voice on these measures. It may well also be that living halfway along Colharbour Lane means that you are physically further away from the road closures than some people in the "gentrified" postcodes of SE24 and SE5.

But what I find puzzling is that by using words such as Übermensch (your missed the umlaut) you are likening people who support traffic calming measures to Nazis. Very disappointing.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2015)

Well, I am a middle class nazi gentrifier living on the other side of the tracks. I don't want to impose something on people if they really don't want it. But is it really true that Loughborough estate residents don't want it? I'm not sure we actually have evidence of this. Anything restricting car owners tends to draw fervent opposition from a certain proportion of people and this happens everywhere including places that are as middle class as you like (read the stories on here about opposition to introducing bike hangars or road closures for street parties).

I wonder if the best way of resolving this would be for Lambeth to re-do the postal consultation and see what the yes and no votes add up to?

To be honest, from a totally selfish point of view I'd be fine with Loughborough rd remaining full of cars and my road being fully pedestrianised


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think it is unwise because it threatens the viability of small business in that immediate area.



Which businesses and how?

There often seems to be an irrational fear about anything that restricts car access.

Are there really businesses who get a significant amount of their trade from passing motorists?


----------



## LadyV (Jul 21, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I wonder if the best way of resolving this would be for Lambeth to re-do the postal consultation and see what the yes and no votes add up to?
> 
> To be honest, from a totally selfish point of view I'd be fine with Loughborough rd remaining full of cars and my road being fully pedestrianised



I live on Styles Gardens, which is one of the closest residential roads to affected area and I think that redoing the consultation in a paper format might be useful, I know that I didn't receive a postal consultation form, I remember a general leaflet talking about the plans, which arrived along with the mountain of junk mail we all receive, but I don't remember it being explicit about the closure of the junction, more the general pretty-fying. I only found out about the online consultation through my neighbour. I'm probably wrong but I thought the consultation was online only.

I think this kind of plays into why when someone went knocking on doors around the Loughborough Estate, albeit a little late, they got so many signatures on a petition against the closure.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I think this kind of plays into why when someone went knocking on doors around the Loughborough Estate, albeit a little late, they got so many signatures on a petition against the closure.



I can't now remember where I saw the numbers but although there were quite a few signatures on the petition, I don't think they actually represented a majority of the total number of residents on the estate did they?


----------



## LadyV (Jul 21, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I can't now remember where I saw the numbers but although there were quite a few signatures on the petition, I don't think they actually represented a majority of the total number of residents on the estate did they?



Here are some details of the petition and a couple of exchanges between LETRA and Jennifer Braithwaite


critical1 said:


> Well a petition was handed in 700+ and Lambeth says they are refusing to accept it!! never ever heard of a petition not being accepted before, ( has anyone here ever heard of such a thing) BIZZARE...
> 
> Anyway here is the letter Lambeth sent out,, there's a meeting at Sunshine Cafe opp the Laundrette on Coldharbour lane, Loughborough Junction, which is open to all on Thursday @ 6:30pm (Thursday 20th November at Sunshine International Arts, 209a Coldharbour Lane, SW9 8RU)
> 
> ...


----------



## CH1 (Jul 21, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> Given that the so-called gentrified postcode area of SE5 does in fact partly fall into the area under consideration, I'd argue that these people have a right to have a voice on these measures. It may well also be that living halfway along Colharbour Lane means that you are physically further away from the road closures than some people in the "gentrified" postcodes of SE24 and SE5.
> 
> But what I find puzzling is that by using words such as Übermensch (your missed the umlaut) you are likening people who support traffic calming measures to Nazis. Very disappointing.


Have only just got access to the council report. As you say there are minor implications for SE5 - but it is not that we are arguing about, it is specifically Loughborough Road, SW9.

Regarding Übermensch I was tired and could not bestir myself last night to look up the alt-code for U umlaut at the time. Sorry about that - but I thought Übermensch were creatures invented by Friedrich Nietzsche (commonly called Superman in English). Neitzsche's supermen were above the concerns about good and evil of ordinary people. They were a law unto themselves and served higher cultural purposes.

I am sorry you thought I was alluding to Nazis. I am not an educated person, but I did German at school, and have a copy of Also Sprach Zarathustra somewhere (in English).


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Here are some details of the petition and a couple of exchanges between LETRA and Jennifer Braithwaite


700 names on the petition; wikipedia tells me 3000 families living on the estate ... not saying that number of 700 is insignifiant but it should be seen in context.

Maybe Lambeth should commit to holding another, properly advertised consultation at the end of the experimental period (if it goes ahead).


----------



## CH1 (Jul 21, 2015)

The council report to be considered at Scrutiny Committee at 7 pm tonight is here:

Para 4.6 states: "Design development on the Loughborough Junction Public Space Improvement Project and associated road closures started in early 2014. Updates on the evolving designs were fed back to LJAG’s Planning Forum."

I would suggest that taken as a whole the report clearly indicates that the road closure was conceived by LJAG and driven forward by them. Moreover the council are treating LJAG as if they are a sort of representative body speaking for the whole area.

Those of us who know LJAG intimately see it not as a democratically representative body, but a pressure group able to influence the council through personal connections at councillor and officer level, and by claiming a stake in local TAs.

LJAG's modus operandi is top down rather than bottom up - so when they want to do something many people in the community disagree with it is difficult to call this into question.


----------



## SpamMisery (Jul 21, 2015)

I've always loved the 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' construction of the phrase - don't really know why

However, I automatically think of Nazis before Nietzsche when I hear ubermensch or untermensch. Can't really explain why that is either. Maybe it's a bit like associating the swastica with the Nazis or Hinduism/Buddhism depending on the context you first learned about it?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 21, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I've always loved the 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' construction of the phrase - don't really know why
> 
> However, I automatically think of Nazis before Nietzsche when I hear ubermensch or untermensch. Can't really explain why that is either. Maybe it's a bit like associating the swastica with the Nazis or Hinduism/Buddhism depending on the context you first learned about it?


My mum had a collection of Rudyard Kipling books which had the swastica on the spine. Kipling apparently adopted the swastica as an emblem in his India days - many years before Hitler.

I suppose that makes me look even more dubious!


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jul 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Have only just got access to the council report. As you say there are minor implications for SE5 - but it is not that we are arguing about, it is specifically Loughborough Road, SW9.
> 
> But Loughborough Road SE5 aren't allowed to comment?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jul 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Have only just got access to the council report. As you say there are minor implications for SE5 - but it is not that we are arguing about, it is specifically Loughborough Road, SW9.



But Loughborough Road SE5 aren't allowed to comment, just Loughborough Road SW9?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 21, 2015)

Not sure what you are getting at. Loughborough Road is all in SW9.


----------



## LadyV (Jul 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The council report to be considered at Scrutiny Committee at 7 pm tonight is here:
> 
> Para 4.6 states: "Design development on the Loughborough Junction Public Space Improvement Project and associated road closures started in early 2014. Updates on the evolving designs were fed back to LJAG’s Planning Forum."
> 
> ...



Have just read the report going to the committee, did you see this line?
"At the moment Loughborough Junction is dominated by traffic – Loughborough Road sees an incredible 13,000 vehicles pass through on a typical weekday." Is this true? Where has this number come from? I find that hard to believe!

Also talking of LJAG, apparently "Its members work with many local organisations, such as tenants’ and residents’ associations,", I think not!

And does anyone know who Jennifer Braithwaite spoke to? "The Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability has met additionally with a number of resident representatives over recent months and chaired a meeting of all interested ward councillors."


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jul 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Not sure what you are getting at. Loughborough Road is all in SW9.



Horle Walk (Loughbrough Road) is SE5


----------



## CH1 (Jul 21, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> Horle Walk (Loughbrough Road) is SE5


You mean the council flats behind the former White Hart public house?
Have they not been consulted then?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jul 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You mean the council flats behind the former White Hart public house?
> Have they not been consulted then?



You tell me. But it doesn't matter if they've been consulted or not, because they are in SE5, and to you, their views would not be relevant because they are not in SW9.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 21, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Have just read the report going to the committee, did you see this line?
> "At the moment Loughborough Junction is dominated by traffic – Loughborough Road sees an incredible 13,000 vehicles pass through on a typical weekday." Is this true? Where has this number come from? I find that hard to believe!
> 
> Also talking of LJAG, apparently "Its members work with many local organisations, such as tenants’ and residents’ associations,", I think not!
> ...


I think it is a case of what I said - the emotive language of the report - "incredible 13,000 vehicles a day" suggests that this is an LJAG documents which the officer(s) have simply lifted and put into their report.

Very unprofessional IMHO and not only that - as you say it does suggest caution is required. The 13,000 could be a finger in the wind estimate by LJAG rather than a proper measuremnt by a traffic engineer.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 21, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> You tell me. But it doesn't matter if they've been consulted or not, because they are in SE5, and to you, their views would not be relevant because they are not in SW9.


You are twisting my meaning. I am sick and tired of the barrister tendency.
Their view are more important than those of Cambria Road for example - because they are nearer. But not as important as those of Styles Gardens or Woolley House, who are right on top of the issue.

What is difficult to understand about that?


----------



## LadyV (Jul 21, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> You tell me. But it doesn't matter if they've been consulted or not, because they are in SE5, and to you, their views would not be relevant because they are not in SW9.


Of course their views should be considered, if they're right behind the White Hart that is in the affected area, however they will be affected in a different way and probably less to those closer to the junction itself but that doesn't mean their views don't matter, not at all.


----------



## Angellic (Jul 21, 2015)

Is the decision announced this evening? not sure how these things work.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 22, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Is the decision announced this evening? not sure how these things work.


"Lambeth Democracy" have put nothing up on Twitter.
Maybe someone who was at the meeting might post the result?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 22, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Is the decision announced this evening? not sure how these things work.



My understanding of this committee is that it can refer a decision back to the original decision makers. Who then have to report back to the committee.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which businesses and how?
> 
> There often seems to be an irrational fear about anything that restricts car access.
> 
> Are there really businesses who get a significant amount of their trade from passing motorists?



There was a guy at the LJ masterplan meeting who runs a car repair place in one of the arches off Loughborough road. He was saying that road closures may affect his business.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 22, 2015)

Some coverage of the meeting on the Twitter account of @KenningtonPOB

Apparently, 64pc of homes around there do not have cars.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 22, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Some coverage of the meeting on the Twitter account of @KenningtonPOB
> Apparently, 64pc of homes around there do not have cars.


Thank you for that
My favourite quote must be from Cllr Mat Parr - who stated an obvious fact:

"Cllr Parr accepts need to improve area but views Lh Rd as a connector not a rat run" 

The way things are going Loughborough Road will end up as Brixton's answer to the Garden Bridge!


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Some coverage of the meeting on the Twitter account of @KenningtonPOB


another one......

offers _*new business opportunities*_


----------



## concerned1 (Jul 23, 2015)

I attended the meeting on Tuesday. The timing of it was quite unfair. It was at 6pm 1 hour before their regular Scrutiny Meeting so time was really limited. They knew due to loads of emails etc that residents and businesses were against this scheme. Not one resident or business against the scheme were given a chance to speak. 
2 members of the public who are in favour of it were called by the Chair to speak, one was the cyclist who appears to be a key player in the creation of the scheme (this cyclist emailed London cyclists in 2013 about wanting a "cell" at Lough Jnct/Coldharbour Lane as in the Netherlands) and the other was from Calais Street,  the Chair then called on Cllr Heywood to speak who is against the scheme.
Businesses were just ignored,  time conveniently ran out. 
In the constitution they can extend a meeting half an hour but as it was planned there was only one hour.
This Call In should have had at least two hours.
Cllr Brathwaite and George Wright spent so long just repeating what was in the huge report they had previously provided the Committee who to be honest should have already read it.
The Committee decided NOT to return the scheme for reconsideration to Cllr Brathwaite but that it can go ahead. Sadly only 2 Cllrs on the Committee were against the scheme.
One of the rare leaflets that most people never received at the beginning of the consultation period said nothing of road closures, then  strangely another leaflet again hardly anyone received appeared with an addition to it saying "Lambeth have also developed proposals to reduce through traffic in the Lough Jnct / Myatts Field areas by introducing road closures". 
The cyclist who appears to have instigated this scheme sent out an email to cyclists telling them to come and support the closures even if they didn't know the road! Note this cyclist does not live within the area to be closed in. 
Yes they say car ownership is low. It does not look like it by the amount of residents cars BUT it is not just cars that go to and fro homes and businesses. 
It is "vehicles" 
All types. 
The list is so long, everyone has rubbish collected, most people receive parcels at some time, BT, Sky,  gardening, window cleaning, painting, building, Lambeth services, doctors, nurses, carers, hospital transport, coaches, mini buses, removal vehicles, etc etc.
Vehicles do not just pass through these roads being closed but to also go to the homes and businesses, schools, churches, community centres, new builds all in the closed in areas. 
Every other vehicle up and down Loughborough road is a business vehicle, it is not only cars. Those vehicles will now mostly have take to the small cramped over parked side roads that can only take one vehicle through them, not both ways at a time. If anyone has driven along Lilford Road for example and met up with the dust cart, it stops at every home, it takes a long time for it to go down the whole road which will become a highly used road. 
When you look at the map and see how the area will be shut it is very worrying.
It will not only take far longer to get through, or to, it will cost far more.  
I know I have written a lot but there is a lot more than just cars here.
People were not consulted as they ought to have been. And why not. Most would say NO when they realise they do not have to own a car to be seriously affected. Businesses will have to increase prices as they will not drive a couple of miles further and take the costs themselves. Small roads will suffer congestion, arguments, probably have their vehicles parked outside their homes damaged by large vehicles struggling to get through, pollution, overall a lot of stress throughout the day and night.
This is about people's lives, businesses, their homes.
It will destroy most of the businesses within the area closed in and will seriously effect others outside that require access to or through the area. Those businesses who operate large vehicles such as coaches nearby will be forced onto Coldharbour Lane / Brixton /Camberwell.
This will not "create a meaningful town centre"
This will not create a public space.
It will not make money for the Council in fact it will cost the Council due to all the increased costs in time, fuel and maintenance.
It will create real rat runs, additional pollution, slow all traffic on Coldharbour Lane, make cycling on all the small side roads virtually impossible and many more negative impacts.
Have you seen the effects of the road closure in Norbury?
One road and it is causing chaos.
Lambeth Council has to conduct a Statutory Consultation as soon as the roads are closed.
If these road closures affect you in a negative MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 23, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> I attended the meeting on Tuesday.


Thank you for posting up your account of the meeting.
I agree with most of your comments. Sees to me that George Wright and Jennifer Braithwaite are intent on a social engineering experiment without proper process. Not an advert for democracy - more like government by cadre.


----------



## crosspatch (Jul 23, 2015)

Why are existing businesses and their livelihoods not being considered?  Why were the many residents and businesses against the scheme not given a chance to voice their opinions?  Why was it all such a total stitch up?  It is more like an uncooperative council - certainly NOT a cooperative one.  Let's make sure it is PROPERLY monitored - air pollution before and after the trial on residential roads that are likely to become "rat runs".  It is impossible to have faith in a fair demonstration of an impartial and just monitoring when the whole scheme has been so totally biased to date.  Figures and data can all be "massaged" to fit their criteria - that's why an outside unbiased monitoring scheme needs to be put in place.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 24, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Some coverage of the meeting on the Twitter account of @KenningtonPOB
> 
> Apparently, 64pc of homes around there do not have cars.



Thanks for this.

Checked KPOB out.

Blog piece here



> There have been two articles written in the past few days that are pertinent to Lambeth where a decision to undertake a six month trial on measures to prevent traffic rat-running in the Loughborough Junction area has been called in. The borough wants to be the most cycle friendly borough and has a lower level of car ownership but how can progress be made when there's hesitation to even trial a scheme?



And this from London Cycling Campaign



> Official LCC event
> *Lambeth Space for Cycling demonstration*
> * 21 July 2015 *
> On Tuesday July 21st, Lambeth Council is making a decision on whether to close Loughborough Rd to rat running motor traffic to create Space for Cycling. This is one of LCC's Space for Cycling 'asks' in Lambeth.
> ...


----------



## Beasley (Jul 24, 2015)

See the Evening Standard Thu 23 July
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/londo...end-final-b/20150723/282059095694923/TextView


----------



## CH1 (Jul 24, 2015)

Beasley said:


> See the Evening Standard Thu 23 July
> http://www.pressreader.com/uk/londo...end-final-b/20150723/282059095694923/TextView


Scan:


----------



## leanderman (Jul 24, 2015)

13,000 vehicle movements a day on Loughborough rd!

Who are all these people? Where are they all going?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 24, 2015)

leanderman said:


> 13,000 vehicle movements a day on Loughborough rd!
> Who are all these people? Where are they all going?


They are coming from Tulse Hill/Herne Hill (and vice versa) and seeking to avoid the traffic systems at Brixton and Camberwell Green.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 24, 2015)

Which brings me to my follow-up question(s), the same one, about all those cars flowing down Brixton Hill in the morning and heading toward central London


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 24, 2015)

CH1 said:


> They are coming from Tulse Hill/Herne Hill (and vice versa) and seeking to avoid the traffic systems at Brixton and Camberwel Green.


that is what we are supposed to think but I am surprised by the 13000 figure
a little go on the calculator shows this would equate to over
540 vehicles an hour 24 hours a day.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 24, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for this.
> 
> Checked KPOB out.
> 
> Blog piece here



some interesting points in that piece, not least that he is comparing loughborough junction
with Walcott Sq and Cleaver Square where houses cost well over a million and a months rent on a flat
will cost you over 2 grand.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2015)

I can see that there are some businesses that could be affected by a reduction in passing trade from motorists, or a reduction in trade due to motorists having to go a roundabout route to get to them. (Although that has to be counterbalanced by business that would do well from an increase in passing cyclists and pedestrians).

But a pub? Does the Hero of Switzerland have a lot of customers who arrive and depart by car? I hope not. It seems a bit hyperbolic to suggest this could "finish" a pub. As does the term "kettling".


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> that is what we are supposed to think but I am surprised by the 13000 figure
> a little go on the calculator shows this would equate to over
> 540 vehicles an hour 24 hours a day.


It's not entirely implausible. Even if you assumed there were 12 hours with no traffic at all, it would represent about 18 cars a minute, or one every 3 seconds. If you go and stand by a busy road and count vehicles you'll see that it's not impossible.


----------



## leanderman (Jul 24, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It's not entirely implausible. Even if you assumed there were 12 hours with no traffic at all, it would represent about 18 cars a minute, or one every 3 seconds. If you go and stand by a busy road and count vehicles you'll see that it's not impossible.



Does seem high though. I think CH1 should go count!


----------



## leanderman (Jul 24, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I can see that there are some businesses that could be affected by a reduction in passing trade from motorists, or a reduction in trade due to motorists having to go a roundabout route to get to them. (Although that has to be counterbalanced by business that would do well from an increase in passing cyclists and pedestrians).
> 
> But a pub? Does the Hero of Switzerland have a lot of customers who arrive and depart by car? I hope not. It seems a bit hyperbolic to suggest this could "finish" a pub. As does the term "kettling".



It highlights what a car culture we have.


----------



## Winot (Jul 24, 2015)

teuchter said:


> But a pub? Does the Hero of Switzerland have a lot of customers who arrive and depart by car? I hope not. It seems a bit hyperbolic to suggest this could "finish" a pub.



I wondered whether they were talking about deliveries.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 24, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I can see that there are some businesses that could be affected by a reduction in passing trade from motorists, or a reduction in trade due to motorists having to go a roundabout route to get to them. (Although that has to be counterbalanced by business that would do well from an increase in passing cyclists and pedestrians).
> 
> But a pub? Does the Hero of Switzerland have a lot of customers who arrive and depart by car? I hope not. It seems a bit hyperbolic to suggest this could "finish" a pub. As does the term "kettling".





leanderman said:


> It highlights what a car culture we have.




lol, then again it could be that people like to pop in for a pint on the way home from a hard days toil in a manual trade/cabbing/deliveries  but that wouldn't fit " the narrative" would it ?


----------



## leanderman (Jul 24, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> lol, then again it could be that people like to pop in for a pint on the way home from a hard days toil in a manual trade/cabbing/deliveries  but that wouldn't fit " the narrative" would it ?



what 'narrative'?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> lol, then again it could be that people like to pop in for a pint on the way home from a hard days toil in a manual trade/cabbing/deliveries  but that wouldn't fit " the narrative" would it ?


I think that most people, if they have a pint at the end of the work day, either do it somewhere within walking distance of their workplace, or of their home. I'm not buying it that the HoS get a lot of trade from people who live and work outside of LJ and find it a convenient stop on their way driving home.


----------



## Mr Retro (Jul 24, 2015)

I've never ever popped in somewhere for a pint when I've been driving anywhere. But then I don't have a driving license or car so that's probably why.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 24, 2015)

leanderman said:


> what 'narrative'?



The narrative is that opposing car culture and wanting a cycle friendly city is the preserve of airy fairy middle class do gooders. Clearly Leanderman you do not understand working class culture. 

I am getting to the point where I think some of the arguments against this are bollocks.

The pub in question is an estate pub. FFS. I am with teuchter on this . Perhaps I am a bit prejudiced against estate pub as my first job in London was working in one.

There is a class war going on its the Tory government and a Labour Council who do not support Council housing.They are the enemy not those advocating something better than car culture.

Opposing car culture imo is progressive in the long term. It does not serve the interests of the working class to have a society dominated by the need to own a car.

Reminds me of reading Danny Dorling on inequality. The most polluted areas are the poorest. That is the relatively well off drive through them. Those who live in them contribute little to pollution.

The article is from the ES. They love to kick at a Labour Council.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 24, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Does seem high though. I think CH1 should go count!


I'll see if I can borrow a Royal Albert Hall "clicker"


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2015)

Reducing the predominance of car dependency is absolutely progressive in my opinion. 

I find it strange that even on urban75 the basic idea of it meets such resistance. People will gladly espouse socialist principles on most things but then go nuts when you suggest interfering with their motoring habits. I've had these arguments over and over again on here, where I am saying that the individual motorist should accept some short term inconvenience for the longer term benefit of the greater good. The more people that use public transport the better that public transport is for everyone. Same for cycling. A virtuous cycle instead of the horrible vicious cycle we have got into where we become more and more dependent on cars and those who don't or can't drive find stuff becoming more and more inaccessible. 
And car ownership is expensive and thus not an option for everyone. 
In addition, cars make cities - well just about anywhere - less pleasant places to be. And waste loads of space.

There's especially no excuse in London for motorists to complain about their freedoms being taken away. There's simply no need to own a car in London.

Car sharing schemes can fill in the gaps for the small number of journeys that do need a car. And those schemes are now widely available in London.

A while back I proposed a scheme for nationalising everyone's cars and instigating a UK wide car sharing scheme. You'd think that might be an U75 freindly proposal but it didn't seem very popular. 

My worry with this LJ scheme now is that it hasn't been properly thought through. That the principle is good but that it's been hastily designed and isn't going to work properly. So the objectors will be able to point out failings and which will be used against various future schemes and everything will be set back.

In general I think there has been a very positive change in approach to road and traffic design in London recently. Lots of small things that go ahead quite quietly (junction redesigns, removal of pedestrian barriers etc) and are successful. It would be sad to see things hindered by the negative fallout from a badly implemented scheme.

It is tricky because this particular scheme has got tangled up in concerns about gentrification. There are contradictory objections...some people seem worried it will make the area unsafe or insecure. Some seem effectively to be saying it will make LJ too appealing, with the consequence that there will be an influx of gentrifiers. The case against it is confused.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2015)

And Gramsci you were quite right earlier on when you pointed out the political leanings of the reclaim the street movements (which I've always been supportive of - and "reclaim" was exactly the right word in that case). Somewhere along the line the message has got lost.


----------



## LadyV (Jul 27, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Scan:
> View attachment 74448


Did anyone catch the last line of the Evening Standard article? 

"There will be no "physical" barrier at the junction during the trial but that new "no entry" signs would be enforced by CCTV cameras"

Anyone who lives near the junction will know that when the junction has been closed for roadworks when there hasn't been any physical barriers, lots of people still drive through! This is going to be interesting to watch. Although probably a good money maker for someone. 

The one good thing for people against the closure is that no physical barrier will give them lots of things to complain about and maybe get it removed and rejected. It will be far more dangerous this way and is not going to create the town centre feeling that LJAG are claiming.


----------



## Aeryn (Aug 5, 2015)

I live in LJ, have done for 15 years, and cycle along that road every day. I have no reason to oppose improvements to cycling infrastructure.

What I dislike about this is the fact that they aren't going to improve the road layout, they're just going to cordon off a council estate (the bit between Fiveways and Brixton Road is the problem area in my opinion, but that's private housing so it's been left outside the ghetto area). If it was just Loughborough Road that would be one thing but it's not, it's every road in and out. It will create a ghetto.

A lot of people see this as a prelude to another Heygate Estate - block off Loughborough Estate, close down the shops, make it so hard for people to live here that they move out, and then sell the land off like they did with Oval Quarter. 

And I'm not reassured by LCC pulling stunts like emailing members who live in Forest Hill (like my brother, for instance) with template letters and telling them to lobby specific LJ councillors - including people from miles away in the "66% of local people support the scheme" is pretty disingenuous. There were no leaflets posted out locally - I found out about it on here.

I've had prominent people in the pro campaign tell me that "this is a shit area", "the people who live here are all a bunch of thieves", and "this area has too many nail bars and hair salons, we need some decent shops around here". Like the fucking "Brewtique" in the promotional leaflets. I'm white, so they assume I'll agree with them. I don't, this is absolutely about social cleansing and it's fucked up.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> What I dislike about this is the fact that they aren't going to improve the road layout, they're just going to cordon off a council estate (the bit between Fiveways and Brixton Road is the problem area in my opinion, but that's private housing so it's been left outside the ghetto area). If it was just Loughborough Road that would be one thing but it's not, it's every road in and out. It will create a ghetto.



This is complete nonsense.

The map below shows (in pink) where the roads will be closed. Nowhere is "cordoned off". There is nowhere where "every road in and out" has been blocked.

There is an area including the estate which will become less directly accessible by car, to/from the South-East. If the blocks were to be made instead between Fiveways and Brixton Road, the same area would instead become less accessible to/from the North (ie towards the centre of town).

The area including the estate will remain exactly as accessible as it currently is by foot, cycle and public transport.


----------



## Aeryn (Aug 5, 2015)

Let's hope nobody in the estate ever needs transport to King's then. I'm sure they'll be relieved to know the residents of Myatt's Field won't be inconvenienced at all.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2015)

> During the experimental period, all of the roads (except Padfield Road) could be used by the emergency services and, if necessary, a temporary traffic order could be made to suspend the restrictions should any of the roads be needed for use as a temporary diversion route if Coldharbour Lane had to be closed.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 5, 2015)

(From the Lambeth doc, available to anyone wanting to judge the scheme on the basis of actual facts)


----------



## CH1 (Aug 6, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> Let's hope nobody in the estate ever needs transport to King's then. I'm sure they'll be relieved to know the residents of Mystt's Field won't be inconvenienced at all.


I think teuchter's map is out of date. Assumes the P5 will be going along Barrington Road - whereas more recently it was supposed to be able to go down Loughborough Road on the basis that it is a proxy-bicycle.

True, Myatts Fields residents may not be inconvenienced - but only if they make a detour to Southwark and out of Looney Lambeth.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2015)

From Lambeth report, 23rd June


  The introduction of a Pedestrian Zone except local buses and cycles on Loughborough Road between Ridgeway Road and Styles Gardens.


  The introduction of point No Entry except local buses and cycles in both directions on Barrington Road.



  The introduction of point No Entry except cycles in both directions on Gordon Grove, Lilford Road and Calais Street.


  The introduction of a road closure except cycles on Padfield Road.


  Changes to waiting and loading restrictions on Loughborough Road.

So both the Loughborough Rd and Barrington Rd closures open to buses.

Otherwise, seems to match the map.


----------



## LadyV (Aug 6, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> Let's hope nobody in the estate ever needs transport to King's then. I'm sure they'll be relieved to know the residents of Myatt's Field won't be inconvenienced at all.


This was one of my complaints when I contacted the councillor who oversaw the call in meeting, as someone who lives in Styles Gardens, to get to Kings in a taxi, presuming I couldn't walk but wasn't urgent enough for an ambulance, rather than being able to turn straight out and then along Coldharbour Lane, the cab would have to go either some weird route around Angell Road, St James Crescent, Gresham Road to join Coldharbour Lane or go up past Myatts Field, then either down Flodden Road and Camberwell Road or down Denmark Road to get onto Coldharbour Lane. Either way it's an arse. I know that everyone wants to reduce traffic in the area but when it comes down to it, not everyone can walk or cycle, not everyone is mobile enough to use public transport and these closures affect those people the most. I'm lucky, I can walk and do use public transport but not everyone can.


----------



## LadyV (Aug 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Nowhere is "cordoned off". There is nowhere where "every road in and out" has been blocked.



You say that but trust me, that's not how it feels when you're right next to it.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> This was one of my complaints when I contacted the councillor who oversaw the call in meeting, as someone who lives in Styles Gardens, to get to Kings in a taxi, presuming I couldn't walk but wasn't urgent enough for an ambulance, rather than being able to turn straight out and then along Coldharbour Lane, the cab would have to go either some weird route around Angell Road, St James Crescent, Gresham Road to join Coldharbour Lane or go up past Myatts Field, then either down Flodden Road and Camberwell Road or down Denmark Road to get onto Coldharbour Lane. Either way it's an arse. I know that everyone wants to reduce traffic in the area but when it comes down to it, not everyone can walk or cycle, not everyone is mobile enough to use public transport and these closures affect those people the most. I'm lucky, I can walk and do use public transport but not everyone can.


Your one-off taxi ride to Kings in a non-urgent situation might take a couple of minutes longer. So what?

Meanwhile, perhaps a couple of hundred other people's daily bus journeys might take a couple of minutes less because of the reduced congestion.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2015)

To put things into perspective - because I feel the inconvenience of slightly more circuitous taxi rides is being totally overblown - here's the actual difference between the two routes (from random address on Style Gdns to Kings).


----------



## CH1 (Aug 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> To put things into perspective - because I feel the inconvenience of slightly more circuitous taxi rides is being totally overblown - here's the actual difference between the two routes (from random address on Style Gdns to Kings).
> 
> View attachment 75009 View attachment 75010


Will they be learning this in "The Knowledge"?


----------



## LadyV (Aug 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> To put things into perspective - because I feel the inconvenience of slightly more circuitous taxi rides is being totally overblown - here's the actual difference between the two routes (from random address on Style Gdns to Kings).
> 
> View attachment 75009 View attachment 75010



True when you put it like that it probably does seem like it's being overblown but what Google maps fails to put into the mix is on the Coldharbour Lane route, you're on a main road which is wide enough to have parked cars and two lanes of traffic, on the other route you're going down little roads that because they some of them don't have any parking restrictions, have cars parked on both sides and it's often down to one lane of traffic so that 5 minutes becomes 10-15 minutes.



teuchter said:


> Meanwhile, perhaps a couple of hundred other people's daily bus journeys might take a couple of minutes less because of the reduced congestion.


What reduced congestion? The most congested part of Coldharbour Lane, it's junction with Denmark Hill, will still be congested by your route as it brings you that way. And as for the rest of Coldharbour Lane, cars are still going to use it, drivers will just different ways of accessing it, mostly down the little roads I mention above.

The closure is not going to alleviate congestion anywhere except on Loughborough Road, so while everyone there basks in the marginally cleaner air, elsewhere on all these little roads that aren't designed for so much traffic, their air quality will deteriorate even more as there is no room for traffic to move so there will be more standing traffic with their engines on, unlike on Loughborough Road where they can move on. But hey ho why should we care, doesn't affect us right? As long as we have cleaner air on Loughborough Road and we have a town centre!

Until there is greater change at a higher level, car usage is never going to go down, by closing roads all you're doing is sending it somewhere else and clogging up roads that aren't designed for it, why not keep traffic on more arterial roads that are wider and have trees that can suck up some of the CO2?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2015)

I meant congestion on Loughborough Road, mainly, where the P5 runs.

You seem to write with quite some confidence in your predictions about what the effects of these closures will be, on the massively complex system that is London's road traffic. Rather than speculating I'd rather wait and see what the results of the experimental period are. If it turns out that it does simply displace traffic onto smaller roads in the area, then I would be happy to declare the scheme a failure.

I'm not clear about exactly who's designed the scheme (is it mainly based on LJAG's proposals or has some expertise from TfL/Lambeth traffic planning been involved?) but if it's been done properly then the potential for these effects will have been taken into account. I would imagine the idea is to make the cut-through options slow enough that drivers stay on the main routes designed for through-traffic instead.

I am only a very occasional driver, but I sometimes use the route down Loughborough Rd if I'm going from LJ to somewhere in the Stockwell direction. If the closures come in, I don't think I would attempt a circuitous route through the back streets - I'd just go along Coldharbour Lane towards Brixton and down past the police station instead.


----------



## Aeryn (Aug 7, 2015)

Teuchtar, let me guess. You're under 60, well-off, with no chronic health problems or mobility issues. You don't have young children (or if you do, they're non-resident) and you have no caring responsibilities for older relatives.

You are lucky to be in such a fortunate position, where you can mock the idea of a 15minute walk being difficult for some people in other threads, and seem unaware of the need for hospital transport and dial-a-ride services in this one. Please try to imagine for a minute that not everybody is as fortunate as you. 

I know patients who attend hospital four times a week for dialysis - worsening their journey times IS going to impact their lives significantly, and they are upset and worried about this. I know older people who are concerned about being isolated when their families find it harder to get to them or when taxis decide they don't want to drive round and round the houses. And then there are the businesses worried about reduced footfall and problems with their deliveries.

People locally really are going to be negatively affected by this, difficult as it may be for you to imagine, and you suggesting that everybody should learn to ride a bike, or just dismissing their worries as "nonsense" or "so what?" is pretty offensive.


----------



## LadyV (Aug 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I meant congestion on Loughborough Road, mainly, where the P5 runs.
> 
> You seem to write with quite some confidence in your predictions about what the effects of these closures will be, on the massively complex system that is London's road traffic. Rather than speculating I'd rather wait and see what the results of the experimental period are. If it turns out that it does simply displace traffic onto smaller roads in the area, then I would be happy to declare the scheme a failure.
> 
> ...



I guess I'm in worse case scenario mode, on an average day to day basis, other then my safety concerns, the closure won't affect me, I mostly walk and use public transport, I'm an weekend car user but I use the Loughbrough Road/Coldharbour Lane junction practically every time I use my car, so to have it closed will be a inconvenience. But in the grand scheme of things it won't be the end of the world. However going off your description of how you use Loughborough Road I think I'm on the other side of the closure to you, so using Coldharbour Lane won't be an option really, getting to Camberwell will involve the route we discussed before, getting to Brixton will involve the weird route near Barrington Road, the only destination not affected is going towards Oval which I rarely do. 

What I don't like is the feeling of being kettled in, yes you can still get in and out in a car but it's not going to be easy. I've resigned myself to the fact that is is happening now but I don't have to like it!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> Teuchtar, let me guess. You're under 60, well-off, with no chronic health problems or mobility issues. You don't have young children (or if you do, they're non-resident) and you have no caring responsibilities for older relatives.
> 
> You are lucky to be in such a fortunate position, where you can mock the idea of a 15minute walk being difficult for some people in other threads, and seem unaware of the need for hospital transport and dial-a-ride services in this one. Please try to imagine for a minute that not everybody is as fortunate as you.
> 
> ...



All your points would be valid if this scheme really was going to make it significantly more difficult to access places within the affected area. But I don't think it is. I think you are overstating what will be a marginal increase in inconvenience in certain situations. Your previous comments about ghettoisation and places being completely cordoned off suggest to me that you haven't looked properly at the reality of what's being proposed.

Like I say, if, during the experimental period, there's evidence of signifiant problems arising then I will be happy to change my opinion.

Nowhere am I suggesting that everyone should learn to ride a bike. And the instance of mocking the idea of a 15 minute walk being excessive, that was aimed at a specific poster, a frequent u75 poster who I'm fairly sure is young and fit. Of course there are people for whom that could be difficult. Don't try and misrepresent me please.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2015)

A more general comment, regarding these issues relating to people with reduced mobility.

These are points that are nearly always raised when anything aimed at reducing the dominance of cars is proposed.

Addressing them is a simple matter of taking them into account when a scheme is designed. Making sure there is still full access for emergency services. If parking is restricted making sure there are exceptions for disabled drivers and access for pick-up and drop-off of those needing assistance. If routes are blocked, accepting that journeys may be slightly extended for a small number in the interest of the greater good, but that they are not unreasonably extended. All this stuff can be dealt with in the detail of the design. I don't accept it at all as a valid argument against the general principal of reducing car dominance.

And it should always be remembered that while there are a small number of people who are totally reliant on door to door motorised transport, there are lots of people who for medical reasons can't drive. They may or may not have mobility issues but many do have chronic health isuues. All these people are disadvantaged in any system where the private car is dominant. They rely on public transport. The less congested the roads are, the more effective pubic transport can be. The less dangerous the roads are, the more people will feel safe cycling and walking. And the more people who can cycle and walk, the less pressure there is on public transport for those who can't. One of the reasons TfL encourages people to walk and cycle is that it takes pressure of the tube and buses. 

Reducing the dominance of private cars, as a general principle, can benefit everyone, including those who are totally dependent on motorised transport. In a London where there are fewer cars on the road, the dialysis patient, or anyone else making a car journey that is actually necessary, can get to their dstination more quickly. But it only works if you aim towards a change in the whole system. That comes about from lots of local level changes all over the city. You can argue that blocking this rat run won't really discourage commuters from outside the area from driving to work because they'll find another one. Not if there is a consisitent city-wide policy that has as its central principal that pedestrians, cyclists and public transport should have priority. As it gradually becomes less convenient for people to make non-essential journeys by car they will transfer to other modes. 

So looking at this on an entirely local level is wrong - it is essentially NIMBYism. I'm not saying that this means you can't talk about specific effects you are concerned about locally. But it needs to be considered in the wider question of whether it contributes to a citywide (ideally country-wide but that's another matter) effort to reduce car dominance. Thats why I am dismissive of complaints that in some individual circumstance, a journey might take a few minutes longer. That small sacrifice in convenience is completely worth it if it contributes to a wider change that can benefit everyone in the longer term - very possibly including that individual.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Don't try and misrepresent me please.


you do such a good job yourself no one else need bother.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> But it only works if you aim towards a change in the whole system. That comes about from lots of local level changes all over the city.
> 
> But it needs to be considered in the wider question of whether it contributes to a citywide (ideally country-wide but that's another matter) effort to reduce car dominance. .



I was up in Walthamstow to see my friend and they are bringing in road closures up there. So its London wide idea to reduce car dominance. 

What should have happened is that TFL, Mayor and Lambeth should have explained more what the underlying philosophy behind this is. Whiich is as you say to reduce car use.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2015)

Yes possibly.

Although I think some people will object whoever presents the argument. 

Either it's a faceless monolith like TfL imposing its plans with no understanding of local issues. Or it's local busybodies trying to  microengineer social cleansing under the false flag of grander principles.


----------



## shifting gears (Aug 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Yes possibly.
> 
> Although I think some people will object whoever presents the argument.
> 
> Either it's a faceless monolith like TfL imposing its plans with no understanding of local issues. Or it's local busybodies trying to  microengineer social cleansing under the false flag of grander principles.



Or it's an over-privileged cock trying to belittle people whose lives will actually be affected.


----------



## LadyV (Aug 17, 2015)

Update on the start of the road closures from Cllr Jennifer Braithwaite. 

"Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch on the experimental road closures at Loughborough Junction. All households and businesses should be receiving a letter in the next week or so with an update. However, as you’ve already made contact, I thought I’d give you a heads up.

The plan is to get started on Saturday 29th August. It might take a few days to make all the changes but once fully implemented the closures to through traffic will include:
·  Loughborough Road, north of the junction with Ridgeway Road
·  Barrington Road
·  Calais Street
·  Padfield Road
·  Lilford Road, and
·  Garden Grove

This is a six month experiment that will be kept under continuous observation. We anticipate starting to get a decent understanding of the trial’s impact after about 4weeks; will hold an interim review at 3months; and a final consultation and evaluation of the project’s effectiveness at 6months. Please find attached some additional information – this will also be available online before the end of August at www.lambeth.gov.uk/lj, but isn’t yet live.

Stockwell Partnership, a Lambeth-based community charity, have been appointed to manage on-going consultation and engagement with local residents and businesses – dates, times and venues will be advertised as soon as possible. On that note, following the recent Call In, local councillors in Coldharbour, Vassall and Herne Hill have made clear that they would like to ensure as many local people as possible are aware of and involved in this project. I am asking officers to help establish a councillor led tri-ward forum which meets regularly over the initial life of the project to discuss its impact and influence its outcome.

Once the project is up and running please feel free to send me your views. You can also contact the officers in charge, George Wright and Barbara Poulter, who are available on gwright@lambeth.gov.uk and bpoulter@lambeth.gov.uk respectively."

So it begins over the bank holiday, ready for lots of confusion come Tuesday morning when quite a few kids go back to school, think I might hibernate that day!


----------



## leanderman (Aug 17, 2015)

I'd welcome a similar scheme here in lower Tulse Hill, where we can't even get adequate pedestrian crossings because cars come first.


----------



## Beasley (Aug 21, 2015)

Signs are starting to go up already, these are on Loughborough Road:


----------



## Bobzillard (Aug 21, 2015)

A letter from Lambeth about the scheme was posted through our door on Lilford Road this morning -- see below. 
I would be interested to know if the area covered was any larger this time and if the letters have been posted to businesses and blocks of flats.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 21, 2015)

Bobzillard said:


> A letter from Lambeth about the scheme was posted through our door on Lilford Road this morning -- see below.
> I would be interested to know if the area covered was any larger this time and if the letters have been posted to businesses and blocks of flats.



the same letter was delivered to us and we were not consulted either.......


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2015)

Bobzillard said:


> A letter from Lambeth about the scheme was posted through our door on Lilford Road this morning -- see below.
> I would be interested to know if the area covered was any larger this time and if the letters have been posted to businesses and blocks of flats.



Not in CHL near LJ.

What I do not like about the letter is this:




> As a council, we have a vision for a better Loughborough Junction. We want to create a safer, cleaner, more pleasant place for people to live and work, and for the area to be a destination
> in its own right. At the moment it is dominated by traffic- Loughborough Road sees an incredible
> 13,000 vehicles pass through on a typical weekday. To improve the area we want to create
> open public spaces, safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, environmental improvements
> ...



When I attended the LJ masterplan meetings we were told the road closures were a separate issue. That the masterplan was being developed to work whether the road closures were permanent or not.

The letter you received implies this is not the case. That the Council see road closures as integral part of regenerating LJ.

This was not the message that officers gave at the masterplan consultation meetings.


----------



## Angellic (Aug 22, 2015)

Bobzillard said:


> A letter from Lambeth about the scheme was posted through our door on Lilford Road this morning -- see below.
> I would be interested to know if the area covered was any larger this time and if the letters have been posted to businesses and blocks of flats.



Nothing in Angell Park Gardens either.


----------



## Beasley (Aug 30, 2015)

The "experiment" began on Saturday -- two days ago -- with "No Entry" signs at the six roads affected and, in addition to that, three huge plant pots across Padfield Road.

The signs give little advance warning being high off the ground and often badly positioned and obscured from view by trees or street clutter. 

There has been no police presence as yet so traffic has flowed as it normally does (except in Padfield Road where drivers have either turned round or gone through on the pavement).


----------



## Edmund Bird (Aug 31, 2015)

Crispy said:


> '


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 31, 2015)

Beasley said:


> The "experiment" began on Saturday -- two days ago -- with "No Entry" signs at the six roads affected and, in addition to that, three huge plant pots across Padfield Road.
> 
> The signs give little advance warning being high off the ground and often badly positioned and obscured from view by trees or street clutter.
> 
> There has been no police presence as yet so traffic has flowed as it normally does (except in Padfield Road where drivers have either turned round or gone through on the pavement).


Interesting. Seems pretty rubbish to "close the road" but not put in any measures to actually close the road, other than put a few signs up. Presumably there will be quite a few fines in the post for inattentive drivers...

Any other reflections on how the trial closure is working?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 31, 2015)

I read this article this morning which is relevant - people want to live on quiet streets, so why is it so difficult to close residential streets to through traffic?


----------



## Beasley (Aug 31, 2015)

The signs are terrible and cars have been driving past them all day. In Padfield Road one of the enormous planters has been knocked over, presumably by a vehicle passing on the pavement.

 

They probably decided to go gently on enforcement until the word gets out, but what next? Will they use car mounted CCTV cameras to catch drivers out?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 31, 2015)

Beasley said:


> The signs are terrible and cars have been driving past them all day. In Padfield Road one of the enormous planters has been knocked over, presumably by a vehicle passing on the pavement.
> 
> View attachment 76025
> 
> They probably decided to go gently on enforcement until the word gets out, but what next? Will they use car mounted CCTV cameras to catch drivers out?


Thanks for posting the pic. Any noticeable effect on traffic?

I must admit, I'd only really been thinking about the Loughborough Road closure. The Padfield Road one looks good. Will mean more space for cars/parking outside the garages, and the opportunity for Sem Cafe to get some more tables/chairs out on the pavement, with no traffic rushing past.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I read this article this morning which is relevant - people want to live on quiet streets, so why is it so difficult to close residential streets to through traffic?



Interesting article. Not sure if it gets to bottom of why there is a lot of opposition. 

My friend in Walthamstow is in the Mini Holland area. It mainly terraced streets with some shops. Roads have been made cul de sacs except for bicycles using planters like in Beasley photo above. 

Walthamstow won funding from TFL to do a major scheme based on Dutch planning ideas for roads. 

The impression I get from my friend is that its been done from above rather than bottom up lobbying. Except for cycling groups. 

Whilst she is not against it its a hard sell to get people to support road closures.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2015)

Monday. Less traffic due to Bank Holiday. But no one was taking any notice of the road closures.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2015)

Seems completely shambolic. Three giant plant pots on Padfield road with a "no entry" symbol spray painted on by hand. It looks like some kind of unofficial street-reclaiming which presumably is why drivers seem to feel it's fine just to drive right round them on the pavement (I watched a couple do this within the two minutes I was walking past).

If you look carefully there is a "no through road" sign up just before the junction but that's it.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Seems completely shambolic. Three giant plant pots on Padfield road with a "no entry" symbol spray painted on by hand. It looks like some kind of unofficial street-reclaiming which presumably is why drivers seem to feel it's fine just to drive right round them on the pavement (I watched a couple do this within the two minutes I was walking past).
> 
> If you look carefully there is a "no through road" sign up just before the junction but that's it.


If George Wright were a politician he would find himself reshuffled into the Town Twinning Committee.


----------



## LadyV (Sep 1, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I read this article this morning which is relevant - people want to live on quiet streets, so why is it so difficult to close residential streets to through traffic?



This is quite a biased article by a cyclist. I'm not sure I really agree with it, this is just one of many lines I have issue with,  "Because, with a free choice, the vast majority of people will choose to live on a street that is (effectively) a cul de sac to motor traffic rather than a through route", I do live on what is essentially a cul de sac, with a patch of grass in the centre, yet all the kids hang out on the corner of the cul de sac, older ones sitting on a wall looking like the vultures from Jungle Book, younger ones constantly kicking a ball against the wall of an old ladies house, driving her nuts and then even younger ones using cars as seats or even sometimes car roofs as dancing podiums! Give me a main road any day, I'd rather deal with the noise of cars than the level of noise that they can produce, cul de sacs might be nice in suburbia but in the city, they are hell!


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2015)

So ... we should encourage motor traffic so as to keep noisy youths off the streets?

If there's a problem with some kids behaving in a way that is antisocial this doesn't seem a very clever way of dealing with it. For one, what about all the kids that don't behave in a way that unreasonably disturbs their neighbours? Should they have to stay indoors because all their local streets have been deliberately been made unsafe or univiting as places for them to hang out?

Also, perhaps the reason a large number of kids congregate in your cul-de-sac is that most other streets don't allow them to do so. If it were more generally the case that streets are places where people can hang out and socialise (not just kids) then don't you think the problems you mention would be less concentrated on your road?


----------



## Winot (Sep 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So ... we should encourage motor traffic so as to keep noisy youths off the streets?



Yes, then the problem of motor traffic noise can be dealt with by increasing flights into Heathrow.


----------



## editor (Sep 1, 2015)

I don't think I've seen a sign saying "Advanced Warning" before...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 1, 2015)

I think the experiment is doomed if the only change is signs saying 'please don't drive down this road'. There needs to be some physical detterance imo. 

I'm interested in whether other locals like Beasley LadyV Angellic and others would be willing to change their minds about the 'closure' if they witnessed a truly demonstrable, positive effect in their area - e.g. quieter roads, less pollution, less noise etc?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 2, 2015)

This morning did notice less traffic on Loughborough road. Though this may be due to being morning after BH. 

Coming back up Loughborough road did see one sign saying no traffic but that was it. 

So not really sure how this is supposed to work.


----------



## Angellic (Sep 2, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I think the experiment is doomed if the only change is signs saying 'please don't drive down this road'. There needs to be some physical detterance imo.
> 
> I'm interested in whether other locals like Beasley LadyV Angellic and others would be willing to change their minds about the 'closure' if they witnessed a truly demonstrable, positive effect in their area - e.g. quieter roads, less pollution, less noise etc?



I haven't expressed an opinion wither way.At least I don't think that I have. I'm in favour of the trial period if it's run properly but it looks to have got off to a bad start. It would probably mean less traffic around where I live, though it has been quieter (before the closures started) recently but this might be due to it being August and certainly due to the fact that St John's School is being rebuilt. Haven't seen any signs around Barrington Rd either.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 2, 2015)

editor said:


> I don't think I've seen a sign saying "Advanced Warning" before...
> View attachment 76066


Surely the continued presence of advanced warning signs suggests to the average motorist that the scheme is not yet in opeation?


----------



## editor (Sep 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Surely the continued presence of advanced warning signs suggests to the average motorist that the scheme is not yet in opeation?


Then that's an "advance" warning, no? "Advanced" sounds like it's an extra special kind of hi-tech warning to me!


----------



## CH1 (Sep 2, 2015)

editor said:


> Then that's an "advance" warning, no? "Advanced" sounds like it's an extra special kind of hi-tech warning to me!


I suspect neither of us had the benefit of "Kennedy's Latin Primer" to fully appreciate the nuances of English grammar!


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 2, 2015)

Winot said:


> Yes, then the problem of motor traffic noise can be dealt with by increasing flights into Heathrow.


......while we're at it we could solve problems associated with poverty by driving out the poor people


----------



## LadyV (Sep 2, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So ... we should encourage motor traffic so as to keep noisy youths off the streets?
> 
> If there's a problem with some kids behaving in a way that is antisocial this doesn't seem a very clever way of dealing with it. For one, what about all the kids that don't behave in a way that unreasonably disturbs their neighbours? Should they have to stay indoors because all their local streets have been deliberately been made unsafe or univiting as places for them to hang out?
> 
> Also, perhaps the reason a large number of kids congregate in your cul-de-sac is that most other streets don't allow them to do so. If it were more generally the case that streets are places where people can hang out and socialise (not just kids) then don't you think the problems you mention would be less concentrated on your road?



Not at all, it's a personal preference, I think you're absolutely right, there is no where else for them to go, I would rather see money being spent on this go to better facilities for them. I was merely expressing a personal preference that I would prefer to hear traffic than their incessant screaming but then I'm a grumpy old cow!  

As for "their local streets have been deliberately been made unsafe" Loughborough Road has been a thoroughfare for a lot longer than any of us have been around, so it hasn't been made deliberately unsafe at all. The powers at be knocked down the perfectly functional houses that were there before to create what's there now, so surely the powers at be building an estate on a relatively main road is to fault, not the road.


----------



## LadyV (Sep 2, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I think the experiment is doomed if the only change is signs saying 'please don't drive down this road'. There needs to be some physical detterance imo.
> 
> I'm interested in whether other locals like Beasley LadyV Angellic and others would be willing to change their minds about the 'closure' if they witnessed a truly demonstrable, positive effect in their area - e.g. quieter roads, less pollution, less noise etc?



Yes I might be willing to change my mind but much of my objection has not been about the things you mention, I'm all in favour of those things just not at the expense of feeling kettled, the possible increase in anti social behaviour, and generally feeling less safe when walking home. These are just my personal opinions, I don't have a magic ball so I don't know what will happen.

I won't lie, I would like the road closure to fail but I would like it to fail for proper reasons not because of the terrible implementation of it that we're seeing now. If they're going to do it needs to be done properly. At the moment it looks like the council want it to fail also.


----------



## prunus (Sep 2, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> This morning did notice less traffic on Loughborough road. Though this may be due to being morning after BH.
> 
> Coming back up Loughborough road did see one sign saying no traffic but that was it.
> 
> So not really sure how this is supposed to work.



It's a farce of Lambethian proportions.  It is not going to work as it is - people are completely ignoring the signs.

I think at least part of the reason is that they've not put up any F****CKING NO ENTRY SIGNS!!!  Ahem.  Sorry.  But basically all the signs look like 'road temporarily closed for works' type things.  People then see that traffic is flowing freely so think 'oh ok it's not started yet, on we go'.

They can't physically block the roads coz of buses in the main, also emergency services etc.

Still, it'll be interesting to see how they spin it as a success to make it permanent.  "See - didn't have any negative effects on local business?"  Or any f***cking effect at all


----------



## Winot (Sep 2, 2015)

prunus said:


> It's a farce of Lambethian proportions.  It is not going to work as it is - people are completely ignoring the signs.
> 
> I think at least part of the reason is that they've not put up any F****CKING NO ENTRY SIGNS!!!  Ahem.  Sorry.  But basically all the signs look like 'road temporarily closed for works' type things.  People then see that traffic is flowing freely so think 'oh ok it's not started yet, on we go'.
> 
> ...



The Emperor's New Road Closure.


----------



## Aeryn (Sep 3, 2015)

Saw this today in SLP:

Loughborough Junction road closures 'causing absolute chaos | South London Press'


----------



## CH1 (Sep 4, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> Saw this today in SLP:
> 
> Loughborough Junction road closures 'causing absolute chaos | South London Press'


They got a good resident quote there.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 4, 2015)

Dreadful journalism. A "news" story that consists of the account and opinion of one person.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Dreadful journalism. A "news" story that consists of the account and opinion of one person.



From a technical, journalist's perspective, the quotes are good though. 

Rarely does a malcontent state their case, however misguided, so succinctly.

Not sure why it is 'absolute chaos' when the closure has had so little effect.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Dreadful journalism. A "news" story that consists of the account and opinion of one person.


I imagine though that the resident quoted has better local knowledge of the Loughborough Road/Angel Road area than the councillor quoted and responsible for this debacle (who actually represents Gipsy Hill).


----------



## CH1 (Sep 4, 2015)

leanderman said:


> From a technical, journalist's perspective, the quotes are good though.
> Rarely does a malcontent state their case, however misguided, so succinctly.
> Not sure why it is 'absolute chaos' when the closure has had so little effect.


If he's got lorries backing up outside his house it will be chaos surely? Especially in a residential area where there are normally no lorries.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> If he's got lorries backing up outside his house it will be chaos surely? Especially in a residential area where there are normally no lorries.



If. And not absolute. Or even chaos. 

The scheme may be off to bad start, which is a shame in the most congested city in Europe and whose adults are among the least active in the world (today's Economist):


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 5, 2015)

leanderman said:


> If. And not absolute. Or even chaos.
> 
> The scheme may be off to bad start, which is a shame in the most congested city in Europe:



Looked this up and it comes from this


> Population growth and urbanisation are key drivers of congestion, and the UK’s population grew by 491,100 last year, reaching a record high. London’s population also experienced high growth in 2014, increasing by 122,100 people[4]. This contributed to drivers in the capital spending 96 hours on average stuck in traffic, 14 hours more than in 2013, resulting in London becoming Europe’s most congested city.



Does seem to me that the amount of traffic on central London roads has got higher.


----------



## ricbake (Sep 5, 2015)

https://goo.gl/photos/bBbMABrQKZzMwG7F8 

Calais Street / Lillford Road, Barrington Road and Loughborough Road Closures being ignored - presumably Padfield Rd and Gordon Grove are the same.

When drivers were asked about ignoring the signage they invariably said they had not noticed it or seen any advanced warnings or indication that the road use had been altered in anyway. Having signage that is being so completely disregarded and unenforced or only occasionally enforced brings many new risks, problems and possible conflict to the street. 

For this experiment to be brought in without  better signage, advanced warnings and indications that the road use has been so radically altered is dangerous. On Calais Street drivers are avoiding on coming cars on a single track; aware there is a park and perhaps children; looking for pedestrians on the Zebra Crossing; checking for traffic at the cross roads; monitoring parked cars; without improved information it currently appears tantamount to encouraging motorists to break the law. They don't see the signs!

I realize that this experiment  is very new but isn't functioning at any of the closure points. There was consultation and there does appear to be some dispute about how that was conducted. For it to arrive without any back up of additional temporary signage or advice to motorist about alternate routes seems very risky and quite likely to inspire road rage or cause accidents


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 5, 2015)

ricbake said:


> When drivers were asked about ignoring the signage they invariably said they had not noticed it or seen any advanced warnings or indication that the road use had been altered in anyway. Having signage that is being so completely disregarded and unenforced or only occasionally enforced brings many new risks, problems and possible conflict to the street.



The signage on the cross roads at the Loughborough Road end is clear.

There are several signs. I have noticed a drop off in traffic on that road. So some must be taking notice of it.

Drivers would say they didn’t notice it. Its how it works in London. Unless there is actual closing off of road drivers will use it and disregard the signs. Unless they think a camera might get them.

I see the same kind of thing in West End. For example going down Rathbone place crossing Oxford street into Soho sq. Its not blocked off but cycles only. See cars sometimes going straight over into Soho sq. Reason most drivers do not take that short cut is they know there is camera there.

Not saying this is good to use cameras.

What I would say is that this kind of Dutch traffic system works ok in Holland because its a different culture over there. Had a chat with a Dutch traffic engineer I bumped into in Oxford street a while back who was surprised at how car centred roads are in London.

In London everyone is in a rush and bending the rules of the road to get around is how it works in reality. What is needed is a less pressured work culture.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 6, 2015)

Yep. Having helped close this road a few times it's clear to me that drivers don't give a toss about signs. However many and however official. 

This is a car city


----------



## CH1 (Sep 6, 2015)

ricbake said:


> I realize that this experiment  is very new but isn't functioning at any of the closure points. There was consultation and there does appear to be some dispute about how that was conducted. For it to arrive without any back up of additional temporary signage or advice to motorist about alternate routes seems very risky and quite likely to inspire road rage or cause accidents


I doubt any motorists were consulted. Looks like the police weren't either.

There is a Police office right there at Loughborough Junction. They could pop out and stop cars until the carless scheme is properly working.
Apparently they're not bovvered.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Yep. Having helped close this road a few times it's clear to me that _*drivers don't give a toss about signs.*_ However many and however official.
> 
> This is a car city




Brixton news, rumour and general chat - Aug 2015


----------



## Beasley (Sep 6, 2015)

ricbake said:


> https://goo.gl/photos/bBbMABrQKZzMwG7F8
> When drivers were asked about ignoring the signage they invariably said they had not noticed it or seen any advanced warnings or indication that the road use had been altered in anyway.


Things may be about to change: see the email below that was sent on Friday by the project manager, George Wright, to people who contacted him during the 'consultation' period.

Good afternoon
I am writing to you because you have shown an interest in the experimental road closures that  have recently been introduced across the Loughborough Junction and Myatt’s Field area.

The level of non-compliance across the closure zone is high and disappointing.  Early next week, we shall be introducing a number of additional road markings and signs to further advise motorists that they should not be passing the point No Entry signs nor entering the Loughborough Road Pedestrians Zone.  You may also see the CCTV car deployed around the area to record motorists who continue to pass the signs.  Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite will be speaking with the Police to seek their assistance in educating motorists about the new measures.

Next week, we also plan to introduce barriers to reduce the width of the carriageways and send a further visual signal that there are restrictions in place.  In the longer term we would like to replace these with planters and it would be good to know if there is the capacity with local groups to make/maintain the planters.  There are funds available for this type of thing and the attachment gives more details of how local groups can apply for grants of up to £1000.

It is planned to close Loughborough Road Pedestrian Zone to all traffic including buses on the weekend of 26/27 September, so please think about getting involved in this event and maybe apply for some funds.

This is start of an ambitious experiment, so please bear with us.
Best wishes


----------



## Beasley (Sep 6, 2015)

Job opportunity! Seen on Lambeth Cyclists forum:

Morning
We'd like to pay someone to hand out leaflets to motorists on Loughborough Road advising them that it is now a Ped Zone and they run the risk of a PCN if they continue to use the street.
Is there anyone you know who might be interested in this?
Cheers,
George Wright
T: 020 7926 0728   E: <GWright@lambeth.gov.uk>


----------



## CH1 (Sep 7, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Good afternoon
> I am writing to you because you have shown an interest in the experimental road closures that  have recently been introduced across the Loughborough Junction and Myatt’s Field area.
> 
> The level of non-compliance across the closure zone is high and disappointing.  Early next week, we shall be introducing a number of additional road markings and signs to further advise motorists that they should not be passing the point No Entry signs nor entering the Loughborough Road Pedestrians Zone.  You may also see the CCTV car deployed around the area to record motorists who continue to pass the signs.  Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite will be speaking with the Police to seek their assistance in educating motorists about the new measures.
> ...


Sorry, but Mr Wright seems to be demented.

He has introduced a scheme which is not working. Now he wants to also ban buses on 26/27 September. Why?
Surely he would get off to a good start by making his original scheme work properly. What is the idea of introducing a bus ban for?

The one thing George Wright could do for the area  he is totally uninterested in apparently - giving us a London Overground station at East Brixton.

Meanwhile please don't wreck our bus service George!


----------



## Tricky Skills (Sep 7, 2015)

This was the scene early on Saturday evening:


----------



## Greebo (Sep 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> <snip> The one thing George Wright could do for the area  he is totally uninterested in apparently - giving us a London Overground station at East Brixton.
> 
> Meanwhile please don't wreck our bus service George!


Word, a lot of people in the area are very reliant on the local buses, even to link Loughborough Junction up with Brixton.  It might seem a perfectly walkable distance, but it's not if elderly, disabled, with at least one small child, and/or carrying shopping.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 7, 2015)

Greebo said:


> Word, a lot of people in the area are very reliant on the local buses, even to link Loughborogh Junction up with Brixton.  It might seem a perfectly walkable distance, but it's not if elderly, disabled, with at least one small child, and/or carrying shopping.


If you live somewhere round Fiveways the P5 is the ONLY bus service - so what happens if they block both Loughborough Road and Barrington Road on 26th/27th September then? Will the P5 be diverted via Camberwell Green and Coldharbour Lane? I think we should be told about this.


----------



## bimble (Sep 9, 2015)

So this is the view from my window as of this morning when these appeared. 
£28,000 spent on this "experiement " so far.
 Me personally I'm baffled by the logic of it. 
People have been stopping, looking confused for a bit and then about 8 out of 10 driving over them.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> So this is the view from my window as of this morning when these appeared.
> £28,000 spent on this "experiement " so far.
> Me personally I'm baffled by the logic of it.
> People have been stopping, looking confused for a bit and then about 8 out of 10 driving over them.
> View attachment 76367


Is that the road to the bridge leading to Elam Place?
In which case do we know if the sole access route designated for breakers and car repairers is now via Minet Road past the Loughborough Primary School?
Sounds like a big improvement to me - NOT.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 9, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Is that the road to the bridge leading to Elam Place?
> In which case do we know if the sole access route designated for breakers and car repairers is now via Minet Road past the Loughborough Primary School?
> Sounds like a big improvement to me - NOT.


You could always look at the map already posted....

 

looks to me like the junction of Flaxman Rd / Gorden grove. I think the no entry signs say "access only" - because the actual closure is the other side of the bridge and the other side of Wickwood street which leads to the breakers. So the access to those breakers would be from this side not via Minet Rd. 

In fact you will notice the dashed green line goes past the school, and I think it indicates one of the safe/quiet walking routes, presumably facilitated in part by the closure point concerned.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 9, 2015)

teuchter said:


> looks to me like the junction of Flaxman Rd / Gorden grove. I think the no entry signs say "access only"


I walked that way round to get my bus to Camberwell just now.
bimble's photo captures the situation. Pedestrian that I am, and coming under the bridge from the westward side, I was assailed by the huge white signs pained on the road.

Seems pretty clear that the council think it is no entry into Flaxman Road from Gordon Grove, from Flaxman Road into Gordon Grove and also from Flaxman Road south into Flaxman Road north.

Not too sure what any motor vehicles do about it, since the only ones I could see were parked up.

I was a bit more surprised to see at the Loughborough Road itself - apart from the fact that traffic was ignoring all the No Entries - it seems to me that there was no way into or out of Ridway Road - where a lot of businesses were actually open this afternoon.

Are customers and business owners supposed to go via the semi-derelict Belinda Road, containing the waste transfer station, Clarksons Brewery and some low activity breakers?

Actually I though the Police had gated that off out of hours due to alleged drug dealing etc.


----------



## bimble (Sep 9, 2015)

Yep, photo shows the junction of Flaxman & Gordon Grove. 
I am as baffled by it as all the drivers seem to be. 
What they do is stop for a moment, confusedly, then carry on driving. 
I haven't a clue how the many car repair businesses in the arches along Gordon Grove are supposed to operate, but maybe that's ok because NR is coming to turn it all into an al fresco cupcake emporium.


----------



## Beasley (Sep 9, 2015)

I think the map above was published during the consultation. The location of this closure point and several others were subsequently changed and an updated map was published by Councillor Brathwaite in August -- see below for the Gordon Grove closure.
You can download the full map from the Lambeth website from this link: www.lambeth.gov.uk/lj and go to the bottom of the page.


----------



## Beasley (Sep 9, 2015)




----------



## teuchter (Sep 9, 2015)

Beasley said:


> I think the map above was published during the consultation. The location of this closure point and several others were subsequently changed and an updated map was published by Councillor Brathwaite in August -- see below for the Gordon Grove closure.
> You can download the full map from the Lambeth website from this link: www.lambeth.gov.uk/lj and go to the bottom of the page.


Ah. Thanks.


----------



## Beasley (Sep 9, 2015)

CH1 said:


> it seems to me that there was no way into or out of Ridgeway Road - where a lot of businesses were actually open this afternoon.



There is a way into Ridgeway Road (and Rathgar Road) but only from the south -- not from the north.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 9, 2015)

The map doesn't explain why there's a "no entry" painted across Flaxman rd itself in bimble's photo above. Maybe they just had a bit of paint left over?


----------



## bimble (Sep 9, 2015)

It's always been one way, that bit of Flaxman. 
Yes, I think they had a bit of extra paint so we got three for the price of 2 maybe. 
I know it's not the most important thing in the world but the view from my window is headache inducing now with all that giant shouty writing. Was really pretty before in its way. 

In case anyone wishes to object to the changes being made permanent, it has to be done in writing (no email address is given) with reasons to the following recipient: 

Barbara Poulter, 
Transportation Group, 
Lambeth Council, 
5th Floor, 
Blue Star House, 
234-244 Stockwell Road, 
London SW9 9SP.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 9, 2015)

Beasley said:


> There is a way into Ridgeway Road (and Rathgar Road) but only from the south -- not from the north.
> 
> View attachment 76374



You are correct. I remember that access to Ridgeway road was allowed.

However I can understand why CH1 thought that it was blocked.

As the writing on the road put in today gives appearance that that the whole of Loughborough road is no entry. When in fact this starts just after the railway bridge. 

All very confusing for drivers unless they study the maps.

And Im saying this as cyclist.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> I know it's not the most important thing in the world but the view from my window is headache inducing now with all that giant shouty writing. Was really pretty before in its way.



Yes I agree it is eyesore to have to look out on every day. 

What happened to getting rid of street clutter? Instead now having orders written on the road in big letters instead. 

I need to take a cycle around to see how it works and at this time I am finding it hard to understand the rational behind some of these closures. Or how they work. As the new shouty writing is confusing.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> I
> 
> In case anyone wishes to object to the changes being made permanent, it has to be done in writing (no email address is given) with reasons to the following recipient:
> 
> ...



Are you sure about this?

The relevant Council webpage is here



> The experimental road closures - affecting Loughborough Road, Barrington Road, Calais Street, Padfield Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove – will come into effect on August 29th for six months. Please see the map below, along with the FAQs and council report for further details.
> 
> Officers want to hear your views on the road closures while they are in effect. Alongside face-to-face consultation within the local community, you can e-mail your thoughts to Barbara Poulter at the council at:
> 
> bpoulter@lambeth.gov.uk



And this:



> *What is an experimental Traffic Management Order?*
> An experimental Traffic Management Order (TMO) can be used by a local authority to assess the impact of any changes made to the way a highway operates – in this case the closure of Loughborough Road and surrounding roads. A statutory consultation will begin at the same time as the experimental TMO and must continue for a minimum of six months. This gives the new highway arrangement time to settle down and also sufficient time for people to form their own opinion on the changes. After the six month statutory consultation, the council will assess all the representations it has received and take a decision on the way forward. The Council can also discontinue the experimental measures at any time.



So I read this as saying all comments emailed and written on paper will be taken into consideration.

It does say that people can make written representations. But I read this as an alternative to email as not everyone has access to email or likes using it. So emails should count imo.

Council do ask people to wait three weeks into the scheme before commenting on it. To give it chance to bed in so to speak. 

I do think it would be good if posters here sent comments in.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 9, 2015)

Beasley said:


> There is a way into Ridgeway Road (and Rathgar Road) but only from the south -- not from the north.
> View attachment 76374


In that case shouldn't the signage say "Access to Ridgeway and Rathgar Roads only"?
Might have more credibility then.


----------



## Beasley (Sep 10, 2015)

Quite right. It seems they have tried to get by with 'off the peg' signs when for the sake of clarity they should have stripped away the clutter and used custom made signs or maybe something completely different.

As I recall, the cycling campaigners behind this project were inspired by De Beauvoir Town in Hackney -- see the Google Street View picture below of Mortimer Road N1…


----------



## bimble (Sep 10, 2015)

I hope you're right. 
The yellow planning orders stuck to the new 'No Entry signs give the same text as this below, about how to record an objection;


----------



## Beasley (Sep 10, 2015)

The "letter to residents" on August 21 said only that "You can let us know any thoughts during the closures directly by contacting Barbara Poulter at the council either by email at bpoulter@lambeth.gov.uk or by post".

Presumably a formal objection would have to be taken seriously and have more chance of succeeding.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> I know it's not the most important thing in the world but the view from my window is headache inducing now with all that giant shouty writing. Was really pretty before in its way.



The reason there's giant shouty writing is that we have ended up with a situation where people feel so entitled to drive their cars where they want that they don't pay any attention to the street signs which inform them where they are permitted to go under the conditions of the licences we have granted them. So we have to resort to measures like this to force them to respect those conditions.

So if you want less shouty writing on the street you should join the campaign to reduce the dominance of the private car in our society


----------



## CH1 (Sep 10, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The reason there's giant shouty writing is that we have ended up with a situation where people feel so entitled to drive their cars where they want that they don't pay any attention to the street signs which inform them where they are permitted to go under the conditions of the licences we have granted them. So we have to resort to measures like this to force them to respect those conditions.
> 
> So if you want less shouty writing on the street you should join the campaign to reduce the dominance of the private car in our society


Ludicrous. I might just as well say what you have here is civil disobedience - of the same type that causes people to smoke reefers in the garden of well-known local pubs (or the street).

Clearly the shouty writers have not taken account that there are none so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## bimble (Sep 10, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The reason there's giant shouty writing is that we have ended up with a situation where people feel so entitled to drive their cars where they want that they don't pay any attention to the street signs which inform them where they are permitted to go under the conditions of the licences we have granted them. So we have to resort to measures like this to force them to respect those conditions.
> 
> So if you want less shouty writing on the street you should join the campaign to reduce the dominance of the private car in our society




I'm not a driver myself, never have been , but not sure if that counts as joining your campaign.

Anyhow, this morning they added a whole new bit of giant writing to yesterday's three. 
This one seems to be there to clarify what the only option now is:


----------



## Beasley (Sep 10, 2015)

Similar signs painted on Lilford Road on Tuesday are causing some drivers to turn into Flaxman Road or make a U-turn on Lilford. It was covered in yesterday's Evening Standard:
These road markings are leaving drivers in south London *really* confused

One of the signs is obscured by a tree and apparently they plan to remove it -- and this is only an experimental period.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 10, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Similar signs painted on Lilford Road on Tuesday are causing some drivers to turn into Flaxman Road or make a U-turn on Lilford. It was covered in yesterday's Evening Standard:
> These road markings are leaving drivers in south London *really* confused
> One of the signs is obscured by a tree and apparently they plan to remove it -- and this is only an experimental period.
> View attachment 76407


I'm almost tempted to pay a visit to St Matthews in Lilford Road to see what people there think. They are probably as bemused as everyone else.


----------



## bimble (Sep 10, 2015)

The "experimental" bit is what I find most confusing of all. 
If this is a trial I would like very much to know what it is they are going to be measuring, and how. 
How do you quantify success or failure in this experiment?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> The "experimental" bit is what I find most confusing of all.
> If this is a trial I would like very much to know what it is they are going to be measuring, and how.
> How do you quantify success or failure in this experiment?


They have done traffic counts at various locations, prior to introduction, and will compare those with counts during the experimental period.


----------



## bimble (Sep 10, 2015)

And that's it? 
What about the traffic in the streets into which everyone is now being diverted? 
What about the effect on the businesses in the restricted access zones or the feelings of local residents? Or number of accidents caused by people doing U turns etc? 
Just measuring the number of cars at one or two points near the junction seems to me a strange way of judging whether this experiment is or isn't a success.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 10, 2015)

I said "various locations", not "one or two points near the junction".

I don't know the full details because I'm not involved in it. There is some basic information in the Lambeth docs linked earlier. I would hope that the asessment looks at effects on potential cut through routes, displaced traffic flows, increase in recorded accidents etc. It should all be published in the report at the end of the trial period. Then people can be free to not read it and come to their own uninformed opinions.


----------



## bimble (Sep 10, 2015)

This attached document received just now from the council. 
It shows that they do intend to measure qualitative effects as well as number of cars at specific points, and will apparently start by posting out 10,991 letters to people who live here. 
Do feel free to read or not read or as you wish..


----------



## Beasley (Sep 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> will apparently start by posting out 10,991 letters to people who live here.



I think you will find that is referring to what they did *last* year:
A leaflet publicising the consultation and detailing opportunities to view the proposals and meet the design team was distributed to *10,991 residential and business addresses in the consultation area over 17th and 18th of September 2014 *


----------



## bimble (Sep 10, 2015)

It does say they will be sending these letters out during the road closure period:


----------



## Beasley (Sep 10, 2015)

Oops -- I missed that -- sorry!
Well, hopefully the coverage will be better than it was last time.


----------



## bimble (Sep 10, 2015)

Agreed, I didn't get anything so far, 
 I wasn't one of the 10,991 and I live right on top of 5 brand new NO ENTRY signs ..  
(red outline above wasn't meant to be aggressive).


----------



## bimble (Sep 11, 2015)

Today's new sign.. 
 at least I understand the point of this one, plus it looks genuinely temporary.


----------



## bimble (Sep 11, 2015)

Every time I come home there's something new in the street. 
They've gone on to plastic barriers now. 
What a shambles. 
This was a nice view last week.


----------



## bimble (Sep 11, 2015)

They just got moved (not by me). 
People really don't seem to like this, despite all the signage.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 11, 2015)

All feels a bit Monty Python-esque


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 76440  Today's new sign..
> at least I understand the point of this one, plus it looks genuinely temporary.


the road closure *is* the diversion, the real issue the the social cleansing of LJ which the arch evictions and the road closures are designed to facilitate"


----------



## bimble (Sep 11, 2015)

You think there is a great monolithic "They" who are coming to social cleanse LJ? 
I think it's sadder and more complicated than that, as in NR want to make money, and LJAG is led by a nice posh lady who imagines we'll be sipping cappuccinos on Loughborough Road , that sort of thing.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> You think there is a great monolithic "They" who are coming to social cleanse LJ


No, there are a lot of snouts in the trough as you have pointed out elsewhere
isn't the nice lady a property journalist ?


----------



## Greebo (Sep 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> In that case shouldn't the signage say "Access to Ridgeway and Rathgar Roads only"?
> Might have more credibility then.


You can't expect sensible or clear signage here; this is Lambeth.


----------



## bimble (Sep 12, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> isn't the nice lady a property journalist ?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 13, 2015)

Saw this on LJAG website



> “*Loughborough Junction and Myatt’s Field experimental road closures Community Chest*
> 
> *INTRODUCTION*
> 
> ...


----------



## CH1 (Sep 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Saw this on LJAG website


I think this shows what is wrong with the council and Loughborough Junction.

They can't even get the scheme working - at all - 2 weeks after starting it. so they now offer up to £10,000 of council tax payer's money to create their idea of stakeholders (totally ignoring residents views already expressed - including via ward councillors)

What kind of local democracy is this? And who is paying for it?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think this shows what is wrong with the council and Loughborough Junction.
> 
> They can't even get the scheme working - at all - 2 weeks after starting it. so they now offer up to £10,000 of council tax payer's money to create their idea of stakeholders (totally ignoring residents views already expressed - including via ward councillors)
> 
> What kind of local democracy is this? And who is paying for it?



I must say I was a bit surprised to see this. Its not impartial. The funding is all directed at projects which will support the road closure scheme. 

Lambeth Council do have a policy around giving small grants to community initiatives. The Community Fund. 

But this money has been allocated purely related to this road closure experiment.


----------



## bimble (Sep 14, 2015)

They want local people to volunteer to build planters (made of recycled scaffolding planks) to block the roads. 
That's what we are supposed to be putting our hands up for. I did take part in this a few weeks ago, but not when they were to be used a roadblocks. 
See email from the council below regarding these small grants:


----------



## CH1 (Sep 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> They want local people to volunteer to build planters (made of recycled scaffolding planks) to block the roads.
> That's what we are supposed to be putting our hands up for. I did take part in this a few weeks ago, but not when they were to be used a roadblocks.
> See email from the council below regarding these small grants:
> View attachment 76638


That explains the grants then.

The cynic in me says that planters were enthusiastically deployed in Brixton Town Centre back in the early 1990s (courtesy of Brixton Challenge).
All the planters were removed only a few years later under Chief Executive Heather Rabbatts because they attracted litter, were difficult to clean and also screened petty crime from public view apparently.


----------



## bimble (Sep 14, 2015)

The cynic in me is spoilt for choice, but yes, planters without good maintenance = bins.


----------



## Beasley (Sep 14, 2015)

Last week my post about De Beauvoir Town in this forum went unnoticed but I do think it is worth another look, particularly as our local cycling campaigners claim it as their inspiration for this horrible scheme. Does anybody know it?

In Hackney the roads closed to traffic have been treated in a very subtle way with pavements, flowerbeds, shrubs and trees -- no untidy looking street signs, planters or other clutter -- it makes Lambeth's efforts look completely amateurish.

But, that said, De Beauvoir Town is very different from Loughborough Junction with a very different street pattern: a gridiron network of quiet mainly residential streets with, significantly, the streets that most resemble Loughborough Road kept open.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 14, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Last week my post about De Beauvoir Town in this forum went unnoticed but I do think it is worth another look, particularly as our local cycling campaigners claim it as their inspiration for this horrible scheme. Over there it is the quieter residential roads that have been closed to traffic and this has been done very subtly with pavements, flowerbeds, shrubs and trees -- no untidy looking street signs or planters -- it makes Lambeth's efforts look completely amateurish.
> 
> But, that said, De Beauvoir Town is quite different from Loughborough Junction: a network of quiet streets in a gridiron pattern and (significantly) the streets there that most resemble Loughborough Road have been left open.



How interesting. Stark contrast between the two schemes. 

Would love De B kind of thing up here. Any idea how it came about?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2015)

Beasley said:


> In Hackney the roads closed to traffic have been treated in a very subtle way with pavements, flowerbeds, shrubs and trees -- no untidy looking street signs, planters or other clutter -- it makes Lambeth's efforts look completely amateurish.



Not quite a fair comparison as the scheme here is just a trial so of course they aren't going to relay pavements and so on. If the trial is a success then I'd hope there would be a proper redesign using planters and other elements. 

Unfortunately it feels like we don't have much chance of getting something like the DBT scheme seeing as people seem determined to oppose it, and the "experiment" is being carried out in a completely shambolic way by Lambeth that there will hardly be any meaningful results at the end of it.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2015)

It's not like you have to look as far as Hackney to see examples of similar schemes, by the way. The way some people are going on about it, you'd think it was some kind of radical, untried idea. But there are loads of examples of traffic calming schemes, and fairly extensive schemes to stop people using certain cut-through routes, all over London. And lots of examples of road sections closed to traffic for the purpose of establishing a better town centre. Herne Hill for example.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Last week my post about De Beauvoir Town in this forum went unnoticed but I do think it is worth another look, particularly as our local cycling campaigners claim it as their inspiration for this horrible scheme. Does anybody know it?
> 
> In Hackney the roads closed to traffic have been treated in a very subtle way with pavements, flowerbeds, shrubs and trees -- no untidy looking street signs, planters or other clutter -- it makes Lambeth's efforts look completely amateurish.
> 
> But, that said, De Beauvoir Town is very different from Loughborough Junction with a very different street pattern: a gridiron network of quiet mainly residential streets with, significantly, the streets that most resemble Loughborough Road kept open.



Not ignoring your posts. Just cannot always keep up with posts on Urban.

I do know DBT area.

You are correct its done in much more subtle way. However that area is off the main roads. Its not like LJ. The streets and housing is much more spread out with no light industrial business. The busy main roads go around the edges of the DBT area and not through it. Though I think its likely that the road closures stop short cuts and rat runs.

A problem with the LJ scheme is that its not just about traffic reduction its, as Council say, also one of the ways to make LJ a "destination" rather than somewhere to pass through. Instead of making an area "car free" its being used to redesign the area itself.

That and Network Rails/ Council newly found hostility to car repair business makes me understand why some in the area think its a middle class plot to gentrify the area.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> They want local people to volunteer to build planters (made of recycled scaffolding planks) to block the roads.
> That's what we are supposed to be putting our hands up for. I did take part in this a few weeks ago, but not when they were to be used a roadblocks.
> See email from the council below regarding these small grants:
> 
> View attachment 76638



Thats an unusually frank opinion by a Council officer.

So the Council decide to close roads and they want you to spend your free time not only making planters but also maintain them for the Council?

The Council have got it into there heads that its good for us to be exhorted to do voluntary jobs as part of this Coop Council malarkey. 

Like ordinary people don’t spend enough time just trying to keep there heads above water. Some in the Council are clueless about ordinary peoples lives. The people in my new off license in LJ work all hours.


----------



## editor (Sep 15, 2015)

FYI: there's been over 30 comments about this scheme on the Buzz article: Experimental road closures coming to Loughborough Junction despite ‘fundamentally flawed’ criticism from Brixton Society
Five more to this article:
Six months of Loughborough Junction experimental road closures following ‘flawed’ Lambeth Council consultation
Six here: 
Experimental road closures around Loughborough Junction ‘called in’ for scrutiny with residents arguing Lambeth Council consultation is flawed


----------



## bimble (Sep 16, 2015)

Just checking .. is it correct that there's a meeting this evening  at 6.30 ? 
I get this idea from one of Gramsci's posts, there is nothing on the LJAG website, or as far as I can see on lambeth's.


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 16, 2015)

Hi bimble  yes there is a meeting tonight of the Loughborough Neighbourhood planning forum


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 16, 2015)

Cars cars cars that's all people go on about on here and if people are rich enough to own one. Do you, those who are for this scheme think it is only about cars.
Half the traffic up and down Loughborough Road are business vehicles if not more than half.
Businesses have to travel through or to the closed in "KETTLED" areas. Yes I know kettled means protestors and police, this is without police but still closed in. And yes most within the roads are protesting AGAINST this scheme. But Lambeth do not want to listen to them,  most do not own cars according to Richard Ambler. 
But what of all the vehicles that need access to every property in these areas at some time or another?
What of all the vehicles that have to drive through these areas to further afield?
HoS  holds many Wedding Receptions and Funeral Wakes. It is not about drivers drinking and driving. Lots of people have a nominated driver who does NOT drink so the rest of the group can.
I am sure the majority of people who post on these forums supporting the scheme do NOT live in the area or are affected by it and have to drive out of their way through small congested streets taking up way far too much of their time to and fro work etc.
This scheme is NOT making money for Lambeth in fact it is COSTING Lambeth Council as all their vehicles for and through the areas now have to travel much longer journeys.
In fact it is costing everyone in and surrounding and passing through.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 16, 2015)

100% agree with 'concerned1'.
Closing Loughborough Road has got to be one of the stupidest ideas ever. What do they think is going to happen to the traffic that currently uses it? Do they think it will magically disappear? Or that everyone will have a 'come to Green Jesus' moment and decide to cycle instead? If they really think that, they must be certifiably insane.
No, what will happen is that Coldharbour Lane will get more congested, the centre of Brixton will get more congested (if that's even possible...), Camberwell Green will get more congested, and the small roads in the Loughborough Junction area which are still open will get congested. Everyone's journeys will take longer, everyone will be more pissed off, there will be more accidents because, guess what, if you're pissed off you're less likely to concentrate and more likely to have an accident. Costs of doing business in the area will increase. And, supremely ironic for the tree huggers, there will be more pollution because vehicles stuck in a traffic jam produce more pollution than vehicles just getting on with their journey and clearing the area quickly.
They need to knock this stupid idea on the head and LJAG whoever they are need to keep their noses out of everyone else's business.


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2015)

AMATEUR SURVEY about the road closures..
Please click on it if you have a moment:
Loughborough Junction Experimental Road Closures Survey

Results so far can be seen here 
Loughborough Junction Experimental Road Closures


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2015)

bimble said:


> AMATEUR SURVEY about the road closures..
> Please click on it if you have a moment:
> Loughborough Junction Experimental Road Closures Survey


Why are you asking people this before the experiment has even been completed? 

There's no "I'd like to see the results of the experimental period before deciding" so I can't take part.


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Why are you asking people this before the experiment has even been completed?
> 
> There's no "I'd like to see the results of the experimental period before deciding" so I can't take part.



I understand. Agree maybe it would be better to do this in a couple of months time.

My concern (after attending the meeting last night) is that Lambeth's plan for consultation is apparently nonexistent. They do not seem to have any concrete plan in place to gather qualitative data, only to measure the number of cars before and after.

Clearly people have strong feelings about this and the figure which Lambeth are using "68% of respondents support the closures" is deeply flawed.


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> There's no "I'd like to see the results of the experimental period before deciding" so I can't take part.


have added that option


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2015)

bimble said:


> My concern (after attending the meeting last night) is that Lambeth's plan for consultation is apparently nonexistent. They do not seem to have any concrete plan in place to gather qualitative data, only to measure the number of cars before and after.


What was discussed at the meeting - was the fact that the current closures/signage appear to be ineffective acknowledged?


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2015)

that was the only thing upon which there was consensus ..


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2015)

About noncompliance: 
The man from Lambeth said that the level of noncompliance was a big problem yes. 
He also explained that they will begin fining drivers from next week (having just sent out 300 warning letters so far) and that a CCTV camera will be installed on Loughborough Road. 
He acknowledged that the physical barriers may have to be removed as they do not seem to be working and are causing problems for emergency vehicles.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 17, 2015)

Three people at the meeting had decided that the the problem was with traffic coming from/going to Hinton Road and suggested Hinton Road should have been closed off instead of the current botched job where all local traffic is penalised, but through traffic continues unabated.

I recommended this here last November Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 17, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 100% agree with 'concerned1'.
> Closing Loughborough Road has got to be one of the stupidest ideas ever. What do they think is going to happen to the traffic that currently uses it? Do they think it will magically disappear? Or that everyone will have a 'come to Green Jesus' moment and decide to cycle instead? If they really think that, they must be certifiably insane.
> No, what will happen is that Coldharbour Lane will get more congested, the centre of Brixton will get more congested (if that's even possible...), Camberwell Green will get more congested, and the small roads in the Loughborough Junction area which are still open will get congested. Everyone's journeys will take longer, everyone will be more pissed off, there will be more accidents because, guess what, if you're pissed off you're less likely to concentrate and more likely to have an accident. Costs of doing business in the area will increase. And, supremely ironic for the tree huggers, there will be more pollution because vehicles stuck in a traffic jam produce more pollution than vehicles just getting on with their journey and clearing the area quickly.
> They need to knock this stupid idea on the head and LJAG whoever they are need to keep their noses out of everyone else's business.


So agree with you  on all counts.
George Wright last night was told to remove these road closures now, his reply was that he does not have the authority, he was then told he can recommend it.


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 17, 2015)

According to George Wright  last night he has closed 7 roads. He doesn't even KNOW what he has and hasn't done.
Wondering where the 7th road is ?
When questioned on how can emergency vehicles pass through the roads with barriers across them he appeared suprised and tried to explain they only partly cover Barrington Road but was then asked about Lilford Rd Gordon Grove and Calais Street to which his repsonse was that they would have to be removed.
Cars are now using a small estate road to cut through St James's Crescent to Barrington Road and end up on Loughborough Road.
No it cannot be closed  it is an estate road for residents to their homes.
George has no plans to monitor any roads at present as to traffic counts. Because drivers are not complying, it makes sense to traffic count now on all the roads as this would then show the increase of traffic as the drivers comply.
Denmark Road was not counted beofre this scheme began and this is the first road that drivers on Coldharbour Lane will use coming from Herne Hill etc.
One of the lead cyclists supporting this scheme who was seen out leafletting cyclists to support it reported last night how it was very quiet on Calais Road   interesting, no idea where that road is  or is that the 7th road?


----------



## bimble (Sep 17, 2015)

A couple of hours ago I met (by chance) someone called Chief Inspector Roy Smith. 
He was chatting to irate residents at the roadblock on Gordon Grove. 

He said he was completely unaware of the road closures until that moment, had serious concerns about what he saw there and would be getting in touch with George Wright.


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2015)

What a fuck-up.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 17, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> According to George Wright  last night he has closed 7 roads. He doesn't even KNOW what he has and hasn't done.
> Wondering where the 7th road is ?
> When questioned on how can emergency vehicles pass through the roads with barriers across them he appeared suprised and tried to explain they only partly cover Barrington Road but was then asked about Lilford Rd Gordon Grove and Calais Street to which his repsonse was that they would have to be removed.
> Cars are now using a small estate road to cut through St James's Crescent to Barrington Road and end up on Loughborough Road.
> ...



Denmark Road is in Southwark, I believe, so I guess it's not their problem.
Calais Street is near Myatts Fields - up past Fiveways towards Camberwell New Road.
As far as I know there a 6 roads closed not 7.

Well, I had the dubious pleasure of driving through the area for the first time at peak time (around 6pm) this evening. Instead of just one queue at the end of Loughborough Road then straight down towards Herne Hill, turning off at Gubyon Avenue, I now have to sit in a queue at the end of Barrington Road, another one along Coldharbour Lane until I can turn off down Shakespeare Road and yet another one where Dulwich Road meets Norwood Road. Unbounded joy!

I'm sick to death of these cyclo-nazis trying to ram cycling down everyone's throat. Personally I have no interest whatsoever in cycling. They can shove it where the sun don't shine. It's not enough for them to fuck up all the main roads in order to put in segregated cycle lanes (anyone seen Victoria Embankment recently? or Blackfriars Road? or St George's Circus?), now they want to close all the back roads as well.


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I'm sick to death of these cyclo-nazis trying to ram cycling down everyone's throat. Personally I have no interest whatsoever in cycling. They can shove it where the sun don't shine. It's not enough for them to fuck up all the main roads in order to put in segregated cycle lanes (anyone seen Victoria Embankment recently? or Blackfriars Road? or St George's Circus?), now they want to close all the back roads as well.



0/10


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> I am sure the majority of people who post on these forums supporting the scheme do NOT live in the area or are affected by it and have to drive out of their way through small congested streets taking up way far too much of their time to and fro work etc.



I live in the area and attended the meeting last night. 

I am not in LJAG.

I am neither for or against the scheme at this time. 

I cycle and use public transport as I cannot afford a car.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I'm sick to death of these cyclo-nazis trying to ram cycling down everyone's throat. Personally I have no interest whatsoever in cycling. They can shove it where the sun don't shine. It's not enough for them to fuck up all the main roads in order to put in segregated cycle lanes (anyone seen Victoria Embankment recently? or Blackfriars Road? or St George's Circus?), now they want to close all the back roads as well.



This is just abuse.

Its worse than abuse its comparing cyclists who want London to be a more cycle friendly place to people who exterminated the Jews.

Totally unacceptable and ignorant.

Bad as Black Cab drivers rep comparing cycling lobbying groups to Isis.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 17, 2015)

I agree irf520 posts were a bit OTT, but comparing it to the extermination of the Jews....?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2015)

Anyway I was at the meeting last night.

It was on the Loughborough estate which I thought was a good thing.

The meeting was the LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum. So several topics were covered re LJ.

I will try to give balanced account of the item on the agenda on road closure.

First who attended. Balance of people from the Loughborough Estate and LJAG plus "non aligned" locals like me.

An underlying issue throughout the whole meeting was the division between LJAG and Loughborough Estate. LE residents regard LJAG as middle class group who want to gentrify the area. The road closure are an example of this as they have been done mainly in the working class part of LJ.

The part closure of Loughborough road for example was criticised as making a new public space for the well off in the future

The issue of road closures was linked to what are perceived as LJAGs plans for LJ. So imo the road closure scheme cannot be seen as separate from the masterplan.

I did ask what the road closure scheme was for. As it now appears that road closures are about helping to create LJ as a "destination".

Those who asked what rational of the scheme is ( ie less cars, less pollution etc)  did not get a clear answer. This imo is a flaw in how the scheme has been implemented. The "goalposts" for what the scheme is supposed to fulfil , as one attendee noticed, kept moving.

Cllr Rachel Heywood turned up. She and her other Coldharbour Ward Cllrs have taken up complaints from residents about flawed consultation.

George the officer from Lambeth spoke first. He was disappointed at the level on non compliance. At this time those vehicles who have been going through Loughborough road are being sent warning letters. This will go on for several weeks then fines will be issued. At this time Council are using a CCTV car.

The signs have been changed several times. As Council officer see that people do not understand signs or see them to late.

Nearly all of non compliance is related to Loughborough Road.

There was a heated discussion after officer report. I didn’t think the officer handled it that well. Impression I got was that those in Council who pushed this scheme forward did not foresee this level of vocal opposition. Nor the difficulty in making the scheme work.


One person raised very good point of how the scheme will be consulted on as it goes on over six months. The Council have got "Stockwell Partnership" lined up to do this. What was concerning to me was that the officer did not seem to know how this will be done. To the point that the questioner had to tell the officer one aspect of how the consultation was already agreed to be done that the officer was not aware of.

The upshot is that Stockwell Partnership will be invited to next meeting.


Someone else criticised the scheme so far on Health and Safety issues. Firstly that there had already been an accident on Minet road. Several at meeting regarded this as down to the road closures. Otherwise safe roads are now used by drivers trying to get around road closures. This was causing an unsafe environment. 

Second car drivers were using or trying to find short cuts around estates car parks. This was causing danger to children for example. 

So some asked for the scheme to be pulled now. The officer said he cannot pull scheme. Its not under his power but he can recommend this. He said he would want to hear Police advice on public safety re increase in accidents before recommending this.
The issue of emergency vehicles came up. Some present argued that the road closures endangered life as the road closures make it longer for ambulance etc to get through. 

Also said that those who have long term illnesses will now find it difficult to get to Kings Hospital quickly.

There was someone from Lambeth Cyclists present. They to my surprise kept there head down and didn’t say much. Though they agreed that roads like Hinton might have been better to have been closed off to reduce through traffic.

The way that roads have been closed was criticized it looks amateurish. Also the idea to get residents to build and maintain planters to block roads. 

It was asked if any study has been done to work out where traffic will now go. The officer said that this is not possible to predict. Answer was that TFL do this and it can be done. 

The class issue came up. For example the road closure are all around the estate not in the better off areas. So the better off are not inconvenienced. Also the perception is the LJAG have to much influence with Council regarding what happens on the Loughborough Estate.
This is summary and some posters have put up other detail of what was said. I have probably left some bits off as it was long heated argument.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I agree irf520 posts were a bit OTT, but comparing it to the extermination of the Jews....?



Poster was comparing cyclists to the Nazis. What are they most remember for?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2015)

Winot said:


> What a fuck-up.



After re reading my post above- and I am not knee jerk against this scheme- its not going very well. 

Both sides have dug in and I do not see a happy outcome. 

If it becomes permanent its likely to cause a unbridgeable rift between to the two halves of LJ.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2015)

leanderman said:


> How interesting. Stark contrast between the two schemes.
> 
> Would love De B kind of thing up here. Any idea how it came about?



More planned for De B being done in parallel to Boris Super Highway.

In fact looks to me that Hackney Council is taking more radical plans that Lambeth.

See here for update. I have noticed new works in De B in last few weeks.



> 'We therefore intend to be more ambitious than we initially proposed. We will use this opportunity to create area-wide street and road closures and make the neighbourhoods through which the route passes genuinely cycle-friendly.
> 
> 'This will be the first time in London that we will be creating a safe haven for cyclists and pedestrians over so wide an area.'



I do cycle around there sometimes. The area is similar to your streets. So yes I think it could work in a residential area like yours.

I would be interested in knowing how the Council got public support for this or if they just pushed it through. 

The Pitfield street closure is the nearest comparable to Loughborough Road closure. Its a direct route into the area. Now you have to drive around to Kingsland road.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 17, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I'm sick to death of these cyclo-nazis trying to ram cycling down everyone's throat. Personally I have no interest whatsoever in cycling. They can shove it where the sun don't shine. It's not enough for them to fuck up all the main roads in order to put in segregated cycle lanes (anyone seen Victoria Embankment recently? or Blackfriars Road? or St George's Circus?), now they want to close all the back roads as well.


I ride a bike every day and I try to treat everyone on the road with respect, so you can take that attitude and shove up your arse sideways, dry.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2015)

Crispy said:


> I ride a bike every day and I try to treat everyone on the road with respect, so you can take that attitude and shove up your arse sideways, dry.



Unfortunately I think the increasing ( to my mind good) better provision for cycling in London is starting to cause resentment.

At the meeting last night later those who opposed the road closures started to go on about "The cyclists". As in the increasing number of cyclists on the road being a problem ( not cars).


----------



## Crispy (Sep 17, 2015)

10 cyclists take up as much space as 1 car. If you're driving a car and moaning about being stuck in traffic, you *are* the problem. Arrgh!


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2015)

What I'd really like to know is whether it's true that most residents on the estate are strongly against the scheme, or if it's a smallish group of nutters making a big noise about it. It seems consistently to be a feature of any scheme that reduces car dominance that there will be a small number of people vehemently against it, talking about tree-huggers, cyling nazis and the like. Even if the area is as middle class as you like. Lambeth's consultation suggested that most people on the estate weren't against the proposals. But of course no-one trusts Lambeth to do anything properly and the farce that is the implementation of the experimental scheme just reinforces that.

If it's really true that a significant proportion living on the Loughborough Estate just don't want this, then I'd be inclined to say, fine, don't do it (even though I strongly believe that closing off that section near the Junction is a no-brainer in terms of improving the quality of the public realm for everyone that lives in the area). If people don't want it they don't want it.

But I'd really rather an effort was made to determine what the real balance of opinion is. And I'd rather that to happen after the experimental scheme has been implemented properly, and been given time to bed in. It's massively unhelpful to start sending surveys around at this point asking people what they think of something that hasn't happened yet. And objections based on things like drivers searching for alternative routes are essentially spurious before we know if it's a long term pattern or just something that's going to happen for a few weeks before people settle into new patterns (likewise anecdotal evidence of traffic queues being longer else where at present).

Sadly it's starting to look like the whole process has been so botched that it's probably going to fail and be rejected, and not because the idea was fundamentally flawed or because it couldn't have become something that would actually be good for lots of people in the area. And that woudl really be a shame if it's not even true that most people on the Loughborough Estate oppose the scheme.

So, maybe LJAG can then try and focus some effort on implementing public realm improvements on the nice middle class side of LJ, which is populated by tree-hugging cycle nazis. And then be criticised for ignoring the people on the other side of the tracks.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 17, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Poster was comparing cyclists to the Nazis. What are they most remember for?



Oh please, it was a throw away comment. I doubt he seriously considers cyclists Nazis. And even if he was comparing them, the Nazis are famous for more than just murdering a fuck ton of Jews.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Oh please, it was a throw away comment. I doubt he seriously considers cyclists Nazis. And even if he was comparing them, the Nazis are famous for more than just murdering a fuck ton of Jews.


I don't think this is a helpful strand of conversation to pursue on this thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What I'd really like to know is whether it's true that most residents on the estate are strongly against the scheme, or if it's a smallish group of nutters making a big noise about it. It seems consistently to be a feature of any scheme that reduces car dominance that there will be a small number of people vehemently against it, talking about tree-huggers, cyling nazis and the like. Even if the area is as middle class as you like. Lambeth's consultation suggested that most people on the estate weren't against the proposals. But of course no-one trusts Lambeth to do anything properly and the farce that is the implementation of the experimental scheme just reinforces that.
> 
> If it's really true that a significant proportion living on the Loughborough Estate just don't want this, then I'd be inclined to say, fine, don't do it (even though I strongly believe that closing off that section near the Junction is a no-brainer in terms of improving the quality of the public realm for everyone that lives in the area). If people don't want it they don't want it.



The impression I get is that a lot of the estate residents regard this as LJAG idea and opposed it from the start as anything LJAG do is for the well off middle classes. I have heard this kind of thing from other residents who were not at the meeting.

At one point someone said they thought that the road closures were making roads around the estate more dangerous. That this was deliberate as LJAG wanted to kill off the Council tenants on the estate and gentrify the area.

It was not that serious but its wasn’t really a joke either. Shows how much antipathy there is towards LJAG.

The same person also said that perceptions are important. And the perception is that LJAG get listened to by Council. 

I can understand were they are coming from on the estate. They see what is happening to Brixton (Pop was mentioned by one person from estate as what they do not want). I have heard comments at other times that some fear for the long term future of there Council housing. As one person at meeting said there is a lot of deprivation on the estate and they feel improvements to the area not for them but the well off. So I think those at the meeting were representative of a lot of people on the estate. As the issue of the road closures is an issue around which other conflicts about the area are being argued about.

The issue of gentrification- which at heart is about who London is for- is not just an issue on these boards. But its out there on the estates.

Its interesting to see this in such a stark way in LJ.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I don't think this is a helpful strand of conversation to pursue on this thread.



I don't understand


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2015)

Gramsci Yes, I do understand these underlying issues.

A lot of it seems to lead to a "let's keep LJ shit" type argument though. Let's not make it safer for pedestrians, or do things that might allow kids to play outside more, or people use the public space more and have more contact with those living around them, because it might make the area more desirable, and then gentrification.

I don't know where to go with that reasoning. I think it could do with a thread actually.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I don't understand


Someone compared cyclists to Nazis. I don't know if that poster is a genuine nutter, doing a parody act or just trying to get a rise. But Gramsci reasonably enough commented that it was unacceptable and ignorant. I don't see there's anything to dispute there. No further discussion necessary and it's not relevant to what we're talking about on this thread.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 18, 2015)

Agreed but Gramsci  referencing murdering Jews was stretching the comparison hugely


----------



## bimble (Sep 18, 2015)

Thanks Gramsci for your minutes from the meeting at Loughborough Estate on Wednesday - accurate & balanced . 

It was pretty heartbreaking, the depth of the division felt the animosity & resentment from the estate residents towards the non-estate residents / LJAG / the gentrifiers who are perceived to taking over the area with their bicycles and their organic farming etc etc. 

It is probably a good thing for the leader of LJAG that not everyone knows she is the author of the below:


----------



## Angellic (Sep 18, 2015)

Was there any discussion about the arches around LJ?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Was there any discussion about the arches around LJ?



Not this time. 

There was discussion of the Farm and the Masterplan. Took some notes so will put up when have time.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2015)

So apparently Jeremy Corbyn is not a cyclo-nazi - but a cyclo-maoist.

We Phoned Some Bike Shops to See if They Sell Jeremy Corbyn's 'Mao-Style Bicycle' | VICE | United Kingdom


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2015)

The Future of Loughborough Farm.

This was also item on the LJ Neighbourhood forum.

It appears that there is a pot of money available which Lambeth can bid for- Lambeth bid for regeneration fund from GLA- as it was put on the agenda.

For unknown reason Lambeth did not know about this fund. Then realised it could apply to LJ. Leaving only a few weeks to put in bid.

So from what I gathered at the meeting officers approached LJAG about putting a bid in for the land around the Farm.

As CH1 has posted previously LJ was categorised for light industrial back in early 80s. Something the leading lights in LJAH at the meeting did not understand. In planning jargon "KIBA"

As Council came late to this there is only a few weeks to put in a bid to GLA. The actual idea imo does not sound to bad.

To keep the farm and also keep the light industrial use in that area for local employment the fund could be good way to keep this under local control.

First problem. There was discussion in the meeting about the Farm. The guy from LEMB ( Loughborough Estate Management Board) said that the land the farm is on comes under LEMB. That LEMB had let LJAG use it for the farm. He was now upset the LJAG regarded it as there land. He questioned how many from the estate used it. That people on the estate wanted a gym on it instead. LJAG replied that this was incorrect and that some from estate used the Farm.

So its was the issue around class again coming up in the meeting.

Thinking on this today also remembered that the guy from LEMB also brought up issue of land in estate area that Lambeth had transferred out of the estate. ( The land thats being built on now). So imo the farm is seen as part of loss of control of land by a working class community in that area. If I was on that estate I would be looking at what is happening to Cressingham for example and not trust the Council to defend Council housing.

The bid for this regeneration fund needs to be in by 2nd October. So there is not time for proper consultation.

It appears to me that Lambeth are looking to LJAG as the body they can work with. Forgetting the Council tenants. At one point in the meeting the officer said that the Council have not the budget for proper consultation. So were relying on voluntary groups like LJAG to do this.

This is dangerous position for LJAG. They asked me after meeting how to build links with the estate. I said there is a danger they will become part of Council. The role Brixton Green are quite happy with.

Whilst I like my Ward Cllr who turned up to meeting I am a bit concerned that LJAG could be used by our Nu Labour Cllrs as fall guys. As ViolentPanda pointed out on other thread about Brixton Green and Somerleyton road. The same Cllrs who are colluding with Government cuts and support Blairite for party leader, can give themselves local credibility with the working class Council tenants by siding with them against a "middle class" lobby group. An hypothesis worth pondering on.

The politics of LJ are rather fascinating.

Anyway. The guy from the Farm who is on voluntary basis looking at the bid , and he seemed a young well meaning person, wanted to get a framework bid in and appeared to me to genuinely want to talk to Loughborough Estate residents. Saw him talking to the guy from LEMB after meeting ended.

He did say he would be in LJ over weekend as the "Platform" is open selling the farm produce etc. So if anyone wants to go and see what its about I would recommend this.

The idea of the bid is that as the area is classified as light industrial the bid will be about local employment- workshops etc.

The Council officer said in reply to concerns from Loughborough estate residents that this might be another way that LJAG gain control over land that a management board would be set up to oversee the project of all local groups. .

I dd say, as someone from estate had already brought up issue of Pop, that in Brixton the Pop project had started with a lot of promises then ended up as Pop. Not what many thought they had agreed to.

Cllr Heywood agreed that lessons needed to be learnt from what had happened to that use of land. Got the feeling the Cllr Hopkins enthusiasm for Pop on his blog is not felt by some other local Labour Cllrs. 

Its was about the only thing that Loughborough Estate residents and LJAG agreed on- we dont want "Pop" in LJ. Rather refreshing for me to hear others do not think Pop is wonderful.

Another estate resident said that as the bid had to be put in so quickly there was not enough time to do proper consultation. So it should be dropped.

I agreed with this. Considering the disagreements going on now a bid without proper consultation may make divisions and resentments in the area worse.

I do think that the proposal could be a good thing for LJ if it could be done in way that does not cause more divisions and ends up living to its promise of locally controlled social enterprise type project.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 19, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> The Future of Loughborough Farm............................................


I feel that it would be possible to incorporate a gym into the set-up that was proposed for the Farm - assuming all parties agreed to this.

I think a gym would be therapeutic for the middle class tendencies within LJAG as it would clearly reach out to ethnic minority male youth who are probably least involved in the farming activity.

There is supposed to be a gym already on the Loughborough Estate.
The NEP - Neighbourhood Enhancement programme said it would happen in 2013 - see "final decisions" page 22 in the report on this link.

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/NEPconsultationreportColdharbour.pdf

Where is it exactly? Or is it "another broken promise"?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2015)

The "Platform" on Loughborough Road by the railway bridge is open this weekend selling stuff from the Farm.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I feel that it would be possible to incorporate a gym into the set-up that was proposed for the Farm - assuming all parties agreed to this.
> 
> I think a gym would be therapeutic for the middle class tendencies within LJAG as it would clearly reach out to ethnic minority male youth who are probably least involved in the farming activity.
> 
> ...



Looking at the pdf looks like the actual agreed ( by Council?) improvements were limited. Not including outdoor gym. Interesting however that outdoor gym got a lot of support according to the graphs.So the guy from LEMB was not just saying his personal preference.


----------



## Beasley (Sep 19, 2015)

*London Open House Guided Walk: TOMORROW -- Sunday 20 September 2pm -- in Clapham Old Town*

Councillor Brathwaite and her traffic planners always put up Clapham as an example for Loughborough Junction. So the event tomorrow afternoon could be worth a visit.

It is a guided walk with the lead designer, landscape architect Ian Hingley. Meet: 2pm by the Clock Tower by Clapham Common tube station, duration 2 hours. 

From Open House website:
"Once dominated by parked cars and fast moving through traffic, Clapham's Old Town was radically redesigned using the principles of 'shared space' and 'naked streets' to dramatically improve the pedestrian environment. The first place in the UK to use 'Copenhagen' style side road crossings. The first phase, Venn Street has become the Old Town's premier destination for alfresco dining, four years since its completion and now also hosts a regular weekend market."

See Clapham Old Town and Venn Street | Open City Event Listings


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Was there any discussion about the arches around LJ?



The LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum on 18th November will discuss the arches. It will be held in conjunction with the LJ Business Association.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 21, 2015)

This may be of interest

Video: 'Mini Holland' Comes To Walthamstow


----------



## CH1 (Sep 22, 2015)

Belushi said:


> This may be of interest
> Video: 'Mini Holland' Comes To Walthamstow


That location looked less of a wide main road than Loughborough Road - and the motorists seemed not to be rebelling against ineffectual road markings and signs.

Re Gramsci above there is a "Safer Neighbourhood Forum" at Brixton Police Station shortly (in mid October).
I wonder if this will be on their agenda?  Probably not if the police have anything to do with it.


----------



## bimble (Sep 22, 2015)

I know that it's not representative of anything much but results of my tiny survey on here show that (so far) 70 % of people who answered want the whole thing scrapped, in direct contrast to the 68% 'for the closures" number which Lambeth's consultation document sites. 
Loughborough Junction Experimental Road Closures


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2015)

Nicked from brixton thread...


----------



## Crispy (Sep 22, 2015)

I've been on a 45 bus West bound along Coldharbour lane at around 5pm a few times recently and the traffic is nose-to-tail. Takes ages to get even as far as LJ station. Is this a new state of afairs?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 22, 2015)

Crispy said:


> I've been on a 45 bus West bound along Coldharbour lane at around 5pm a few times recently and the traffic is nose-to-tail. Takes ages to get even as far as LJ station. Is this a new state of afairs?


It's been going on for at least a week.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2015)

The traffic along Coldharbour Lane has been horrendous for weeks. I wouldn't like to be living in the flats that face directly on to the road because there's got to be a load of pollution building up with all that idling traffic. The endless beeping of frustrated horns is getting on my nerves too.







Coldharbour Lane gridlock as the Loughborough Junction closure experiment goes pear shaped


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2015)

If it has been horrendous for weeks then surely it can't all be blamed on the Loughborough Road closures?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It's been going on for at least a week.


Well it sucks and my daughter has been voicing her agreement, very loudly indeed.


teuchter said:


> If it has been horrendous for weeks then surely it can't all be blamed on the Loughborough Road closures?


Are there any other diversions or road works ongoing?


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 23, 2015)

Road closures take a few a weeks to resolve. If it's the same in a months time then it will have been failure but let's wait an see.

If you compare it to the Herne Hill closure then it is a bit flawed because there's no alternative through route. On the other hand there's too much traffic so anything that encourages bus use, walking & cycling I support.

Thanks Gramsci for your informative post from the meeting.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2015)

There's been sporadic traffic flare ups along Coldharbour Lane for ages, but it's in the last week or so since it's got really bad.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Road closures take a few a weeks to resolve. If it's the same in a months time then it will have been failure but let's wait an see.
> 
> If you compare it to the Herne Hill closure then it is a bit flawed because there's no alternative through route. On the other hand there's too much traffic so anything that encourages bus use, walking & cycling I support.


I don't think it's making Coldharbour Lane a very appealing place to walk or cycle along.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2015)

There are roadworks going on around Loughborough Junction at the moment. A load of temporary lights have been sitting there for a bit although I'm not sure whether they've been in operation yet.

And yes DJWrongspeed it has to be given a bit of time while drivers find alternative routes (or ideally start using alternative modes of transport more).

It's a shame it's being attacked on Brixton Buzz before it has had time to settle in.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2015)

There's a growing amount of very angry reader comments on the Buzz feature. Good point about ambulances getting through to Kings. I saw one progressing very slowly yesterday because of the gridlocked traffic.


> I hope nobody died in ambulance trying to get to Kings A&E yesterday stuck in the complete traffic chaos that was Coldharbour Lane yesterday evening.
> 
> Given the location of Kings and the gridlock that the “experimental” road closures have been causing for the last 2 weeks its only a matter of time before something like the above happens.
> 
> ...





> I think the person who thought of this is bonkers.
> They have NO idea about the roads, all they have done is create absolute traffic chaos.
> Cars are gridlocked on the road for up to 40 minutes.
> Children are not being picked up from school on time.
> The person who thought this needs to come and sit in this traffic to see what absolute madness it is.





> Likewise… I am now driving all around the houses just to get to the Brixton Road, which before was a straight line down Loughborough Road. It has literally made my journey about 4 times longer in and around side roads. Please don’t tell me to cycle – I already do, but at night or with children its better to drive


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 23, 2015)

editor said:


> The traffic along Coldharbour Lane has been horrendous for weeks. I wouldn't like to be living in the flats that face directly on to the road because there's got to be a load of pollution building up with all that idling traffic. The endless beeping of frustrated horns is getting on my nerves too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree that it's horrible and last night was particularly vile. But I don't think the problem is solely the LJ pilot closure. When I eventually got to LJ last night (by bike), once through the lights at the ex-Green Man, traffic is speeding through (relatively at least: it is rush hour), towards Camberwell. 

A lot of the slowing of the route is caused by cars and coaches turning left or right onto Colhdarbour Lane, going north from Shakespeare Road. This junction seems a lot more busy recently, but I'm not sure how that can be linked to the pilot closure. Of course, a little while ago, a number of posters were happy to see the new pedestrian crossing and built out pavements at the bottom of LJ. These are clearly having an impact on traffic flow.

In addition, as Teuchter notes, there's a lot of other road and pavement works at present. 

My hunch is that there isn't one specific thing that's causing these tailbacks, and I think it wrong to blame solely the pilot closure. Rather, this is a result of aggregate changes to a range of variables. Yesterday was probably also compounded by the rain and the vans delivering to Tesco and the shop opposite.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 23, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> Of course, a little while ago, a number of posters were happy to see the new pedestrian crossing and built out pavements at the bottom of LJ. These are clearly having an impact on traffic flow.


I did note at the time that the built out pavements were a potential problem - and I think I mentioned how passengers get "thrown" descending the stairs as the buses come into the Shakespeare Road bus stop (CHL southside). I'll try and find the link.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 23, 2015)

Built out pavement - link Loughborough Junction chitter-chatter

I think Lambeth's problem is they go for overkill, but are under-resourced.
If they just tinkered gently - such as putting in a zebra everyone wanted, without doing thousands of pounds worth of repaving, road narrowing etc etc we might get somewhere (and have more money available for the next incremental improvement).

IMHO with this Loughborough Road scheme they have vastly under-budgeted, under consulted - including Police, emergency services etc.

I doubt they have the resources in Lambeth Transport planning to make it work. It will have to be scrapped.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I did note at the time that the built out pavements were a potential problem - and I think I mentioned how passengers get "thrown" descending the stairs as the buses come into the Shakespeare Road bus stop (CHL southside). I'll try and find the link.



You did. I remember that quite clearly. I was going to quote you but couldn't find it.


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 23, 2015)

Anyone know the legal height for No Entry signs  look at the difference in these the tallest being the newly installed sign for Gordon Grove


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2015)

As the Buzz article is extensive in its coverage of reactionary outrage but short on any detail or investigation into what's really going on, I thought I'd go and have a look what was actually happening with the traffic in LJ. These all taken 6.30pm ish so tail end of rush hour.

Reading comments on here attributing a sudden increase in congestion on CHL to the Loughborough Road closures, I assumed this meant they were now actually being enforced/observed. However, there still seems to be a steady flow of vehicles. I saw one or two slow down and hesitate but most were just sailing on through.

 



Meanwhile the traffic situation on CHL - no obvious congestion heading towards Brixton



But definitely busy through central LJ, with queues building up each time the light went red..



All suggests to me that a portion of the traffic passing through central LJ is still traffic that is using Loughborough Road. If Loughborough Rd were actually closed (the closure is clearly still ineffectual) the question is whether this traffic would carry on down CHL towards Brixton, or would it seek alternative routes altogether, meaning that it would be removed from the flow along CHL altogether?

We'll never know unless the closures are actually enforced. And the current situation doesn't tell us anything about the effect of the closures, because they aren't being observed.

One thing that ocurred to me by the way, is that the traffic lights at the Loughborough Rd/CHL junction are presumably still operating as they were before. So, even if the closure was being enforced, they would be stopping traffic along CHL to wait for a non-existent flow in/out of LR. I assume they could be re-phased if the closures were permanent, to make thing work as efficiently as possible with the new arrangement.

I also wondered if it would have been possible to rephase them for the experimental period. So they turned green just long enough to let the occasional bus through, on the basis of assuming there would be no traffic queue. Maybe that would have helped put people off trying to ignore the closure.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2015)

Some new comments from residents on Buzz: 


> Nightmare. I live in Minet Road and we are now kettled in. We cannot go south towards dulwich or brockwell park and beyond unless we go north to Camberwell New Road. I have lived here for 39 years and Loughborough junction has never been a problem, it is now and I shudder how much worse it would be if “people” were not moving the barriers. Beware of LJAG and beware of gentrification,





> This is absolutely disgraceful. Why do these council officials who have never lived a day in lambeth, make these decisions which affects those who do.
> 
> This debacle had me driving round and round in circles for 45mins – which should have been a 5 minute journey.
> 
> This experiment has been a living nightmare and the sooner they change things back the better.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2015)

By the way I don't really understand the objection to the "built out pavement" at the zebra crossing at the end of Shakespeare Rd. Here is what we had before:

 

And what there is now:



Which seems way better to me - much more pedestrian friendly, and with a new small public space with seating and planting (and I see people using it a fair bit). The pavement has been "built out" by, what, a metre and a half (think of the cost in paving stones!!)? It makes sense to me - shortens the length of the crossing for pedestrians and makes them more visible to drivers when attempting to cross (especially when a bus is pulled into the stop). It was a two lane road before and it's a two lane road now, so what's the problem? If cars were using the extra width to overtake at this point then they shouldn't have been, and allowing it to continue would make the zebra crossing dangerous. The bus stop has not been moved out into the street. 

It all seems to make sense to me and is a positive change that I'm happy for money to have been spent on. I welcome these kinds of improvements.

If it slows down the traffic a bit, then firstly that's a good thing as drivers shouldn't be tearing around that corner anyway, but also, if it makes things better for pedestrians then that's much more beneficial to the greater good than shaving a couple of minutes off car journeys, a large proportion of which aren't even necessary in the first place.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> car journeys, a large proportion of which aren't even necessary in the first place.


Quite. This, from the BBuzz comments for example


> This debacle had me driving round and round in circles for 45mins – which should have been a 5 minute journey.


If it was a 5 minute journey, why drive?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2015)

editor said:


> Some new comments from residents on Buzz:


Good for Brixton Buzz, standing up for the outraged motorists of South London. All that Reclaim The Streets stuff - I guess it was for the parties and not the politics.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Quite. This, from the BBuzz comments for example
> 
> If it was a 5 minute journey, why drive?


Yes indeed.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> One thing that ocurred to me by the way, is that the traffic lights at the Loughborough Rd/CHL junction are presumably still operating as they were before. So, even if the closure was being enforced, they would be stopping traffic along CHL to wait for a non-existent flow in/out of LR.


This was queried at the LJAG meeting up thread. G Wright stated that the phasing of traffic lights was a matter for TFL and beyond his control.

Wouldn't you have thought that Lambeth and TFL would sort out a joint approach BEFORE launching a major change in south London traffic flows?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2015)

Also from buzz comments:

_Please don’t tell me to cycle – I already do, but at night or with children its better to drive
_
Um, public transport?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Wouldn't you have thought that Lambeth and TFL would sort out a joint approach BEFORE launching a major change in south London traffic flows?


Yes, that would obviously have been better. I don't dispute that this has been poorly implemented.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 24, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which seems way better to me - much more pedestrian friendly, and with a new small public space with seating and planting (and I see people using it a fair bit). The pavement has been "built out" by, what, a metre and a half (think of the cost in paving stones!!)? It makes sense to me - shortens the length of the crossing for pedestrians and makes them more visible to drivers when attempting to cross (especially when a bus is pulled into the stop). It was a two lane road before and it's a two lane road now, so what's the problem? If cars were using the extra width to overtake at this point then they shouldn't have been, and allowing it to continue would make the zebra crossing dangerous. The bus stop has not been moved out into the street.


Your pictures seem to distort the view (speaking as a pedestrian and bus user).
I think creating a pinch point there is not necessarily helpful. And it doesn't stop out of hours speeding motorcyclists doing themselves major damage either.

It is a stupid idea creating such a narrow thoroughfare right by two bus stops anyway. Either causes a hold up to all traffic - or car drivers taking risks at rush hours.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Quite. This, from the BBuzz comments for example
> 
> If it was a 5 minute journey, why drive?


Maybe they were disabled? Maybe they were carrying a heavy load. Maybe they meant that a _part_ of their journey that normally took 5 minutes ended up taking much longer.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 24, 2015)

Who knows? But people do make short journeys in cars, where the healthier (for everyone) option would be to walk etc. I know I have.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Who knows? But people do make short journeys in cars, where the healthier (for everyone) option would be to walk etc. I know I have.


Yes, and of course I agree with that.


----------



## Winot (Sep 24, 2015)

Teuchter must have posted some pretty vicious personal abuse that then got deleted. After all, it's inconceivable that he was banned for a well-mannered disagreement with Brixton Buzz.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 24, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Good for Brixton Buzz, standing up for the outraged motorists of South London. All that Reclaim The Streets stuff - I guess it was for the parties and not the politics.


Is this the post Teuchter was banned for? 

It does seem fair to highlight the fact that almost 20 years ago many of us were participating in direct action and impromptu road closures to demand that the rights of pedestrians be rebalance with those of motorists. To give us more control over the public realm.

Those protests did influence policy and although it has been slow there has been progress which is picking up pace. It is clear that the balance is still a very long way from being redressed, so it does seem strange for "local press" to be so very strongly critical of recent changes, with much of its criticism focused on the unacceptable inconvenience to motorists and their apparently justified outrage.


----------



## SpamMisery (Sep 24, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Is this the post Teuchter was banned for?
> 
> It does seem fair to highlight the fact that almost 20 years ago many of us were participating in direct action and impromptu road closures to demand that the rights of pedestrians be rebalance with those of motorists. To give us more control over the public realm.
> 
> Those protests did influence policy and although it has been slow there has been progress which is picking up pace. It is clear that the balance is still a very long way from being redressed, so it does seem strange for "local press" to be so very strongly critical of recent changes, with much of its criticism focused on the unacceptable inconvenience to motorists and their apparently justified outrage.



Bit mental if he was banned for the posts visible in this thread.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 24, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> My hunch is that there isn't one specific thing that's causing these tailbacks, and I think it wrong to blame solely the pilot closure. Rather, this is a result of aggregate changes to a range of variables. Yesterday was probably also compounded by the rain and the vans delivering to Tesco and the shop opposite.



Agree, although far away the Oval/Kennington nightmare might mean people are diverting south as well. No idea why changing a junction takes 11 months  Road users are rightly up in arms.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 24, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Bit mental if he was banned for the posts visible in this thread.


Yeah what's all this about, can the Mods explain ?


----------



## Belushi (Sep 24, 2015)

I've started a thread asking about the banning over in the feedback forum.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 24, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Yeah what's all this about, can the Mods explain ?


Ban list says he was engaging in disruptive personal comments after... [presumably after being warned?]


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 24, 2015)

Rushy said:


> It does seem fair to highlight the fact that almost 20 years ago many of us were participating in direct action and impromptu road closures to demand that the rights of pedestrians be rebalance with those of motorists. To give us more control over the public realm.



I can't see any reason for a ban tbh, but the closures at LJ are about a different kind of control over the public realm, specifically the annexing of LJ by the well to do........


----------



## Peanut Monkey (Sep 24, 2015)

editor said:


> The traffic along Coldharbour Lane has been horrendous for weeks. I wouldn't like to be living in the flats that face directly on to the road because there's got to be a load of pollution building up with all that idling traffic. The endless beeping of frustrated horns is getting on my nerves too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We're on that stretch of road and it's massively busier, louder and dirtier. Our six-month old sleeps in a room facing out onto the street. It's grim.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2015)

Peanut Monkey said:


> We're on that stretch of road and it's massively busier, louder and dirtier. Our six-month old sleeps in a room facing out onto the street. It's grim.


Sorry to hear that. I think Lambeth should introduce pollution monitoring ASAP because it has certainly appears to have got considerably worse.


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 24, 2015)

The whole thing is a total bodge job done by so called professionals who have clearly not got a clue about the processes of road closures and certainly very little about communication skills and making sure all the stakeholders are consulted with and that all the relevant Agencies are working together for the good of all.  
Again I will say that George Wright did not even know Coldharbour Lane had two lanes and one clearly marked to take a right turn coming from Camberwell Green to go down Loughborough Road. 
So many aspects have not been taken into consideration at all.
Has he considered or even discussed with TFL that completely CLOSING the Pedestrian Zone to ALL traffic on Saturday 26th Sept between midday to 9pm that the P5 bus will have to double back on itself as it will have to use Barrington Road then go back along Coldharbour Lane to Loughborough Park Road so they maintain the route??? 
With money as it is for many nowadays  they have no caring whatsoever at all regarding the increased cocsts being forced onto a huge amount of people and businesses and  for what	a piece of road space.....   meaningful town centre......  safer environment...... wonder what the latest excuse is for the closures ???
If you compare Loughborough Junction and Clapham Junction traffic wise there is NO need to CLOSE a road to make a more meaningful town centre.  Yes one of the roads at Clapham junction is buses only but there is almost a line of buses continually along it and delivery vehicles have access to that road by smaller ones throughout it or the shops would not survive on it. 
And sorry, but what on earth is there at Loughborough Junction in the way of "Town centre" shops to draw a crowd to??? 
Are there any leading high street retailers, is there even space for them?.....  NO.  There was a hairdressers on the corner of Loughborough/Ridgeway that has now vanished and a tatty looking second hand furniture shop has appeared or should I use the buz word   popped up. Are there any touristy attractions, a library, museum, town hall?  What are they going to do run out all the present long standing businesses to bring in their "meaningful town centre" dream? Yes clean up the place, encourage new opportunities when places become vacant, but close roads, destroy businesses, force traffic round small over parked roads,  cause untold misery on so many. NO.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2015)

It's still generating a lot of negative feedback on Buzz:


> Taking my son to hospital for an appointment at kings college twice a week is a nightmare what would take me 10 mins to drive him there is taking over 50 mins as every road is blocked both ways come on has an idiot come up with this scheme





> I do wonder who is driving this…it was badly thought through, consultation seems to have been rigged (no-one on my street saw anything) and the execution is an amateurish shambles – there’s 3 big pot plants in Padfield Road blocking it off!


Although there has been one positive(ish) comment:


> I live, drive and cycle in the area. I agree that the Loughborough road closure seems unnecessary however from a personal perspective the Padfield road closure has been very good. Southwell road is noticeably quieter (and safer) – which is surely the goal of the council. In my experience the type of traffic (and their aggressive driving) using the smaller roads as rat runs are the most dangerous for both other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.


----------



## Mr Retro (Sep 24, 2015)

If I wanted to know what's happening on Brixton Buzz I'd read Brixton Buzz. Isn't a forum supposed to be for discussion?

This is like discussing a current affair in the politics forum and somebody cutting and pasting what people are saying in the guardian comments section


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2015)

Mr Retro said:


> If I wanted to know what's happening on Brixton Buzz I'd read Brixton Buzz. Isn't a forum supposed to be for discussion?


I would have thought that bringing in viewpoints and some of the issues raised by local residents would prove useful to the debate. There's been over 60 responses, so I've only posted up a small selection, and I think some make important points that should be discussed here.

Or do you think that no other opinions and experiences should be discussed, save of those who post here?


----------



## bimble (Sep 24, 2015)

The qualitative research on the closure experiment is (according to the council) being handed over to something called the Stockwell Partnership. They are tasked with assessing everything apart from traffic flow at the designated points. 

I've been emailing them to ask how they will carry out this very important consultation with local people. 

As yet they said they have no plan in place. 
They also said that it is not them but Lambeth who will be sending / delivering the 10,991 letters to local residents asking their views. 
George Wright from Lambeth told me the opposite. 
It is tempting to give up trying to chase people about how if at all local people are supposed to give their views.


----------



## bimble (Sep 24, 2015)

just to clarify this is the bit I am talking about


----------



## CH1 (Sep 24, 2015)

bimble said:


> just to clarify this is the bit I am talking about
> View attachment 77135


Maybe Stockwell Partnership were picked as independent of LJAG?

Not sure if challenging the methodology at this stage is good or bad.

Maybe interacting with the evaluators should be a job for a councillor (in case they feel compromised by direct public pressure) - and all three Coldharbour councillors have "come out" as sceptics of the scheme.

Is it possible for you to put these points to one of those - or do you because of your location come under Herne Hill councillors? Not sure of their views, but they also have a duty to listen to you.

I went to the hairdresser in Loughborough Rd this morning. The proprietor's son was presiding and very opposed to the road closure. I mentioned to him about the suggestion floated to close Hinton Road instead. He said yes - but that would mean also making the Herne Hill Road/Coldharbour Lane junction right turn only (presumably with the exception of the P4 bus).

He was adamant that the Loughborough Road traders are already affected, and he thought it would get worse if the scheme was not changed.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2015)

Some points in relation to latest posts.


Im on the bit of CHL now. The traffic in evenings does not seem to be any more than it was before road closures.

As teuchter says drivers are ignoring the road Loughborough road closure. It has less traffic on it but a lot just goes straight through in morning rush hour.

The roads in London imo are getting more jammed with traffic. This is not feasible in long term. What is lacking is any real debate on how to change transport options.

There is now a cycle highway being built in central London. This is already reducing road space for vehicles and slowing traffic. So criticism of LJ road closure on that basis ( that will affect emergency vehicles) applies to all the changes to roads to encourage cycling etc.

I did assume that the road closures would stop all traffic in Loughborough road. In fact access to the estates and the car repair arches is allowed. Only a small section of Loughborough road is not for general traffic. Neither is it blocked off for emergency vehicles.

Car owners are going to oppose any restriction of road use. Its not in there interest to support them. Some of the comments on the Brixton Buzz article and what I hear are starting to get on my nerves. Its knee jerk opposition without any alternative. I notice nearly all the comments are from car owners. The problem is that transport individually with car ownership as a fundamental aspect of it is not feasible in long term. Its also - and this is lost - about social class. The least well off cannot afford car ownership.

Whats happened at LJ is that the argument around road closures is about class. About who is listened to and who not. But this is a deeper problem. I notice the Ward Cllrs are now supporting the Loughborough estate. A bit late in the day. I do know people on the estate who opposed this from the start basically because the see LJAG as middle class front to gentrify and take over LJ. I dont know what to do about this. Someone in LJAG asked me how to overcome this. I said they need to distance themselves from the Council. There is always danger Council will co opt a community organisation. A worrying example is the further consultation on the LJ masterplan. As the Planning Forum the Council said they cannot afford to consult further and will rely on LJAG for this. So Council are attempting to use LJAG as outsourced provider of services.That is some in Council see LJAG as tame community organisation they can use. As I told LJAG the other organisation who are quite happy to fulfill that role are Brixton Green. I don't think LJAG are comparable to BG at this time. 

I did propose that at the next LJ Neighbourhood planning forum that Stockwell partnership and the Cllr responsible (Braithwaite I think) should be invited to attend. That was agreed.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 24, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Maybe Stockwell Partnership were picked as independent of LJAG?
> 
> Not sure if challenging the methodology at this stage is good or bad.
> 
> ...



Why do you want to close Hinton Road? Is there really such a big problem with traffic through there? I've driven and walked through there loads of times and it never seemed that bad to me. It's certainly nowhere near as busy as Camberwell Green, let alone the disaster zone that is the centre of Brixton.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 24, 2015)

editor said:


> The traffic along Coldharbour Lane has been horrendous for weeks. I wouldn't like to be living in the flats that face directly on to the road because there's got to be a load of pollution building up with all that idling traffic. The endless beeping of frustrated horns is getting on my nerves too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't have said weeks. I reckon it's been bad for about two weeks now, which coincides quite nicely with the closures. Last Friday it was absolutely horrendous westbound - it was basically stationary from Denmark Road all the way to the Herne Hill Road junction. I couldn't see any obvious reason for it. However it makes sense if people have recently started getting warning letters in the post from the camera car.
Denmark Road has also been getting busier over that time.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 24, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Some points in relation to latest posts.
> 
> 
> Im on the bit of CHL now. The traffic in evenings does not seem to be any more than it was before road closures.
> ...



Excellent post. 

As you suggest, car ownership is not universal. 

Is it not something like only 30pc of Lambeth households?

And yet drivers seem to come first. 

Today I got an email reply from TfL admitting that they have shortened pedestrian crossing times at the Brixton Hill/Water Lane crossroads to suit motorists.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Why do you want to close Hinton Road? Is there really such a big problem with traffic through there? I've driven and walked through there loads of times and it never seemed that bad to me. It's certainly nowhere near as busy as Camberwell Green, let alone the disaster zone that is the centre of Brixton.



It came up at the LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum.

Instead of closing Loughborough road to stop/ reduce through traffic coming down to LJ close Hinton road instead. 

This was supported by the rep from Lambeth Cyclists present. 

Also the Council tenants didn't object to the idea. As one of there complaints was that the road closures didn't affect the middle class areas ( there view of what constituted a middle class area.)


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2015)

This radio programme did start to deal with some of the issues of individual car ownership. 

Basically saying that individual car ownership will go in the future. To be replaced by a range of transport services. Looked at how google are starting to look into this with the driverless car. A car one will hire not own. 

One idea was that people will subscribe to a transport service on a flat rate per month. For this they will get access to a wide range of transport services- bus, the new driverless cars, taxi, underground. An app can be used to organise any trip needed. 

Deliveries can be made by new flying drones instead of on roads. May sound all a bit futuristic but so would car use a hundred plus years ago. 

All a bit high tech but at least the programme starts to look at alternative. 

Another point made to me recently is to make work more locally based. A lot of transport is getting to and from work. Sometimes long distances. Same goes for services like shopping.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Excellent post.
> 
> As you suggest, car ownership is not universal.
> 
> ...



It appears more than that according to Lambeth Cyclists:



> The Loughborough Junction area has one of the lowest rates of car ownership in the whole country - the latest census figures show that in Coldharbour Ward 69.5% of households do not have a car whilst in Vassall Ward 64% of people do not have a car



Its not a coincidence that they are both poor wards.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 24, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Why do you want to close Hinton Road? Is there really such a big problem with traffic through there? I've driven and walked through there loads of times and it never seemed that bad to me. It's certainly nowhere near as busy as Camberwell Green, let alone the disaster zone that is the centre of Brixton.


Because it is the conduit through which all the long distance through-traffic comes to/from Loughborough Road.

BTW I think the hairdresser's suggestion above (no right turn out of Herne Hill Road) would produce exactly the same problems for the owner-occupiers of the Herne Hill Road/Milkwood Road environs as the the tenants of Loughborough Estate are currently suffering. Can't see that taking - Cllr Dickson would veto it in a flash.


----------



## bimble (Sep 25, 2015)

Could anyone tell me who the relevant councillors are for the immediate area of the closures? 
(I know there's Rachel Haywood, but don't understand who else is around).


----------



## Beasley (Sep 25, 2015)

There you go bimble! The immediate area is Coldharbour but you may need details for the other two wards nearby…
*
Coldharbour ward:* Mayor and Councillor Donatus Anywanu, Councillors Rachel Heywood and Matt Parr.
Cllr Anyanwu <DAnyanwu@lambeth.gov.uk>, Cllr Heywood <rheywood@lambeth.gov.uk>, Cllr Parr <mparr1@lambeth.gov.uk>

*Vassall ward: *Councillors Jacqui Dyer, Paul Gadsby and Annie Gallop
Cllr Dyer <JDyer3@lambeth.gov.uk>, Cllr Gadsby <PGadsby@lambeth.gov.uk>, Cllr Gallop <AGallop@lambeth.gov.uk>,

*Herne Hill ward: *Councillors Jack Holborn, Michelle Agdomar and Jim Dickson.
Cllr Holborn <JHolborn@lambeth.gov.uk>, Cllr Agdomar <MAgdomar@lambeth.gov.uk>, Cllr Dickson <jdickson@lambeth.gov.uk>


----------



## Beasley (Sep 25, 2015)

For info: here are the details of tomorrows '*Car Free Day'* sent by email this morning by George Wright, the Project Manager:
*
Loughborough Road Car Free Day:  Saturday 26 September 2015*
A quick reminder to say that Loughborough Road will be closed to all traffic outside Wyck Gardens and Loughborough Farm between 12 noon and 9pm tomorrow.

The pop-up café at The Platform will be open during this time and the Farm will be open from 1pm.

Pop up parks will be there from 12.00 to 2.30pm to consult on the designs for a parklet planned for the Pedestrian Zone; the start of the greening of this road space.

Best wishes
George Wright, Project Manager, Capital Delivery Team, London Borough of Lambeth
T: 020 7926 0728  E: GWright@lambeth.gov.uk
Suite 4, Blue Star House, 234-244 Stockwell Road, London, SW9 9SP.


----------



## bimble (Sep 25, 2015)




----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2015)

Beasley said:


> For info: here are the details of tomorrows '*Car Free Day'* sent by email this morning by George Wright, the Project Manager:
> *
> Loughborough Road Car Free Day:  Saturday 26 September 2015*
> A quick reminder to say that Loughborough Road will be closed to all traffic outside Wyck Gardens and Loughborough Farm between 12 noon and 9pm tomorrow.
> ...


This has to be the least advertised Car Free Day of the lot. I'll see if I've got time to stick something on Buzz to promote it.


----------



## bimble (Sep 25, 2015)

I don't have access anymore so I can't really see it but was just told - by cllr Rachel Haywood - about a facebook group called "LJ Road Madness" who will apparently be turning up to the car free day. 

(I'm not as passionately against this as some people are, what makes me angry is just the complete lack of consultation with local people)


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2015)

I've quickly added something: Lambeth Car Free Day on Estreham Rd and Loughborough Rd, Sat 26 Sept


----------



## Complain! (Sep 25, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Also from buzz comments:
> 
> _Please don’t tell me to cycle – I already do, but at night or with children its better to drive
> _
> Um, public transport?



I also do a 5 minute drive along Loughborough Road with my two children - I'd love to take the bus but this would take over an hour and involve two buses or a long walk either side....and that's if I can get on the bus in rush hour with the buggy....so selfish childless men (or women) maybe you'd like to do the school run before you make assumptions.


----------



## Complain! (Sep 25, 2015)

pr


Leo Chesterton said:


> Check out this consultation on closing Loughborough Road and a few others to through traffic and putting some more public space into LJ:
> 
> Loughborough junction - what you need to know | Lambeth Council
> 
> ...


----------



## Complain! (Sep 25, 2015)

editor said:


> I've quickly added something: Lambeth Car Free Day on Estreham Rd and Loughborough Rd, Sat 26 Sept


Go and complain about the road closures - LJAG - are the main protagonists behind it....


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 25, 2015)

Several points   
First point the closed roads do NOT allow estate residents through! ALL vehicles, EXCEPT emergency, buses and bikes, are NOT allowed through or in.
Residents have to drive the same long journeys as everyone else!

Second point Car Free Day. This has NOT been advertised at all yet they are going to consult about "parklets"  consult who??? 

Just received this leaflet for a meeting   and noted in SLP today this


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 25, 2015)

Safe Padfield   people drinking tea ???


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I also do a 5 minute drive along Loughborough Road with my two children - I'd love to take the bus but this would take over an hour and involve two buses or a long walk either side....and that's if I can get on the bus in rush hour with the buggy....so selfish childless men (or women) maybe you'd like to do the school run before you make assumptions.



As teuchter appears to be banned at this time. (Well he can be a right pain) I will stick up for him. 

He has consistently posted up here on the road closure issue posts that have been backed up by evidence and research. You dont have to agree with him but one thing he is not is selfish. 

I  as a non car driver who cannot afford a car get fed up with the complaints from drivers. Which I see as selfish. I cycle, walk and use public transport. I don't pollute the planet with owning a car. Does this make me selfish I think not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Some points in relation to latest posts.
> 
> 
> Im on the bit of CHL now. The traffic in evenings does not seem to be any more than it was before road closures.
> ...



1) The car problem will only get worse throughout London, because traffic management can only do so much when car volume increases while roads volume doesn't. The only sensible course (massive cutback of private 4-wheel transport, plus massive expansion of 2-wheeled and public transport) will never happen.

2) The class argument is a bit more nuanced, I believe. For some of the least well-off - mostly disabled people - a car is essential, even for short journeys. Lambeth just happens to have a higher than average (for London as a whole) population of disabled people who qualify for DLA mobility component and have a Motability-funded car. That's around (last time I checked in 2012) 2500 local road-users.

3) We've spoken before about Lambeth's use of community interest groups to shape local agendas. They'll carry on doing so for as long as it benefits them, and for as long as they're allowed to get away with it. While I don't see LJAG as being in the same "league" as Brixton Green (for a start, they're not a registered "community interest"/"social enterprise" company), Lambeth *will* use them for exactly the same purposes.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> 2) The class argument is a bit more nuanced, I believe. For some of the least well-off - mostly disabled people - a car is essential, even for short journeys. Lambeth just happens to have a higher than average (for London as a whole) population of disabled people who qualify for DLA mobility component and have a Motability-funded car. That's around (last time I checked in 2012) 2500 local road-users.
> 
> 3) We've spoken before about Lambeth's use of community interest groups to shape local agendas. They'll carry on doing so for as long as it benefits them, and for as long as they're allowed to get away with it. While I don't see LJAG as being in the same "league" as Brixton Green (for a start, they're not a registered "community interest"/"social enterprise" company), Lambeth *will* use them for exactly the same purposes.



Well LJAG I agree are not in same league as BG. But whats interesting is that BG get away with it and are doing well. As in Somerleyton road and Pop.

Whilst in LJ there still  is vocal established working class community who are big enough for even Nu Labour Cllrs to have to listen to.

The situation up at LJ is complex. As I as I told someone at the farm I am non aligned.

One of the issues is that these green measures are a blunt instrument and the well off can moan but can learn to live with them.

Without a massive increase in public transport and alternative affordable options for transport ie a genuine democratization of mobility there is imo always going to be adverse affect on the less well off more than the middle classes.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 25, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I also do a 5 minute drive along Loughborough Road with my two children - I'd love to take the bus but this would take over an hour and involve two buses or a long walk either side....and that's if I can get on the bus in rush hour with the buggy....so selfish childless men (or women) maybe you'd like to do the school run before you make assumptions.


I am not opposing your right to do exactly what everyone else is doing - but I have to say in my school days (1959-72) this school run was unheard of. Children walked (mostly) or took the bus where the distance merited it. Can't remember if children cycled in to school - but the school certainly arranged Cycling Proficiency tuition and tests (I doubt this goes on now given the rampant pavement cycling in inner London).


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I am not opposing your right to do exactly what everyone else is doing - but I have to say in my school days (1959-72) this school run was unheard of. Children walked (mostly) or took the bus where the distance merited it. Can't remember if children cycled in to school - but the school certainly arranged Cycling Proficiency tuition and tests (I doubt this goes on now given the rampant pavement cycling in inner London).



Good point. My family never owned a car. I walked to school. As did most of my classmates.

To add. Where I grew up in the 70s in Plymouth I don't remember many people owning a car in my street.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2015)

A 5 minute drive in London traffic is a 10-15 minute walk.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 25, 2015)

Beasley said:


> For info: here are the details of tomorrows '*Car Free Day'* sent by email this morning by George Wright, the Project Manager:
> *
> Loughborough Road Car Free Day:  Saturday 26 September 2015*
> A quick reminder to say that Loughborough Road will be closed to all traffic outside Wyck Gardens and Loughborough Farm between 12 noon and 9pm tomorrow.
> ...


I note this is clashing with the Lambeth Archives open day.
I'm on duty on one of the local organisations' stalls from 12.30 - 2.30.
Will be interested to see whether organisations think completely blocking Loughborough Road and disrupting the local bus service has enhanced their day or not.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 25, 2015)

Crispy said:


> A 5 minute drive in London traffic is a 10-15 minute walk.



From 8.30-9am you see lots of cars with children


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2015)

leanderman said:


> From 8.30-9am you see lots of cars with children


Hundreds of them. The difference between a bus/cycle journey in August and September is palpable.


----------



## bimble (Sep 26, 2015)

I am very excited about this car free day this afternoon: Can't wait to witness the range of activities and fun things that have been organised to showcase what a vibrant community space that section of Loughborough Road will turn into if / when the closures become permanent. 
I see that the Streatham version will have a roller disco, pop up playground for under 5s, a bike market, music, food "and more". 
It looks like LJ's extravaganza will have.. actually I have no idea. Possibly just an empty space, like the opposite of an event. Maybe it's Art.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2015)

I'd like to address the comment on the Buzz article where someone talks about taking their child to hospital.

Variations of this seem to come up amongst objections to any scheme of this nature. It's obviously an appeal to emotion - who wants to argue with someone with a sick child? Well, I will.

The main problem with this argument is that it amounts to complaining about losing a privelege. Not everyone with a sick or disabled child has a car. There are lots of other people who have to get to hospital, and they have to find other methods of travel, most likely public transport, or perhaps walking if they are able.

So, if someone is complaining that their 5-minute car journey to hospital now takes 50 minutes (which to be honest sounds like an exaggeration - once things settle in, and people find new routes, I'm pretty sure the real additional trael time will be less than that), what about all those who don't have a car? They still have to find an alternative method, but if measures to reduce car dominance are successful, then things will be more convenient for them (especially looking at things in the longer term). That's the whole point - these schemes if done properly should make life easier for those who don't have or can't afford a car, and that includes people who have to visit hospital regularly. How about those lucky enough to have the option of having a car, give some thought for all these other people, instead of complaining that the relative level of their own privelege has been reduced somewhat?

Where the "I have to take my sick child to hospital" argument is also a little disengenious is that it assumes that the car is essential for getting to the hospital without examining the actual cirumstances and medical situation of the person concerned. But in most cases (especially in London) this isn't true. The car option is a luxury. Most people are within a short distance of a bus stop. It is possible to get to hospital by public transport, with only a small amount of walking. Buses are now all wheelchair accessible. A bit less convenient, maybe, but walking and using public transport is what a large number of non-car-owners have to rely on anyway. They already have to sit on the bus making its way through the congestion created by car drivers making unnecessary journeys. 

I recognise that there is a small number of people who are not simply not mobile enough to get to a bus stop and who do need door to door transport. Yes, these people may see an increase in their journey time. But realistically this increase will be modest, and as I say is weighed against the benefits of a more pedestrian- and public transport-friendly city for the great majority of the population, including those who need to make regular trips to the hospital.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2015)

For the record, contrary to what has been claimed, I was not warned prior to being banned a couple of days ago.

My first ever ban on u75 handed out as a result of defending a position where I thought I was well aligned with the editor - arguing for a public realm where the interests of pedestrians and cyclists are prioritised over motor vehicles. It's something I feel strongly about and it genuinely disappoints me to see Brixton Buzz operating as a channel for the knee-jerk reactions of motorists. Lambeth's implementation of this experimental scheme is a complete shambles but the intention of those promoting it is positive and perhaps even courageous given the flak these things inevitably draw. Why kick it when it's down, and only just started, using assertions that aren't based on proper evidence? It looks to me that the scheme is now probably destined to fail due to the prominence given to the views of a certain segment of the population, many of which appear to be drivers. And we don't really know whether they are a majority or not.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I also do a 5 minute drive along Loughborough Road with my two children - *I'd love to take the bus but this would take over an hour and involve two buses or a long walk either side....and that's if I can get on the bus in rush hour with the buggy*....so selfish childless men (or women) maybe you'd like to do the school run before you make assumptions.



You're describing what other people with children but without cars have no option but to do, while you sail past in your motor. And with transport options re-prioritised, the public transport choices could be improved for everyone. Including you.

But how about you give us the approximate start and finish points of your journey so we can see if it's really as onerous as you describe?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I went to the hairdresser in Loughborough Rd this morning. The proprietor's son was presiding and very opposed to the road closure. I mentioned to him about the suggestion floated to close Hinton Road instead. He said yes - but that would mean also making the Herne Hill Road/Coldharbour Lane junction right turn only (presumably with the exception of the P4 bus).
> 
> He was adamant that the Loughborough Road traders are already affected, and he thought it would get worse if the scheme was not changed.



Which businesses are these? I'm interested to know how and why they think they are being affected. Is it because much of their trade comes by car? The hairdresser for example - do a lot of his customers drive to get their har cut?


----------



## bimble (Sep 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which businesses are these? I'm interested to know how and why they think they are being affected.


Think about Rathgar road and Gordon Grove: What businesses do we have there? Car repair shops, in I'd estimate at least 2 thirds of the arches. I understand that non drivers (me included) might not care much about those businesses, but from a couple of chats with people who depend on them for a living I can say that having closed roads is not good for business, if your business is cars.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Think about Rathgar road and Gordon Grove: What businesses do we have there? Car repair shops, in I'd estimate at least 2 thirds of the arches. I understand that non drivers (me included) might not care much about those businesses, but from a couple of chats with people who depend on them for a living I can say that having closed roads is not good for business, if your business is cars.


CH1 was talking about Loughborough Rd.

Regarding the car businesses, it depends how they get their customers. From passing trade or reputation/recommendation? Do you think they get a lot of trade from people driving past and seeing them?


----------



## bimble (Sep 26, 2015)

Maybe it's a street SIGN party today ?


----------



## bimble (Sep 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> CH1 was talking about Loughborough Rd.
> 
> Regarding the car businesses, it depends how they get their customers. From passing trade or reputation/recommendation? Do you think they get a lot of trade from people driving past and seeing them?



i honestly don't know, was just repeating what some people there had said to me the other day, that this was adversely effecting their businesses. They seemed quite convinced about it.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2015)

The thing is that as others have pointed out, there is a perception amongst some or even many that these traffic measures are part of a sinister gentrification agenda. People are even talking in all seriousness about an attempt to calm traffic as "social cleansing". With these ideas floating about I become rather sceptical about the various adverse effects that are being claimed. I'd like to hear something a bit more concrete than second hand reports that business is down. 

Both of the examples you give are dead-end roads. They won't have passing trade anyway. In any case it seems implausible that effects are being felt so quickly after the beginning of the experimental period. All the more so, given that my observations are that most drivers are still ignoring the closures anyway. If business is down despite the closures not actually having been enforced yet, then doesn't that suggest the cause is something else?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2015)

Went down a bit earlier to see what was going on. Not a huge deal. Mostly people sitting about outside the Platform cafe and wandering between there and the Farm thing. And someone doing bike fixing. A few cars doing U-turns at the barrages of signs each side of the closed bit.


----------



## brixtonblade (Sep 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The thing is that as others have pointed out, there is a perception amongst some or even many that these traffic measures are part of a sinister gentrification agenda. People are even talking in all seriousness about an attempt to calm traffic as "social cleansing". With these ideas floating about I become rather sceptical about the various adverse effects that are being claimed. I'd like to hear something a bit more concrete than second hand reports that business is down.
> 
> Both of the examples you give are dead-end roads. They won't have passing trade anyway. In any case it seems implausible that effects are being felt so quickly after the beginning of the experimental period. All the more so, given that my observations are that most drivers are still ignoring the closures anyway. If business is down despite the closures not actually having been enforced yet, then doesn't that suggest the cause is something else?


I was pretty 'anti'  when I heard about this scheme and it's certainly been implemented terribly but I think your posts here have been well put and whilst I'm not sure I'm for the scheme now, I've certainly got a bit more of an open mind on it


----------



## CH1 (Sep 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which businesses are these? I'm interested to know how and why they think they are being affected. Is it because much of their trade comes by car? The hairdresser for example - do a lot of his customers drive to get their har cut?


These are the businesses between Five Ways and Evendale Road on either side of Loughborough Road.

Probably not of much concern to you- but us workerist types (and former Councillor Kingsley Abrams who lives right on the spot) are concerned about marginalised local traders.

Suggest you come down to Loughborough Road and get your hair cut if you want a blow by blow account of this (so to speak). Michael has a reputation for loquacity.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2015)

CH1 said:


> These are the businesses between Five Ways and Evendale Road on either side of Loughborough Road.
> 
> Probably not of much concern to you- but us workerist types (and former Councillor Kingsley Abrams who lives right on the spot) are concerned about marginalised local traders.
> 
> Suggest you come down to Loughborough Road and get your hair cut if you want a blow by blow account of this (so to speak). Michael has a reputation for loquacity.



You imply that I'm not concerned about marginalised local traders. That's not true. I want to understand why they think they are losing trade as result of the road changes. That's why I asked. You must have been convinced by their arguments so can't you summarise? I don't need a haircut at present (some may disagree).


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2015)

I feel by the way that some people need to make up their minds whether traffic is good or bad.

More traffic on Coldharbour Lane is bad, because of the noise, and the pollution, and the congestion.
But less traffic on the wider section of Loughborough Road is bad, because of the businesses, and people feeling unsafe at night.
More traffic on narrower residential streets is bad, because of safety and people driving dangerously.
But less traffic on the narrow bit of Loughborough Road (between Fiveways and Brixton Rd) is bad because of the businesses.

For me it's quite simple - less traffic everywhere is what we want, and what this scheme is trying to help achieve.

Less traffic means more people on foot and bike which is good for genuine local businesses, and good for everyone's safety and health. And public transport that works better.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Where the "I have to take my sick child to hospital" argument is also a little disengenious is that it assumes that the car is essential for getting to the hospital without examining the actual cirumstances and medical situation of the person concerned. But in most cases (especially in London) this isn't true. The car option is a luxury. Most people are within a short distance of a bus stop. It is possible to get to hospital by public transport, with only a small amount of walking. Buses are now all wheelchair accessible. A bit less convenient, maybe, but walking and using public transport is what a large number of non-car-owners have to rely on anyway. They already have to sit on the bus making its way through the congestion created by car drivers making unnecessary journeys.


Yes, buses *are* all "wheelchair accessible" now - *IF* the space isn't already taken up with baby carriages or another wheelchair, and the buses are the *only* public transport in London that is fully-accessible, as the tube and overground are pretty dire accessibility-wise both in terms of rolling stock and of stations.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 26, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, buses *are* all "wheelchair accessible" now - *IF* the space isn't already taken up with baby carriages or another wheelchair, and the buses are the *only* public transport in London that is fully-accessible, as the tube and overground are pretty dire accessibility-wise both in terms of rolling stock and of stations.


Getting a bus from Fiveways to Kings would be terrible for a disabled person in a wheelchair.
The interchange at Loughborough Junction involves wheeling yourself round the corner - and the pavement on Coldharbour Lane at that point is barely wide enough for 2 pedestrians to pass.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Went down a bit earlier to see what was going on. Not a huge deal. Mostly people sitting about outside the Platform cafe and wandering between there and the Farm thing. And someone doing bike fixing. A few cars doing U-turns at the barrages of signs each side of the closed bit.
> 
> View attachment 77219 View attachment 77220


Why do they have to lie (i.e. use signs indicating roadworks etc when it is merely a bourgeois occupation of an innocent road)?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 26, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Getting a bus from Fiveways to Kings would be terrible for a disabled person in a wheelchair.
> The interchange at Loughborough Junction involves wheeling yourself round the corner - and the pavement on Coldharbour Lane at that point is barely wide enough for 2 pedestrians to pass.



Yes. The pavements are too narrow. Because the streetscape has become dominated by the needs of motor traffic. The centre of LJ is dominated by road traffic and pedestrians are marginalised. This is the problem this scheme is trying to address

But maybe we shouldn't attempt to fix it because then it might make the area more attractive and that would just be a calculated step towards gentrification. Probably best just to leave wheelchair users to edge their way along the wonky pavements while the traffic continues to tear through.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Yes. The pavements are too narrow. Because the streetscape has become dominated by the needs of motor traffic. The centre of LJ is dominated by road traffic and pedestrians are marginalised. This is the problem this scheme is trying to address
> 
> But maybe we shouldn't attempt to fix it because then it might make the area more attractive and that would just be a calculated step towards gentrification. Probably best just to leave wheelchair users to edge their way along the wonky pavements while the traffic continues to tear through.


You'd have been better off persuading TFL to turn the Higgs Industrial Estate into a Loughborough Junction Bus Station.
Thus killing two birds with one stone.


----------



## goldengraham (Sep 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The thing is that as others have pointed out, there is a perception amongst some or even many that these traffic measures are part of a sinister gentrification agenda. People are even talking in all seriousness about an attempt to calm traffic as "social cleansing". With these ideas floating about I become rather sceptical about the various adverse effects that are being claimed. I'd like to hear something a bit more concrete than second hand reports that business is down.
> 
> Both of the examples you give are dead-end roads. They won't have passing trade anyway. In any case it seems implausible that effects are being felt so quickly after the beginning of the experimental period. All the more so, given that my observations are that most drivers are still ignoring the closures anyway. If business is down despite the closures not actually having been enforced yet, then doesn't that suggest the cause is something else?



When you look at what's going on in places like elephant & Brixton, it seems we have got to a point where many Londoners, especially tenants, are suspicious of urban regeneration projects because ultimately they feel it will push up house prices & rents and force them out of the area. That's incredibly sad because as teuchter says there is no sinister agenda here, just some people trying to breathe a bit of new energy into a slightly down at heel part of town.

I'm a car driver and the Loughborough rd closure inconveniences me a fair bit. I'm in favour of giving it a go, but then admittedly I don't live on Loughborough rd.

For what it's worth I'll add my subjective testimony to everyone else's and say that apart from one afternoon last week I haven't noticed the traffic on CHL to be any worse in the mornings or evenings.

Re Brixton Buzz, you just have to take it for what it is, don't you? It is often remarkably lopsided in its coverage but then so is the daily mail.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2015)

goldengraham said:


> Re Brixton Buzz, you just have to take it for what it is, don't you? It is often remarkably lopsided in its coverage but then so is the daily mail.


Just about any coverage may appear 'lopsided' to someone depending on their own viewpoint, but the opinions expressed are honest, and, of course, people are free to add their own voice to the articles.

This topic has attracted a lot of attention on the site too, with around 50 replies from locals so far.


----------



## goldengraham (Sep 27, 2015)

Aagh - just realised that looks like I am comparing the Buzz uncharitably to the Mail but that's not what I meant at all  - the Buzz does a very fine job of drawing wider attention to local issues.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2015)

goldengraham said:


> Aagh - just realised that looks like I am comparing the Buzz uncharitably to the Mail but that's not what I meant at all  - the Buzz does a very fine job of drawing wider attention to local issues.


No offence taken!


----------



## goldengraham (Sep 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Just about any coverage may appear 'lopsided' to someone depending on their own viewpoint, but the opinions expressed are honest, and, of course, people are free to add their own voice to the articles.
> 
> This topic has attracted a lot of attention on the site so far, with around 50 replies from locals so far.



Sure, I agree that the comments seem to tell a story of their own. But I don't think reaction to the scheme (or at least the objective, if not how it is being implemented) is universally negative is it? The article could at least have conveyed that in some passing way.


----------



## editor (Sep 27, 2015)

goldengraham said:


> Sure, I agree that the comments seem to tell a story of their own. But I don't think reaction to the scheme (or at least the objective, if not how it is being implemented) is universally negative is it? The article could at least have conveyed that in some passing way.


Oh, I don't know. It was a quick article in response to a lot of earlier reader comments - and my own experience of increased traffic- and was really all about flagging up the issue and inviting others to offer their own feedback.

I think it's done it's job too because there's been a lot of interesting local feedback that perhaps may have gone unheard. Don't forget, there's already been many other articles about this on Buzz too and I may well write a follow up detailing what some feel are the positive aspects of the scheme. Or - even better - perhaps you'd like to write it?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2015)

goldengraham said:


> When you look at what's going on in places like elephant & Brixton, it seems we have got to a point where many Londoners, especially tenants, are suspicious of urban regeneration projects because ultimately they feel it will push up house prices & rents and force them out of the area. That's incredibly sad because as teuchter says there is no sinister agenda here, just some people trying to breathe a bit of new energy into a slightly down at heel part of town.



Thats exactly how they feel from my chats to people on Loughborough Estate. Its a massive estate so I cannot be certain most of them are against it. But when I chat to them the talk goes from the road closures to how Council estates are being "regenerated" as at Elephant Castle and now Cressingham Gardens is under threat. So its a response to seeing any improvements to the public realm as prelude to gentrification. This I can understand.

But Some of the arguments against it are starting to annoy me. I did point out today that the stats show car ownership in the area is very low. A sign of the less well off living in area. The class issue is that the most polluted areas are often in the poorest. Its the well off driving through poorer areas like in Loughborough road who cause the pollution. This appears to fall on deaf ears.

I had a look at the car free Loughborough road today and it was depressing. I dont know how the other car free street went but there was no party atmosphere. The Farm and Platform was open. Apart from that as the photos put up here show it was an empty space. On the other side the barrier were the Council tenants handing out leaflets for the meeting opposing the street closures.

If this was meant as a street party to get people together it was a failure and waste of time.

As someone who has told both sides that Im non aligned and neutral on the road closures I felt really uncomfortable there today and didn't feel like staying long.

I chatted to both sides today. I am feeling like I am being pressured to join one side or the other.

Both sides are not on speaking terms with each other. And as time goes by any possibility of debate on the pros and cons of this experiment are reducing.

The level of antipathy is getting quite personal. Why I was not keen on staying as being seen to talk to one side or the other is damning.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2015)

And along with the opposition to the road closures is opposition to the Farm as a close second.


----------



## bimble (Sep 27, 2015)

.


----------



## bimble (Sep 27, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> The level of antipathy is getting quite personal. Why I was not keen on staying as being seen to talk to one side or the other is damning.



Yes, it was the opposite of fun yesterday.
I heard that the people who were supposed to come and make a pop up park in the closed area packed up and left because they were just getting abuse.


----------



## Ms T (Sep 27, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Good point. My family never owned a car. I walked to school. As did most of my classmates.
> 
> To add. Where I grew up in the 70s in Plymouth I don't remember many people owning a car in my street.


Me too. Twice a day because I used to go home for lunch.  It was just over half a mile away.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, it was the opposite of fun yesterday.
> I heard that the people who were supposed to come and make a pop up park in the closed area packed up and left because they were just getting abuse.



I suspected something like this might be the case.

Or at least, that it had been decided to keep a low profile.

It's a shame because it was such a nice sunny day, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2015)

goldengraham said:


> When you look at what's going on in places like elephant & Brixton, it seems we have got to a point where many Londoners, especially tenants, are suspicious of urban regeneration projects because ultimately they feel it will push up house prices & rents and force them out of the area. That's incredibly sad because as teuchter says there is no sinister agenda here, just some people trying to breathe a bit of new energy into a slightly down at heel part of town.



There doesn't need to be a "sinister agenda" for the outcome of such regeneration projects to have a bad effect on tenants. That much is obvious to anyone who peruses at any detail, reports about regeneration projects in London in the 21st century.  



> I'm a car driver and the Loughborough rd closure inconveniences me a fair bit. I'm in favour of giving it a go, but then admittedly I don't live on Loughborough rd.
> 
> For what it's worth I'll add my subjective testimony to everyone else's and say that apart from one afternoon last week I haven't noticed the traffic on CHL to be any worse in the mornings or evenings.
> 
> Re Brixton Buzz, you just have to take it for what it is, don't you? It is often remarkably lopsided in its coverage but then so is the daily mail.



All press expresses opinions. Media doing so isn't remarkable unless you're one of those hopeless idealists that believe that media can be neutral.


----------



## Complain! (Sep 27, 2015)

editor said:


> I've quickly added something: Lambeth Car Free Day on Estreham Rd and Loughborough Rd, Sat 26 Sept



I took my family to the 'No cars day' on Saturday 26th organised by the LJAG...I expected some community things, kids playing in the street , a sound system - that sort of thing but no, a 'bar'.

They closed the street and diverted the buses for a 'bar' (and that was only from 4pm).  My kids don't drink beer or cocktails for that matter!

Outrageous and quite disgusting....


----------



## Complain! (Sep 27, 2015)

Complain to these people...

At lambeth write to:

George Wright  gwright@lambeth.gov.uk
Barbara Poulter  BPoulter@lambeth.gov.uk

Write to Steve Griffen at The Stockwell Partnership  Steve@stockwell.org.uk

(The Stockwell Partnership have been appointed to manage the on-going consultation on the Loughborough Road closure)


----------



## CH1 (Sep 27, 2015)

One of my friends from Ashby House (old Loughborough Est) was complaining bitterly about scheme this today as we walked past.
I have not met anyone (outside of the LJAG secretariat - and George Wright) who thinks it is a good idea.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I took my family to the 'No cars day' on Saturday 26th organised by the LJAG...I expected some community things, kids playing in the street , a sound system - that sort of thing but no, a 'bar'.
> 
> They closed the street and diverted the buses for a 'bar' (and that was only from 4pm).  My kids don't drink beer or cocktails for that matter!
> 
> Outrageous and quite disgusting....



FYI:



bimble said:


> I heard that the people who were supposed to come and make a pop up park in the closed area packed up and left because they were just getting abuse.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 27, 2015)

I am not surprised people "gave abuse". If you bypass them in the decision making process in what is supposed to be a democracy that is what could happen.

I can't think of any other development where a pressure group apparently persuaded the council to do something in the hope it would be come a fait accompli.

There are ways of doing these things. When I was a councillor in the early 1990s there was a proposal to turn a Lambeth owned property in Atkins Road into a mental health centre. Massive opposition at a public meeting - and a lot of abuse given and taken. Schools should be alerted, clients would reek havoc with (particularly) children living in surrounding properties etc etc. Social Services had problems justifying what they proposed to do.

The council did approve the project - and it was successful and in the event there was not a peep out of locals for the (20 year) life of the project.

But the difference is that the Atkins Road Clubhouse did not interfere with residents in any way.

The Loughborough Road closure will remind people every day that there are people in the more leafy parts of Loughborough Junction capable for raising funding and manipulating council officers to bugger up their lives - LJAG will live to regret this. It is their first mistake, and a seriously bad one.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2015)

CH1 you say there are "other ways of doing things" and then give an example of a project where the council ignored apparent public opinion and went ahead anyway.

I don't quite get your point.

Also, I don't think our democracy is supposed to work in quite such a way that every single decision is made on the basis of public consultation. People make their objections or proposals and it's then up to local government to decide how much regard to give them. Decisions have to be made in the context of a wider view and strategy.

It seems unfair to blame LJAG for this. As far as I can make out they came up with a proposal the intention of which was to make things better for people living in LJ, leafy side or not. They proposed it to Lambeth. It's Lambeth who decided to support and facilitate the project. It's Lambeth who carried out the allegedly bungled consultation which seemed to show that most people locally were in support. It's Lambeth who agreed to go ahead with the experimental scheme and it's Lambeth who have screwed up the implementation of it. 

I've yet to see anyone give a clear and specific reason for their objection to the scheme. The vast majority of it seems to be speculation about what the terrible effects might be. The experimental period has barely started, so no-one is able to give an opinion on the actual effects of it.

What exactly is your objection? What is it based on other than opinions expressed in the hairdresser? I'm guessing that the opinion in the hairdresser might not have been favourable regarding the mental health centre you describe. You describe the opposition as being based on fears about terrible things that in reality simply didn't materialise. So why is this so different?

In that case there wasn't the option of an experimental period. But with this there is. Why not let it run its course before coming to conclusions?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I am not surprised people "gave abuse". If you bypass them in the decision making process in what is supposed to be a democracy that is what could happen.
> 
> I can't think of any other development where a pressure group apparently persuaded the council to do something in the hope it would be come a fait accompli.
> 
> ...



The problem with this argument is that you are saying in the case of these road closures people were by passed in the decision making process. So its out of order.

Then you give an example of where the Council did over ride local opposition. The fact that there was not a peep out of locals afterwards is not the point. Its still a Council overriding a lot of local opposition.

The argument you are putting forward is that it ok for Councils to override opposition in certain cases and not others.

Also the road closures are not up to LJAG. Its a Council decision and this case the road closures are not permanent.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2015)

Was reading about the Mayors Ultra Low Emission Zone that’s been brought in. One of the Mayors officers said that when they said they were going to implement it they got loads of emails from small business about how it would burden them with increased cost and endanger there business.

The officer said Mayor for sake of the public good of all Londoners health pushed it through despite opposition.

My point being from my reading of projects to reduce car usage they all have been unpopular.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2015)

Yes, nearly all projects to reduce car usage meet with a lot of opposition.

And yet when you ask people to name cities and places they have enjoyed being in or would like to live in, the list generally contains a notable proportion which are either car free or have strong policy to encourage other forms of transport.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 27, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> The problem with this argument is that you are saying in the case of these road closures people were by passed in the decision making process. So its out of order.
> 
> Then you give an example of where the Council did over ride local opposition. The fact that there was not a peep out of locals afterwards is not the point. Its still a Council overriding a lot of local opposition.
> 
> ...


I meant that people don't think they have had a fair say.

I agree some kind of ballot took place months ago - but it looks to me that 90% of Loughborough Estate residents were not aware of this - and did not get a presentation about the implications (other than a leaflet to read). Therefore I think the ballot is not a valid indicator of local feelings on the matter.

With regard to my example from Streatham social services - this was a meeting which was fully notified to all local residents. It was held in Clapham Park Library, which was completely full. There were presentations from Lambeth Social Services officers, and Health Authority officials and members of the mental health project explaining what was needed and why.

When it went to committee, the results of the meeting were reported - but residents did not come to committee to oppose. As I say despite the initial moral panic the scheme was a success.

In the case of the Loughborough Road closure - I don't think that residents have had a proper presentation - or an indication of who is behind it (hence the generalised anti gentrification and now apparently anti Farm sentiment).

LJAG have operated in an underhand way in this matter because they are using their networking skills to impose a solution on a third of the residents of Coldharbour Ward - means 4,000 voters more if you include those not registered. The way they have done this is part of the problem. I would remind you that I was a committee member of LJAG when this came up - and I chose to resign when it was made clear to me that a form of "collective responsibility" was required. I do wish to be told what to say publicly whilst believing something else in private.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 28, 2015)

Interesting that this debate is playing out just as the VW scandal highlights the death toll from vehicle emissions.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I meant that people don't think they have had a fair say.
> 
> With regard to my example from Streatham social services - this was a meeting which was fully notified to all local residents. It was held in Clapham Park Library, which was completely full. There were presentations from Lambeth Social Services officers, and Health Authority officials and members of the mental health project explaining what was needed and why.
> 
> ...



On having a fair say and being consulted I am reminded of one of my chats in my off license. The guys there were complaining at the unfairness of the 20mph speed limit coming in. They then got onto speed bumps and bus lanes. As far as they were concerned the Council were or had imposed all these things on the hard pressed working man and his car.

In there opinion the 20mph speed limit was just about the Council wanting to make money out of them. Another scam by the authorities.

There is a lot of unrecognized resentment against the authorities in general from the less well off. Something I sympathise with. 

My problem with the opposition to the road closures is that in fact its about a lot more than just this scheme.

What I am saying is that in the case of car use any policy to reduce it through road measures ( and this is not about increasing cost or banning ownership) will be bitterly resented.

I remember a situation in Brixton where Council were going to give permission for a hostel for those just out of prison I think it was. There was local outrage. Council pushed it through and there was a lot of resentment against the Council long afterwards. My question would be whats the point of a Council organising a meeting about a controversial siting of a mental health centre if its going to push it through anyway? Perhaps people didnt attend the later committee meeting because they knew it was a done deal?

I take your point about the Council favouring certain groups. This is not just an issue in LJ. It happens in Brixton.

A mistake by LJAG is that they are now going to be the fall guys for the failure of this scheme. Also officers in charge of implementing the scheme. The local Cllrs are now positioning themselves as riding to the rescue of the beleaguered Council tenants. I would put it to the Loughborough Estate Council tenants that its the same Cllrs who are supporting Council policy of "regenerating" Council estates who are now making noises about the consultation of this scheme. My Ward Cllrs aren’t stupid. They don’t make a move without looking at the consequences for them.

I’ve warned LJAG to never trust the Council.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2015)

This has been posted by a reader on Buzz: 



> There is a Stop the closures public meeting at the Loughborough centre corner of Barrington road and Angell Road at 6.30pm on 1st October 2015.


----------



## bimble (Sep 28, 2015)

editor said:


> This has been posted by a reader on Buzz:
> "There is a Stop the closures public meeting at the Loughborough centre corner of Barrington road and Angell Road at 6.30pm on 1st October 2015."



Yes. I have a flyer for that. Here it is:


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2015)

editor said:


> This has been posted by a reader on Buzz:


We need a report of the proceedings. Maybe someone will be able to post up?

Unfortunately I have already been booked into a lecture at the Royal College of Physicians on "The Divided Brain" - which some posters might think more pertinent to my situation!


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I remember a situation in Brixton where Council were going to give permission for a hostel for those just out of prison I think it was. There was local outrage. Council pushed it through and there was a lot of resentment against the Council long afterwards. My question would be whats the point of a Council organising a meeting about a controversial siting of a mental health centre if its going to push it through anyway? Perhaps people didnt attend the later committee meeting because they knew it was a done deal?


In the case I'm quoting they had to do pre committee consultation - because planning permission was required and residents had to be consulted (by law I think).

But to repeat once more the point I am trying to get at - aside from the prejudices causing the initial opposition, once Mosaic Clubhouse was up and running nobody noticed it was there AFAIK.

In the case of the Loughborough Road Closure there are always going to be people who will be inconvenienced by closure of a 200 year old right of way.

The people seeking to do the Loughborough Road closure are quoting all sorts of high minded moral principles - reduction of pollution, reduction of accidents, forcing people to use public transport - or walk, or cycle.

Some of these things are highly contentious - are people really going to walk or cycle because they can't drive down Loughborough Road?
Will pollution be reduced in aggregate - or just deflected from Loughborough Road to Coldharbour Lane? How will we know?
Likewise if the number of accidents outside Loughborough Farm goes down to zero - what was it before? How do we know there won't be corresponding accidents in Lilford Road or other roads which never wanted to be connected with this scheme?

To me it looks like what is ultimately in the minds of the advocates is the expansion of Wyck Gardens across to Loughborough Farm - eliminating the 200 year old route now named Loughborough Road. This is the Garden Bridge mentality. If they really wanted to succeed in this they should have got the appropriate legal authority to do it and sent in the JCBs to rip up the road. In six months people might have got used to it. But this drip drip gradual whittling away of road users rights will just continue to cause aggro.

Wait till the fines come in.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> But to repeat once more the point I am trying to get at - aside from the prejudices causing the initial opposition, once Mosaic Clubhouse was up and running nobody noticed



SLAM rehab center on Brighton Terrace was another.


----------



## bimble (Sep 28, 2015)

I'm just going to put this link here and refrain from comment at the moment
Award Winner: Lambeth - Best community engagement/ consultation


----------



## bimble (Sep 28, 2015)

This is fascinating: 
Lambeth, and the Loughborough Junction Plan, written up by a think tank as a shining example of how to do local consultation. 

http://www.lgiu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/LGiU-Lambeth-residents-v2-Hi-res.pdf


----------



## Complain! (Sep 28, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> As teuchter appears to be banned at this time. (Well he can be a right pain) I will stick up for him.
> 
> He has consistently posted up here on the road closure issue posts that have been backed up by evidence and research. You dont have to agree with him but one thing he is not is selfish.
> 
> I  as a non car driver who cannot afford a car get fed up with the complaints from drivers. Which I see as selfish. I cycle, walk and use public transport. I don't pollute the planet with owning a car. Does this make me selfish I think not.


I also walk, use public transport and cycle but I take my kids to school in the car because that is the only way I can get to work on time...maybe when you have kids you'll appreciate the extra things you have to do before you can sit on that bus to work...and i worked for 25 years before having kids so I know exactly both side of the coin.  And if you say it's your choice to have kids I will say to you that you need the kids to pay for your pension and all the other things taxes buy...


----------



## leanderman (Sep 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The people seeking to do the Loughborough Road closure are quoting all sorts of high minded moral principles - reduction of pollution, reduction of accidents, forcing people to use public transport - or walk, or cycle.
> 
> Some of these things are highly contentious - are people really going to walk or cycle because they can't drive down Loughborough Road?



I can't see much that is contentious about these ideas, or why they should be described as high-minded moral principles.

The impact of cars is very real, yet we will carry on driving for as long as it remains the easy option.

One day however city driving might seem as absurd as smoking in pubs.

(I suspect any fines will be thrown out because of the poor signage).


----------



## Complain! (Sep 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> This is fascinating:
> Lambeth, and the Loughborough Junction Plan, written up by a think tank as a shining example of how to do local consultation.
> 
> http://www.lgiu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/LGiU-Lambeth-residents-v2-Hi-res.pdf
> ...




Ha ha hilarious!  
"Our vision is one of citizens, businesses and council
staff working together on an equal footing, allowing citizens more
direct control and influence over the design and delivery of services
that make a difference in their lives and communities"

Sounds great doesn't it - shame Lambeth doesn't believe in democracy!  ie refusing the petition of 750 signatures against the road closures submitted by LETRA.

And here's another thing...the Stockwell Partnership have been appointed as an independent monitor for residents views....guess who used to work at the Stockwell Partnership...George Wright!  How impartial and independent is that going to be then!


----------



## Complain! (Sep 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> I am very excited about this car free day this afternoon: Can't wait to witness the range of activities and fun things that have been organised to showcase what a vibrant community space that section of Loughborough Road will turn into if / when the closures become permanent.
> I see that the Streatham version will have a roller disco, pop up playground for under 5s, a bike market, music, food "and more".
> It looks like LJ's extravaganza will have.. actually I have no idea. Possibly just an empty space, like the opposite of an event. Maybe it's Art.




Ha ha did you go - I did!  ...no stalls, no sound stage...nothing for kids...but i did find one person at the 'farm' digging and the Platform cafe was open - the lady there said there would be a beer bar open later...and that was it!!  ....that was why they closed the road and diverted the bus...outrageous!

My kids don't drink beer so we went home!  Great 'community day' LJAG!


----------



## irf520 (Sep 28, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I also walk, use public transport and cycle but I take my kids to school in the car because that is the only way I can get to work on time...maybe when you have kids you'll appreciate the extra things you have to do before you can sit on that bus to work...and i worked for 25 years before having kids so I know exactly both side of the coin.  And if you say it's your choice to have kids I will say to you that you need the kids to pay for your pension and all the other things taxes buy...



To the "true believers", no reason will ever suffice. They will say, "You should just get up earlier."
What really annoys me is the way these people arrogate to themselves the right to dictate how everyone else should live their lives. Whatever happened to live and let live?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> In the case I'm quoting they had to do pre committee consultation - because planning permission was required and residents had to be consulted (by law I think).
> 
> But to repeat once more the point I am trying to get at - aside from the prejudices causing the initial opposition, once Mosaic Clubhouse was up and running nobody noticed it was there AFAIK.
> 
> ...



You are talking about road users' "rights". But what you are really talking about is defending the priveleges of a minority. A right of way doesn't mean a right to drive motor vehicles. 200 years ago there were no motor vehicles. Gradually pedestrians' ability to move freely around the city has been eroded by more and more privelege being given to motorists. Now, as a pedestrian you are confined to the margins of what was orginally your right of way and are at risk of getting killed if you want to pass from one side of it to the other.

80% of households in Lambeth do not own a car. In the immediate locality of LJ it's even less. Virtually all fatal accidents on London's roads involve a motor vehicle but there are more than three times as many pedestrians killed as car drivers.

Why defend the privelege of a few, a privelege that has a massively disproportionate impact on the majority?

And these measures aren't highly contentious. There are many places where traffic calming, as a city wide policy, (and this scheme needs to be viewed in that context) has been successful. The idea that a city can't thrive without car drivers being free to roam wher they like is bollocks.

Have you been to Groningen?

I like this video because it's an American seeing a car-free city for the first time. He's obviously pro the general idea but even so it's clear that he's not quite been able to concieve of the possibility of it being a reality. This is what we seem to have got stuck in here too. People seem terrified of restricting car access. But look, nothing terrible happens! You just get a city that's hugely more enjoyable for everyone to live in. It's not pie-in-the-sky, it works fine - you just have to do it.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I also walk, use public transport and cycle but I take my kids to school in the car because that is the only way I can get to work on time...maybe when you have kids you'll appreciate the extra things you have to do before you can sit on that bus to work...and i worked for 25 years before having kids so I know exactly both side of the coin.  And if you say it's your choice to have kids I will say to you that you need the kids to pay for your pension and all the other things taxes buy...


So what about all those other people who don't own a car? How do they get to work on time?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

And as for the idea that making things less convenient for drivers encourages modal shift - no it is not highly contentious.

It has been well known for years, even decades, that increasing road capacity does not relieve congestion. Whatever additional capacity you provide simply fills up. It stands to reason that if you reduce capacity you reduce the number of motor vehicles in the system. So, the drivers of those vehicles who no longer fit on the roads have to use other modes of transport. If you want to also reduce congestion you have to provide disincentives like congestion charging schemes. 

These are the only really effective ways you can get people out of their cars. Give them less road capacity, and/or make them pay more for it.

The Only Hope for Reducing Traffic


----------



## leanderman (Sep 28, 2015)

irf520 said:


> What really annoys me is the way these people arrogate to themselves the right to dictate how everyone else should live their lives. Whatever happened to live and let live?



While this trial does look hopeless, isn't the dictating generally done by drivers?

The 20-30pc of residents who boss public thoroughfares, secure in vehicles pumping out deadly gas.

More a case of live and let die!


----------



## Ol Nick (Sep 28, 2015)

Rushy said:


> SLAM rehab center on Brighton Terrace was another.


No. SLAM has had several problems of anti-social behavior and occasional crime such as assaults and common assaults that have been dealt with by the community police. It ebbs and flows, as you might expect, but it doesn't get in the news.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2015)

Ol Nick said:


> No. SLAM has had several problems of anti-social behavior and occasional crime such as assaults and common assaults that have been dealt with by the community police. It ebbs and flows, as you might expect, but it doesn't get in the news.


Fair enough. I was aware of one little flurry of anti-social activity couple of years ago although never witnessed anything myself. I was quite anti the idea of it being there at the time but feel it has largely been discreet.


----------



## bimble (Sep 28, 2015)

More signs! 
I think (may be wrong) that there is no new camera just these signs going up now corner of Gordon Grove & Flaxman.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I can't see much that is contentious about these ideas, or why they should be described as high-minded moral principles.
> The impact of cars is very real, yet we will carry on driving for as long as it remains the easy option.
> One day however city driving might seem as absurd as smoking in pubs.
> (I suspect any fines will be thrown out because of the poor signage).


I am not arguing for the right to pollute - merely pointing out that the Loughborough Road pollution will most likely be diverted somewhere else - possibly even somewhere more harmful.

As for car ownership & use - we are entering a bizarre situation where new residents are prohibited from owning/parking cars (no car developments) whereas occupants of social housing built when car ownership was the norm are outraged at having their rights curtailed.

I am just trying to be libertarian about the issue. Maybe rebalancing the costs of public vs private transport might help like Fares Fare did in 1982.


----------



## MrM (Sep 28, 2015)

To those making casual comments about well-to-do LJAG oppressing the embattled working class: I think it's a wrong-headed position that creates a false division. If we must use a 'class war' gloss on this, you could equally see LJAG as battling against the oppression of non-local cars unfairly exploiting the roads and neighbourhoods north of CHL. Call LJAG misguided or condescending or inept, but I think trying to portray them as empire-builders is inaccurate.  
The truth is (of course) more nuanced. But if you feel the white middle classes are over-represented  (I'm sure they are), you could always try joining to help steer them in the right direction (even if that didn't work out for CH1...) 
And to be clear I have nothing to do with LJAG. I'm undecided on the road closures. But I'd like to think LJ is a sufficiently open-minded place that we're prepared to try an experiment and see if it works before rushing to judgment/sabotage.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm just going to put this link here and refrain from comment at the moment
> Award Winner: Lambeth - Best community engagement/ consultation


I went to one or two NEP meetings for Coldharbour. One of them had only 6 people present. Another one which had lots of presentation material required had more council officers than people in the audience.

This sort of thing is very hit and miss. Until something happens people cant be bothered/are too busy/doing shifts etc and don't engage.
When they start on a controversial hare brained scheme everyone gets the pip - but probably still wouldn't engage!

The Coldharbour NEP I seem to recall asking for something to make the street safer where the shops are opposite the Barrier Block.
Don't think anything happened there - but maybe the Zebra Crossing near Shakespeare Road was part of it? Also I think they panted some street trees and widened the pavement in Gresham Road opposite and next to the Fire Station (road safety?).

Other than that I don't know what they did.


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I am not arguing for the right to pollute - merely pointing out that the Loughborough Road pollution will most likely be diverted somewhere else - possibly even somewhere more harmful.


Trying to persuade people driving their precious fucking cars is on hell of a tricky problem to solve, not helped by a powerful pro-car lobby, the "it's my right to drive wherever I want" gang, and this bizarre situation which sees increased car sales being lauded on the main TV news as a reason to throw our hats in the air in celebration.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2015)

editor said:


> Trying to persuade people driving their precious fucking cars is on hell of a tricky problem to solve, not helped by a powerful pro-car lobby, the "it's my right to drive wherever I want" gang, and this bizarre situation which sees increased car sales being lauded on the main TV news as a reason to throw our hats in the air in celebration.


I was wondering why all the adverts at the Ritzy seem to be for cars! 20 minutes of it generally. Very tempting to arrive late to avoid the incredibly loud car porn.


----------



## MrM (Sep 28, 2015)

Out of curiosity (and this is aimed at anyone with an opinion  if you had access to a few tens of thousands of pounds of funding to spend on making LJ a nicer place to be, how would you spend it?


----------



## editor (Sep 28, 2015)

MrM said:


> Out of curiosity (and this is aimed at anyone with an opinion  if you had access to a few tens of thousands of pounds of funding to spend on making LJ a nicer place to be, how would you spend it?


Open a really good community cafe/pub space to give the place a focus. Put back the removed Loughborough Junction platforms (OK, we're talking tens of millions here). Put the old small industries back so it can remain a working/living area rather then turn it into a dormitory town for the well heeled. Oh, and put back the Loughborough House frontage, please.

*I'm not being entirely serious with all of these ideas here


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You are talking about road users' "rights". But what you are really talking about is defending the priveleges of a minority. A right of way doesn't mean a right to drive motor vehicles. 200 years ago there were no motor vehicles. Gradually pedestrians' ability to move freely around the city has been eroded by more and more privelege being given to motorists. Now, as a pedestrian you are confined to the margins of what was orginally your right of way and are at risk of getting killed if you want to pass from one side of it to the other.
> 
> 80% of households in Lambeth do not own a car. In the immediate locality of LJ it's even less. Virtually all fatal accidents on London's roads involve a motor vehicle but there are more than three times as many pedestrians killed as car drivers.
> 
> ...



So what is wrong with closing Hinton Road completely. To stop through traffic easily driving from Herne Hill direction to Camberwell Road & vv via Loughborough Road?

All this extra ludicrous signage threatening non-existent cameras in Gordon Grove and the travails of people in Calais Gate, Denmark Road Lilford Road miles from the precious site of Loughborough Road.

You really are committed to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - because the objective is not to reduce traffic, but to colonise the land immediately north of the railway which has been a right of way for 200+ years.

No I have not been to Groningen. I spent a pleasant interlude in Apeldoorn back in 1976 or thereabouts where my host was able to my surprise to hire me a bike for 20 mile round trip to a Royal Palace somewhere near Arnhem. Other than that I have no personal contact with cycling in the Netherlands (other than people flashing past me in Amsterdam back in the 1980s so to speak).


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> So what is wrong with closing Hinton Road completely. To stop through traffic easily driving from Herne Hill direction to Camberwell Road & vv via Loughborough Road?



I would have no objection to closing the end of Hinton Rd, if it seems that would be effective in reducing the amount of cut-through traffic. But the end of Hinton Rd does not lend itself to use as a public space in the way that the end bit of Loughborough Rd does. That is, as I understand it, a large part of the reasoning behind the scheme, not only to reduce cut through traffic but to provide LJ with a decent bit of urban public space.

The end of Hinton Rd is overshadowed most of the day, is narrower and has no adjacent green space. I'd still prefer that to nothing though.

I have been wondering if it would make sense to close the end of Herne Hill Rd instead (and make exit from Hinton Rd left/right turn only). It is wider, sunnier and also opposite the railway station. Making it into a pedestrian space could potentially work in conjunction with the development of the Higgs triangle too (and for the record, I argued strongly against the industrial employment space there being given up for housing - my agenda is not to fill LJ with yuppie flats but to keep it as somewhere with a diversity of employment but better public space - you don't have to choose between the two).

Somehow I suspect that if proposals had originally been made to pedestrianise the end of HHR instead of Loughborough Road, it would have been criticised on the basis of spending improvement money on the leafy side of LJ instead of the other side.

If it seems that people really don't want pedestrianisation on LR and/or that scheme is abandoned, I would certainly argue in favour of pedestrianisation schemes on the S side of CHL instead.




CH1 said:


> You really are committed to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - because the objective is not to reduce traffic, but to colonise the land immediately north of the railway which has been a right of way for 200+ years.



That's what you are trying to portray the intention as, but I don't think it's fair. I think it's a kind of smear strategy.

And as I already explained, 200 years ago it was a right of way for pedestrians. Closing it to traffic does not take a right of way away. It returns it to the pedestrians.

By the way, I think you imply that this "colonsiation" attempt is in conjunction with the Farm project. I am not especially in favour of the farm. I think there could definitely be an argument for a more appropriate use of that space. And there are ways that could happen in conjunction with the pedestrianisation of the end of LR - which I would suggest should remain as a hard surface, and become a shared space with buses, pedestrians and cyclists. There is no need to green it with the parkland immediately adjacent. And the farm site could be redeveloped with uses that would bring more day-round activity to that space.

It has lots of potential to work well, but I suspect it'll never happen because people are determined to trash it without even waiting to see what the real effects are.


----------



## bimble (Sep 28, 2015)

MrM said:


> Out of curiosity (and this is aimed at anyone with an opinion  if you had access to a few tens of thousands of pounds of funding to spend on making LJ a nicer place to be, how would you spend it?



If I had that amount my first idea would be to fix up and staff the derelict adventure playground on Gordon Grove - it's lovely in there, but it's always always closed.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 1.  I would have no objection to closing the end of Hinton Rd, if it seems that would be effective in reducing the amount of cut-through traffic. But the end of Hinton Rd does not lend itself to use as a public space in the way that the end bit of Loughborough Rd does.
> 
> 2.  That's what you are trying to portray the intention as, but I don't think it's fair. I think it's a kind of smear strategy.


"Captain you are not logical" (as Mr Spock used to say). 
My alternative suggestion is no good because it provides no public space, you say.
You then say my comments about sequestering a road and turning it into a public space are a smear tactic.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> "Captain you are not logical" (as Mr Spock used to say).
> My alternative suggestion is no good because it provides no public space, you say.
> You then say my comments about sequestering a road and turning it into a public space are a smear tactic.


No, I said neither of those things.
I said your altrnative suggestion would provide a less attractive public space.
And your comments weren't expressed as "turning it into a public space". Your wording was "to colonise the land immediately north of the railway which has been a right of way for 200+ years". My objection is to the implications of the word "colonisation", and the implication that restricting motor access amounted to removing a public right of way.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> If I had that amount my first idea would be to fix up and staff the derelict adventure playground on Gordon Grove - it's lovely in there, but it's always always closed.


But wouldn't this make the area more attractive to young parents with new families, thus accelerating gentrification?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> But wouldn't this make the area more attractive to young parents with new families, thus accelerating gentrification?



 you seem to think this gentrification malarkey is a bit of a giggle


----------



## bimble (Sep 28, 2015)

I think the thing we all call gentrification deserves more than lazy jokes, should have a thread to itself somewhere here.


----------



## Winot (Sep 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think the thing we all call gentrification deserves more than lazy jokes, should have a thread to itself somewhere here.
> View attachment 77329



Discuss gentrification on Urban? Nah, it'll never catch on.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

This graph game is totally stupid but mildly diverting all the same.


----------



## bimble (Sep 28, 2015)

I sort of meant.. everything ends up being that same conversation but yep ok point taken .


----------



## bimble (Sep 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This graph game is totally stupid but mildly diverting.
> 
> nice graph.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> you seem to think this gentrification malarkey is a bit of a giggle


What's your contrubution to the argument? You are resisting the attack on the priveleges of car owners, right? Why?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You are resisting the attack on the priveleges of car owners, right ?


Wrong, I am questioning the true motivation of this exercise.....


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I also walk, use public transport and cycle but I take my kids to school in the car because that is the only way I can get to work on time...maybe when you have kids you'll appreciate the extra things you have to do before you can sit on that bus to work...and i worked for 25 years before having kids so I know exactly both side of the coin.  And if you say it's your choice to have kids I will say to you that you need the kids to pay for your pension and all the other things taxes buy...



My point is I cannot afford a car. Its not an option for me. This puts me in the large percentage in the area who are not car owners. Not through choice. This is not a well off area and car ownership is low.

I have no problem with people having kids.

To add: you are making a lot of assumptions about my circumstances here. I don’t remember saying I had no children. 

This is part of the problem with the way the discussion on the road closures has gone. Assumptions are made about those like me who are refusing to take sides.


----------



## Winot (Sep 28, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Wrong, I am questioning the true motivation of this exercise.....



Outcome is more important than motivation. It's also more objective; motivation can be imputed.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think the thing we all call gentrification deserves more than lazy jokes, should have a thread to itself somewhere here.
> View attachment 77329



You haven’t been here long enough to know its been discussed to death here.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Wrong, I am questioning the true motivation of this exercise.....


Ok, but before going further can you clarify whether you agree that (a) rebalancing things in favour of the pedestrian over the motorist in LJ would in principle be positive and (b) reducing the number of cars on London's roads would in principle be positive?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 28, 2015)

Winot said:


> Outcome is more important than motivation. It's also more objective; motivation can be imputed.



sorry but wtf do you mean ?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> More signs!
> I think (may be wrong) that there is no new camera just these signs going up now corner of Gordon Grove & Flaxman.
> View attachment 77300



I dont think there are cameras. A lot of signs like this are just scare tactics. Hardly making the wonderful new spaces we can walk and cycle in appear welcoming.


----------



## Winot (Sep 28, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> sorry but wtf do you mean ?



I mean that you can make all sorts of assumptions about people's motives for doing things, and if you don't like the people in question then you can assume that their motives are wrong-headed. But what matters more is whether the outcome is good or bad.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I dont think there are cameras. A lot of signs like this are just scare tactics. Hardly making the wonderful new spaces we can walk and cycle in appear welcoming.


There was a CCTV car under the bridge at the junction with CHL this evening. It seemed to be prompting more U-turns than I had observed previously but there were still quite a few vehicles sailing through.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 28, 2015)

Winot said:


> I mean that you can make all sorts of assumptions about people's motives for doing things, and if you don't like the people in question then you can assume that their motives are wrong-headed. But what matters more is whether the outcome is good or bad.



The desired outcome is there in plain sight if you read the proposals.....


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You really are committed to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - because the objective is not to reduce traffic, but to colonise the land immediately north of the railway which has been a right of way for 200+ years.



I think you have a point here. And its where the whole scheme is destined to fail.

Unfortunately the traffic reduction side of it has been mixed in with what increasingly looks to me as LJAG proposals for LJ development/ regeneration.

A lot of the anger of the Council tenants on Loughborough Estate is directed at LJAG "colonisation" of what they regard as there patch.

This has been developing over a longer period of time. And has come to a head now.

Part of problem imo is the tendency of officers/ senior Cllrs to come to rely on/ have to close relationship with chosen groups. They do this partly as its easy option. No need to make an effort trying to consult others.

It look to me, from the meetings etc, Ive been to that there is a real problem of who gets listened to.

So the word "colonise" is exactly how some of the Council tenants feel about the Loughborough Road closure. They see it as middle class pressure group LJAG colonising that space. The Farm was brought up when I chatted to some of the Council tenants on car free day as similar example.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2015)

A problem of the Council working with the community etc. For which it won awards for ( see
bimble post) is that its fraught with problems.

Comparing Brixton and LJ again in Brixton "Brixton Green" is increasingly the recognised group who the Council work with. In LJ its LJAG.

At one meeting the Council officer said they had little budget for consultation so would rely on LJAG links with community.

LJAG should oppose this. I’ve warned them about seeming to be to close to Council. As at the last planning meeting one person from Loughborough Estate said its the perception that counts.

And thinking on it I take CH1 point that the Councils need explain properly what scheme like this are about. Nor have they got the message across that the idea of reducing car use is borough and London wide. From my chats with locals hardly any have been informed of the bigger picture.

And its the Council that should do this not another body that the Council starts to assume will do this for them.

In the case of Brixton Green they want to be the body one has to go through - an overarching organisation that is the broker between the community and the Council. This is what wound me up about BG when I was in central Brixton. And I can see this is what was starting to happen in LJ. Though unlike BG I don’t think LJAG meant to do this. They just started to slip into that role. 

A failing of LJAG is that they are not as ruthless as BG.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2015)

Rushy said:


> SLAM rehab center on Brighton Terrace was another.



I think that may have been the one I meant. 

And that got pretty nasty. If like me one said why not have it there its got to be somewhere you then got a lot of abuse from those opposing it.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 28, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I think that may have been the one I meant.
> And that got pretty nasty. If like me one said why not have it there its got to be somewhere you then got a lot of abuse from those opposing it.


I don't know the history of the Brighton Terrace rehab place, but the Clubhouse in Atkins Road (now moved to Effra Road) is a sort of employment oriented social centre for SLAM service users and others. It is not related to addictions - rather to long term mental health problems. And they are pussy cats - which is why I supported them - and was proved right in the long term!


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

This is from an email from George Wright last week : 

" You make fair points about the overall communication and I have this week been speaking with the Council's Comms. team to see how they can provide additional support.  *In the past we had our own consultation/engagement officers but these posts went in the July re-structure, so I have been largely on my own.*
I clearly underestimated the volume of correspondence that I would be getting on a daily basis and I certainly did not expect the degree of hostility that has been coming my way.  I guess it does show that my contact details are out there in the public domain!   But I do need additional support as I am managing three other projects so cannot devote all my time to LJ." 

So there is nobody within Lambeth currently who is tasked with communicating with residents about this project. 
GW  is a traffic man, he's no good at consultation, as evidenced at the recent meeting.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think the thing we all call gentrification deserves more than lazy jokes, should have a thread to itself somewhere here.
> View attachment 77329



This is a very weak, and fairly lazy graph. There are so many variables that have affected property prices, that it makes your table meaningless. Although by your own statistics, it looks as if rising property prices are the causation of gentrification, not gentrification the cause of rising property prices, and that in early 200s there was a dip in gentrification but an onward march in property prices.

But you need to include other affectors such as coming off the gold standard, the growth in financial engineering which led inevitably to the subprime crises, increased social mobility due to such things as free education and NHS and the opening up of higher education, the discovery of North Sea Oil, the increase in postwar council house building, the abolition of council house building from 1979 onwards, increased immigration





<iframe name="ngram_chart" src="Google Ngram Viewer" width=900 height=500 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 scrolling=no></iframe>

So on my graph, what it shows is that car ownership is a causation of gentrification, rather than property prices, meaning that closing Loughborough Junction to traffic will actually help _reduce_ gentrification. QED


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

These graphs have nothing to say about causation, it just shows prevalence of concepts, shows frequency of use of whatever word / phrase in english language books.
I thought it was interesting that '"gentrification" didn't exist as a word until 1980, same time as we all started talking about "property prices'"


----------



## prunus (Sep 29, 2015)

Watched Loughborough Road for about 5 mins this morning while waiting for the 35 - new signs up saying "£130 fine if you drive in this pedestrian area" were causing about 80% compliance (u-turns) on northbound traffic. Only 2 cars came southbound, and both went straight through - I wonder: are there signs further up dissuading people so only the hardcore make it all the way down? Anyway, small sample.

Traffic on coldharbour lane seemed much as usual.

Edit: fixed reported wording on sign


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

prunus said:


> Watched Loughborough Road for about 5 mins this morning while waiting for the 35 - new signs up saying "£130 fine if you drive in this congestion area" were causing about 80% compliance (u-turns) on northbound traffic.



Here (Gordon Grove / Flaxman Rd) the signs they put up yesterday with pictures of a camera "traffic enforcement in operation" have made a really big difference, lots and lots of U-turns going on just in front of that sign.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> These graphs have nothing to say about causation, it just shows prevalence of concepts, shows frequency of use of whatever word / phrase in english language books.
> I thought it was interesting that '"gentrification" didn't exist as a word until 1980, same time as we all started talking about "property prices'"



Ruth Glass, 1964, although the concept goes back to Roman times.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 29, 2015)

prunus said:


> Watched Loughborough Road for about 5 mins this morning while waiting for the 35 - new signs up saying "£130 fine if you drive in this congestion area" were causing about 80% compliance (u-turns) on northbound traffic. Only 2 cars came southbound, and both went straight through - I wonder: are there signs further up dissuading people so only the hardcore make it all the way down? Anyway, small sample.
> 
> Traffic on coldharbour lane seemed much as usual.



This was my experience this morning, with most vehicles not going through. Coldharbour Lane was no busier than normal. And I have to say, it was a joy to cycle down Loughborough Road (sorry).


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> Ruth Glass, 1964, although the concept goes back to Roman times.


Yes phenomena goes back to roman times but the word which we all use (& its perjorative tone) is new?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes phenomena goes back to roman times but the word which we all use (& its perjorative tone) is new?


Yes, the phrase, in socioeconomic context was coined by Ruth Glass in 1964. But as noted, it's been around for a long time. Just because a word doesn't exist, doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't happen. Unless you're a linguistic sceptic.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 29, 2015)

prunus said:


> "£130 fine if you drive in this congestion area"


It is not a congestion area - simply a road the council does not wish road traffic to use.
The sign should say "£130 if you drive between Ridgway Road and Barrington Road" - if that's what it is.


----------



## prunus (Sep 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It is not a congestion area - simply a road the council does not wish road traffic to use.
> The sign should say "£130 if you drive between Ridgway Road and Barrington Road" - if that's what it is.



Sorry - mistyping  it says "pedestrian area"

Will fix the original....


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2015)

Here's how Loughborough Road looked last night:


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

Yes, it's lovely round here now, it's really working, creating that cosy community feeling.


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> I am very excited about this car free day this afternoon: Can't wait to witness the range of activities and fun things that have been organised to showcase what a vibrant community space that section of Loughborough Road will turn into if / when the closures become permanent.
> I see that the Streatham version will have a roller disco, pop up playground for under 5s, a bike market, music, food "and more".
> It looks like LJ's extravaganza will have.. actually I have no idea. Possibly just an empty space, like the opposite of an event. Maybe it's Art.


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 29, 2015)

Disgraceful closure of a road. A  biker got that upset he was kicking down the barriers and Connaught who were there to maintain them kept putting them back up. That's about the only event that took place.


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

Today's new sign, which is stuck onto yesterday's new sign:


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

Here's a link to that petition. 
Jbrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk; [email]mparr1@lambeth.gov.uk[/email]: Say NO to Loughborough Road closure


----------



## concerned1 (Sep 29, 2015)

It was not just Council Residents handing out leaflets about the road closures on Saturday at the Car free event.
The ljroadmadness group are made up of representatives of  all the local businesses, residents from all around the closed roads areas, not just Council tenants,  several TRA's, Loughborough EMB, Angell Town EMB, Myatt's Field South etc. More people are joining the group on a daily basis.
LJAG are not representing the whole of local community. And as for join them to direct them.  Members are not invited to decision making meetings in fact only their AGM. There is a small group of trustees, at it's AGM no nominations were put forward and none were asked for at the meeting. A little clique.  As for the Pop up Park people they were there to consult on a Parklet, they did not go early because they were abused,  they went because hardly anyone attended (because there were no leaflets, no posters) and they felt the road closure was more the issue.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble you seem very keen to get people opposing the scheme before they've seen what the actual effects of it are. Has some kind of negative effect arisen for you in the day and a half they been being semi-enforced so far?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

From the petition

 
Someone needs to stand up for the people of Dulwich and their right to transport gardening equipment through Loughborough Junction.

Please don't make them have to use public transport to get to "the North". That would simply be unbearable.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

OMG LITERALLY 10 MINUTES


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

Oh Teucher. What I am keen on is consultation and people having every opportunity to express their views on what is happening, whatever their views may be, during this which is supposed to be the consultation period. 
Because Lambeth does not have the resources to actually do any consultation itself, it is down to people like whoever put that handmade poster up.


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

Cheap shots Mr Teucher. You missed this one though.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)




----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Cheap shots Mr Teucher. You missed this one though.
> View attachment 77393


I didn't miss that one. I'm glad you picked it out because I'm going to keep an eye on traffic on that road over the next few weeks and see whether it's a real problem.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Oh Teucher. What I am keen on is consultation and people having every opportunity to express their views on what is happening, whatever their views may be, during this which is supposed to be the consultation period.
> Because Lambeth does not have the resources to actually do any consultation itself, it is down to people like whoever put that handmade poster up.



What you are doing is not consultation.


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

Glad you're there to keep an eye on everything, make sure all these hundreds of people who keep claiming they are being negatively effected aren't just imagining things.


----------



## leanderman (Sep 29, 2015)

Since we are talking hospitals, the real problem is that of air pollution causing 9,500 premature deaths a year.

Another paradox is that the contention that some parents need to drive to school for time reasons.

Were their cars not on the road, buses might move more freely and do the job just as well.


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What you are doing is not consultation.



Actually, I really did try.
If you look at this you might agree that it's an honest attempt to collect opinions, not to push an agenda. 

SurveyMonkey - Log in


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Actually, I really did try.
> If you look at this you might agree that it's an honest attempt to collect opinions, not to push an agenda.
> 
> SurveyMonkey - Log in


I already explained that there's no point asking people about the effects of something that hasn't even happened yet.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Glad you're there to keep an eye on everything, make sure all these hundreds of people who keep claiming they are being negatively effected aren't just imagining things.


Generally, people seeing effects of things that haven't happened yet _are_ imagining things.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Were their cars not on the road, buses might move more freely and do the job just as well.


And ambulances would get to hospital more quickly too.


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I already explained that there's no point asking people about the effects of something that hasn't even happened yet.


Thanks for explaining again.
The effects are definitely happening on my corner, I promise, unless I'm imagining the significant increase in traffic which is forced to come down this small street because it can't use Loughborough Rd, the constant U-turns and angry confused people below my window , and that the bus takes 3 times longer along CH lane.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What you are doing is not consultation.



the same can be said for the council



leanderman said:


> Since we are talking hospitals, the real problem is that of air pollution causing 9,500 premature deaths a year.
> 
> Another paradox is that the contention that some parents need to drive to school for time reasons.
> 
> Were their cars not on the road, buses might move more freely and do the job just as well.



how does closing one route along Loughborough Road address this issue when the displaced traffic is pushed onto major bus routes.........?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Thanks for explaining again.
> The effects are definitely happening on my corner, I promise, unless I'm imagining the significant increase in traffic which is forced to come down this small street because it can't use Loughborough Rd, the constant U-turns and angry confused people below my window , and that the bus takes 3 times longer along CH lane.


And as has already been explained, you need to wait some time, several weeks at least, before you know what the long term effects are. People will change their journey patterns as they become more aware of the changes. Everyone who has executed a u-turn under your window will know not to try that particular cut-through again.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> how does closing one route along Loughborough Road address this issue when the displaced traffic is pushed onto major bus routes.........?



I thought you said your opposition was based on your opinion on the motivation of the scheme's promoters. But now you are questioning it on the basis of the details of its implementation. 

And you haven't answered my request to clarify your basic position on the principle of restricting private motor traffic.


----------



## Ms T (Sep 29, 2015)

It is a bit depressing that people aren't willing to give it a chance.  And yes, I do own a car but prefer to do local journeys by foot.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

Here is some reading for anyone interested in understanding the evidence-based principles behind encouraging modal shift (ie people switching to different methods of travel).

Barriers to Modal Shift


This answers the arguments about traffic being displaced onto other routes and slowing down buses. The whole point is to reduce the overall amont of car traffic on the roads. This is not going to happen within 48 hours of the changes being made. There is a reason why the experiment is supposed to run for 6 months. Some of the positive effects won't even take full effect within that period.

Much of the thinking behind the objections to the scheme is the same that generated the idea that building a motorway through Brixton and Loughborough Junction would be a good plan. Shame that never happened eh?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

I think I'm going to write to the various councillors asking them to please give the scheme some time, and disregard comments about negative effects if they have been made so soon after the implementation that they don't tell us anything useful.


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

Yes, and they should listen to you and disregard all objections recorded to date because your view on things is clearly more valid and has the gravitas to outweigh those of the 748 people who signed the petition against the closures, plus the 446 on the change.org one, plus etc and anon.


----------



## Winot (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, and they should listen to you and disregard all objections recorded to date because your view on things is clearly more valid and has the gravitas to outweigh those of the 748 people who signed the petition against the closures, plus the 446 on the change.org one, plus etc and anon.



Oh come on, democracy isn't a case of blindly following petitions. 

Why are you so against giving it some time to settle in and the seeing what the outcome is?


----------



## bimble (Sep 29, 2015)

I feel really misunderstood! 
It's true that I think the choice of closing Loughborough Road, the only big road here, is a really bad choice. 
Also true that personally I'm negatively impacted because diverted traffic comes past my home on Flaxman Rd, which was quiet. 
But honestly, what I really feel strongly about is the failure of consultation and the fact that Lambeth are unable to carry out the consultation they promised because they sacked the communications department which would have dealt with this due to budget cuts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> These graphs have nothing to say about causation, it just shows prevalence of concepts, shows frequency of use of whatever word / phrase in english language books.
> I thought it was interesting that '"gentrification" didn't exist as a word until 1980, same time as we all started talking about "property prices'"



Mid-60s, rather than 1980, was  when it was first quantified. What I found interesting is that gentrification (in modern terminology) has progressively become more rapid in "converting" areas. back in the early '70s when Battersea started to be gentrified the pace was slow enough that Battersea itself wasn't seen as gentrified until the mid '90s. Probably the biggest difference between then and now (besides the impacts of investment buying and BtL) is that the state (in the form of local government) now openly colludes with developers to re-purpose social housing and gerrymander local demography into something more suitable to the state's needs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes phenomena goes back to roman times but the word which we all use (& its perjorative tone) is new?



The meaning has been modified over time, as has the meaning of the term "regeneration".


----------



## CH1 (Sep 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> From the petition
> 
> View attachment 77391
> Someone needs to stand up for the people of Dulwich and their right to transport gardening equipment through Loughborough Junction.
> ...


Ironically she sounds like precisely the type of person enforcing this traffic ban.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 29, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mid-60s, rather than 1980, was  when it was first quantified. What I found interesting is that gentrification (in modern terminology) has progressively become more rapid in "converting" areas. back in the early '70s when Battersea started to be gentrified the pace was slow enough that Battersea itself wasn't seen as gentrified until the mid '90s. Probably the biggest difference between then and now (besides the impacts of investment buying and BtL) is that the state (in the form of local government) now openly colludes with developers to re-purpose social housing and gerrymander local demography into something more suitable to the state's needs.


I would say gentrification in Brixton started in the early 1980s with the Housing Action Areas where £30,000 council grants (a lot in those days) were available for rehabilitating street properties in designated areas - such as Saltoun Road, Railton Road, Effra Parade and no doubt many more.

Houses which cost £12,000 were transformed into full spec state of the art dwellings fetching £85,000 all with the aid of a council grant.

Certainly gave a major boost to Brixton - and it was originally a Labour scheme before Right to Buy was promoted.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, and they should listen to you and disregard all objections recorded to date because your view on things is clearly more valid and has the gravitas to outweigh those of the 748 people who signed the petition against the closures, plus the 446 on the change.org one, plus etc and anon.


No they should not disregard objections because "my view on things is more valid".
I said they should disregard objections that amount to claims of negative effects having arisen as a consequence of something that hasn't happened yet.
Likewise, if I wrote in to say that the closures have had such and such a positive effect, before they had actually been enforced and been given time to settle down, then they should disregard that too.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Ironically she sounds like precisely the type of person enforcing this traffic ban.


Please expand.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Please expand.


Well sort of ultra-bourgois(e). Making a car trip for family reasons going equipped with gardening tools. Need I say more?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> It was not just Council Residents handing out leaflets about the road closures on Saturday at the Car free event.
> The ljroadmadness group are made up of representatives of  all the local businesses, residents from all around the closed roads areas, not just Council tenants,  several TRA's, Loughborough EMB, Angell Town EMB, Myatt's Field South etc. More people are joining the group on a daily basis.
> *LJAG are not representing the whole of local community. And as for join them to direct them.  Members are not invited to decision making meetings in fact only their AGM.* *There is a small group of trustees, at it's AGM no nominations were put forward and none were asked for at the meeting. A little clique*.  As for the Pop up Park people they were there to consult on a Parklet, they did not go early because they were abused,  they went because hardly anyone attended (because there were no leaflets, no posters) and they felt the road closure was more the issue.



The decision to start this scheme was decided by the Council. It was not a decision of LJAG.

So whats the real issue here? 

From what I can see the road closure scheme is tangled up with other issues. Such as the Farm and LJAG apparent influence with the Council compared to other local groups. 

The Council is the body which takes decisions. Its elected Cllrs are finally responsible. 

If the Council has been listening to one group (LJAG) and not other resident groups in the area then its the Council who should be criticised.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> But honestly, what I really feel strongly about is the failure of consultation and the fact that Lambeth are unable to carry out the consultation they promised because they sacked the communications department which would have dealt with this due to budget cuts.



And that email you got from the officer who is overseeing the this traffic project was interesting. For an officer he is unusually frank.

Its an important issue that the "Coop" Council cannot in reality do consultation.

Why I am concerned that Council think they can choose groups like LJAG and in Brixton- Brixton Green to do this for them.

Its not how things should be done.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2015)

I haven’t noticed that much more traffic on CHL in mornings or evenings.


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> And that email you got from the officer who is overseeing the this traffic project was interesting. For an officer he is unusually frank.
> 
> Its an important issue that the "Coop" Council cannot in reality do consultation.
> 
> ...



Exactly. And because Lambeth latch onto LJAG as a way of outsourcing consultation, and because LJAG is not representative of a real cross-section of the local demographic, the feeling of division here gets deeper the divide entrenched.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Cheap shots Mr Teucher. You missed this one though.
> View attachment 77393



A few parallels, although I will also admit there are differences.

I live in an area of Loughborough Junction not far from the station and not far from the hospital. For many, many years this was free-for-all on road parking. Many mornings were ridiculous when out of town commuters would drive in from the surrounding suburbs and start arriving from 6am so that they could park before catching the train from LJ or Denmark Hill, or work at the hospital. On two occasions I saw people fighting over a parking space.

And then Lambeth proposed introducing a limited CPZ (2 hours per day, 12pm-2pm).

Some residents supported this, some didn’t. Fair enough, particularly as we would have to do something that historically we hadn’t had to do  - to pay to park outside our own houses (which we often couldn’t do anyway, given the weight of commuter traffic).

People wrote to Lambeth, from outside the area, opposing the CPZ. Comments included, ‘I need to park on xxx Road because I live in Croydon and need to drive and park near a station’, or ‘What will happen if people who work at the hospital can’t park near it? Patients will die’.  Or ‘I need to park near the hospital so I can take my children to appointments there’.

To this day, I’ve not heard of any patients dying because a CPZ zone was introduced. Nor have a seen a rise in unemployment rates in Croydon because people couldn’t drive in. Neither has there been a fall in outpatient appointments at Kings’.

What’s the purpose of this? Yes, there was inconvenience for some people, because they had to do things differently. But ultimately, no one, quite literally, died because of a change in driving behaviours. And sure enough, car drivers adapted. Some would have found new places to park, inconveniencing local residents, and some local residents will have be inconvenienced because something they were used to (free parking) was taken away. But if you ask anyone in the Herne Hill or LJ area, do they want to go back to the days of pre-CPZ and heavy local congestion, I can guarantee you will find no one who supports this.

Car drivers can change behaviours when they have to. It won’t be the end of the world.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> From the petition
> 
> View attachment 77391
> Someone needs to stand up for the people of Dulwich and their right to transport gardening equipment through Loughborough Junction.
> ...



This complainant is particularly puzzling. Why, if you're driving from Dulwich Village to Stockwell (I've centered this destination on Stockwell tube, would you go down Loughborugh Road anyway? 

Dulwich Village to Half Moon Lane. 
Half Moon Lane to East Dulwich Road
Dulwich Road to Brixton Water Lane
Brixton Water Lane to Brixton Hill
Brixton to Stockwell

Shorter than going on a circuitous route through Loughborough Junction.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 30, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> This complainant is particularly puzzling. Why, if you're driving from Dulwich Village to Stockwell (I've centered this destination on Stockwell tube, would you go down Loughborugh Road anyway?
> 
> Dulwich Village to Half Moon Lane.
> Half Moon Lane to East Dulwich Road
> ...


Surely up Red Post Hill, down Herne Hill Road, all the way round the Loughborough Road dog leg and down Robsart Street would be more direct?
Just a suggestion on why or what might be going on there.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 30, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> A few parallels, although I will also admit there are differences.
> 
> I live in an area of Loughborough Junction not far from the station and not far from the hospital. For many, many years this was free-for-all on road parking. Many mornings were ridiculous when out of town commuters would drive in from the surrounding suburbs and start arriving from 6am so that they could park before catching the train from LJ or Denmark Hill, or work at the hospital. On two occasions I saw people fighting over a parking space.
> 
> ...


Must have happened years ago?
I hate my own CPZ in the Loughborough Park area of Coldharbour Lane because it makes it difficult to get unplanned maintenance done to the house.
I don't drive or have a car - but I noticed that the zealot who plagued the council to bring it in (back in the late 1980s) was one of those insisting on the right to park HER car outside HER house.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Surely up Red Post Hill, down Herne Hill Road, all the way round the Loughborough Road dog leg and down Robsart Street would be more direct?
> Just a suggestion on why or what might be going on there.



I stress tested that too on Google maps. Still shorter to go Brixton Water Lane.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Must have happened years ago?
> I hate my own CPZ in the Loughborough Park area of Coldharbour Lane because it makes it difficult to get unplanned maintenance done to the house.
> I don't drive or have a car - but I noticed that the zealot who plagued the council to bring it in (back in the late 1980s) was one of those insisting on the right to park HER car outside HER house.



2008-9.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Must have happened years ago?
> I hate my own CPZ in the Loughborough Park area of Coldharbour Lane because it makes it difficult to get unplanned maintenance done to the house.


Why, because tradespersons don't want to pay to park? If there were no CPZ then surely there would often be no free space for them at all.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 30, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> This complainant is particularly puzzling. Why, if you're driving from Dulwich Village to Stockwell (I've centered this destination on Stockwell tube, would you go down Loughborugh Road anyway?
> 
> Dulwich Village to Half Moon Lane.
> Half Moon Lane to East Dulwich Road
> ...



Don't know if it's shorter but you'd be going through the centre of Brixton, which is always clogged up.
Red Post Hill, Herne Hill Rd, Loughborough Rd, Robsart St for me.
Even if you take Loughborough Rd out of the picture, you'd probably be better off going CHL, Gresham Rd, Stockwell Rd.


----------



## prunus (Sep 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Must have happened years ago?
> I hate my own CPZ in the Loughborough Park area of Coldharbour Lane because it makes it difficult to get unplanned maintenance done to the house.
> I don't drive or have a car - but I noticed that the zealot who plagued the council to bring it in (back in the late 1980s) was one of those insisting on the right to park HER car outside HER house.



Not that long ago - I remember it coming in and I've only been here since 2001.  Frankly I support it absolutely - it was ridiculous the number of commuters that used to come in at 8am-ish and fill all the streets ram-full, the inconvenience of having to have a supply of visitors' permits to hand is nothing in comparison.  What's needed now is to extend it to Sundays too, but that's another story.

I think you'd find that if your CPZ was rescinded it would be just as impossible to park near you - worse in fact as it would be all day and no permit would help - as your street would be rammed full of said commuters (as there's nowhere else un-zoned anywhere nearby).  Really is the lesser of two evils.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Sep 30, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Don't know if it's shorter but you'd be going through the centre of Brixton, which is always clogged up.
> Red Post Hill, Herne Hill Rd, Loughborough Rd, Robsart St for me.
> Even if you take Loughborough Rd out of the picture, you'd probably be better off going CHL, Gresham Rd, Stockwell Rd.



Or, West Dulwich to Brixton on the overground. Brixton to Stockwell on the tube. Takes less time than driving.


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2015)

minutes from the Neighbourhood Planning Forum meeting on 16th. they show how heated it got in there.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 30, 2015)

Well, this looks like it's basically a fait accompli and that's that. Plus they're looking for more roads to close. Fantastic.
Looks like George Wright can't wait to give even more motorists a kicking.


----------



## prunus (Sep 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> minutes from the Neighbourhood Planning Forum meeting on 16th. they show how heated it got in there.
> View attachment 77420 View attachment 77421



Thanks for that.

Some random thoughts:

100 jobs on the farm site?  That sounds ambitious (from a position of ignorance), but good.

I live on the South Side (just), and I'd be more than very happy for the north ends of both Hinton Road and Herne Hill Road to be closed (Padfield would have to stay closed too obviously) - it would absolutely delightful at the bottom of the hill without all the through traffic. (Yes, I have and drive a car, but an extra 10 minutes or so to get out of the area doesn't bother me at all).

Are we just giving up on the distinction between affect and effect?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 30, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> 2008-9.


You lot were evidently "late adopters"


----------



## Crispy (Sep 30, 2015)

Two weeks to put a £2m regeneration bid together is just ridiculous.
That they only found out about the funding so late is laughable.

The land use restrictions will prevent full-scale POPification, but I predict fireworks and trainwrecks ahead.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Well, this looks like it's basically a fait accompli and that's that. Plus they're looking for more roads to close. Fantastic.



That's not my reading of it. I think they mean that other options (eg Hinton Rd/Herne Hill Rd) could be considered as alternative to closing the end of Loughborough Rd.



irf520 said:


> Looks like George Wright can't wait to give even more motorists a kicking.



So actually it's the motorists you're concerned about, not local residents/businesses?


----------



## Ms T (Sep 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Surely up Red Post Hill, down Herne Hill Road, all the way round the Loughborough Road dog leg and down Robsart Street would be more direct?
> Just a suggestion on why or what might be going on there.


But there is an alternative route.  Which makes their original statement about "isolating the family" somewhat ridiculous.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Two weeks to put a £2m regeneration bid together is just ridiculous.
> That they only found out about the funding so late is laughable.
> 
> The land use restrictions will prevent full-scale POPification, but I predict fireworks and trainwrecks ahead.


Actually, I think this deserves its own thread, to avoid conflating the issues or having it buried in the chitchat thread.
bimble, were you at the planning meeting? have you seen the plans?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 30, 2015)

Ms T said:


> But there is an alternative route.  Which makes their original statement about "isolating the family" somewhat ridiculous.


Maybe that's how she has driven her gardening tools to visit her daughter for the last 20 years, and doesn't see why she should change?
I suggest a viewing of Obsessive Compulsive Cleaners might be in order - reminds you how some people like everything exactly right - and others can't give a toss.
I know which category I fit into!


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Actually, I think this deserves its own thread, to avoid conflating the issues or having it buried in the chitchat thread.
> bimble, were you at the planning meeting? have you seen the plans?



The plans for the funding bid for land where the farm is ? 

I saw the draught (drawings) briefly yes. 

It had containers in it, which alarmed people (re pop). 

I thought it was really impressive for a couple of weeks work by a young volunteer. 

What those local businesses might be who would be invited to rent the spaces at low cost and create these employment and training opportunities I don't know. 

It's important to remember that the land is designated a "KIBA" which as far as I understand means it can't be retail / food.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> I saw the draught (drawings) briefly yes.


Could you have a look at the plan in my thread and let me know if I have the site boundary right?
Loughborough Junction regeneration project, inc. Farm site


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2015)

Just a totally non partizan unbiased reminder of the meeting tomorrow Thursday 6.30 pm at the Loughborough Centre (corner of Barrington & Angell roads) where the road closures will be.. discussed. 

The person at Stockwell Partnership tasked with leading the consultation on behalf of Lambeth will be there, as will Cllr Rachel Haywood.


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Could you have a look at the plan in my thread and let me know if I have the site boundary right?
> Loughborough Junction regeneration project, inc. Farm site



Yes, that's the bit (incl. sheds at the back into the pointy corner I believe).


----------



## xsunnysuex (Sep 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> The person at Stockwell Partnership tasked with leading the consultation on behalf of Lambeth will be there, as will Cllr Rachel Haywood.


Thank you.  I did ask on the facebook page who would be attending.  But no one saw fit to answer me.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2015)

Where's the facebook page...can you give me a link?


----------



## xsunnysuex (Sep 30, 2015)

LJ Road Madness


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Two weeks to put a £2m regeneration bid together is just ridiculous.
> That they only found out about the funding so late is laughable.
> 
> The land use restrictions will prevent full-scale POPification, but I predict fireworks and trainwrecks ahead.



Not that uncommon though - remove or reprioritise your bid team to new areas of work to maintain existing contracts and new stuff will often get defined as 'out of scope'.


----------



## Winot (Sep 30, 2015)

Very good article by Peter Walker in the Guardian. It's about bike lanes and the argument that promoting them is a class issue, but his points transfer nicely to the debate on this thread. 

Leave class out of the London cycling debate


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2015)

That's a good article. 
However..
This below is from the report on the consultation which Lambeth carried out about the road closures here in LJ.  
It shows that the vast majority of the total number of 633 people who joined in - at all -  with Lambeth's consultation process are basically cyclists. 

I have nothing against cyclists at all, but it is also the case that the people who took part in this consultation are not a cross section of the demographic of who lives here. 

That's why this scheme has been so divisive along perceived class / gentrification lines. 
 
you can see the whole thing the consultation report doc  here: 
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/doc...on_Public_Realm_Improvements_Report FINAL.pdf


----------



## Winot (Sep 30, 2015)

I'm quite prepared to believe that Lambeth have cocked up both the consultation and the implementation. They are quite capable of making a silk purse into a sow's ear.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2015)

I agree that the consultation is very unlikely to have represent a true cross section of the local population. I also acknowledge that the consultation in this case could probably have been done a lot better, with a greater effort to make as many people aware of it as possible.

But:
- Unfortunately this distorted perspective is true for all consultations, because only people who feel they have an interest tend to respond.
- The same applies to the various "anti" petitions handed in, surveys etc
- The consultation in any case doesn't pretend only to represent the views of those within the area and rightly so. Because it's to do with through traffic, it will affect people who travel through the area as well.
- Flaws in the consultation process don't counter arguments made in favour of the scheme (except arguments that claim it should be introduced because a majority of residents wanted it). The two things are getting confused.


----------



## Winot (Sep 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I agree that the consultation is very unlikely to have represent a true cross section of the local population. I also acknowledge that the consultation in this case could probably have been done a lot better, with a greater effort to make as many people aware of it as possible.
> 
> But:
> - Unfortunately this distorted perspective is true for all consultations, because only people who feel they have an interest tend to respond.
> ...



Yes. And on a broader note, the result of a consultation process shouldn't determine societal change, particularly a societal change which favours a minority over a majority. That's when political leadership is needed.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 30, 2015)

Winot said:


> Yes. And on a broader note, the result of a consultation process shouldn't determine societal change, particularly a societal change which favours a minority over a majority. That's when political leadership is needed.



can you define who is the minority and the majority in this situation because from what I can see the majority of people inside the closure zone are against the experiment......

e2a .....that bit about political leadership looks well iffy in some respects.....


----------



## Winot (Sep 30, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> can you define who is the minority and the majority in this situation because from what I can see the majority of people inside the closure zone are against the experiment......
> 
> e2a .....that bit about political leadership looks well iffy in some respects.....



Cyclists are a minority compared to motorists. 

The kind of political leadership I was thinking of is that shown by Livingstone introducing the congestion charge.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 30, 2015)

Winot said:


> Cyclists are a minority compared to motorists.



what about people who do both or neither ?


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2015)

Winot said:


> Yes. And on a broader note, *the result of a consultation process shouldn't determine societal change, particularly a societal change which favours a minority over a majority. That's when political leadership is needed.*



When is it a good idea to introduce a societal change which favours a minority over a majority?
Can you give an example of when you think political leadership has done well to do that?


----------



## Winot (Sep 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> When is it a good idea to introduce a societal change which favours a minority over a majority?
> Can you give an example of when you think political leadership has done well to do that?



Well there are loads of examples in the field of discrimination (racial/sexual). Although to clear I am NOT equating those situations with this.


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2015)

I can't think of one. Seriously. Unless you think changes that are good for women have been bad for men etc.


----------



## Winot (Sep 30, 2015)

Anti-slavery legislation.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2015)

Making buses wheelchair accessible.


----------



## bimble (Sep 30, 2015)

I think there were a lot more slaves than there were slave owners.. and having wheelchairs on the bus is not a problem for people who don't have wheelchairs ?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> and having wheelchairs on the bus is not a problem for people who don't have wheelchairs ?


Indeed, it has a minor impact on non-wheelchair users, yet if you just went with what was the most convenient for the majority of bus users, you would not have any wheelchair accessible buses.

This is a bit of a stupid argument to be having, isn't it? Surely you recognise that some decisions should be made in such a way that they do not go with what the majority would prefer if voting in their own self interests? Especially if the group you are actually asking to vote doesn't include everyone that the decision could have positive or negative impact on?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Actually, I think this deserves its own thread, to avoid conflating the issues or having it buried in the chitchat thread.
> bimble, were you at the planning meeting? have you seen the plans?



bimble and me were at same meeting.

Some sketchy plans were passed around. By a rather nice but harassed young guy from the Farm.

Was at the Farm and had a chat with one of the long term volunteers there.

The young guy is well meaning architect. The idea imo could be a way to bring together the Estate and LJAG. But its being rushed.

As I said elsewhere on LJ chatter thread I think. Another guy from the Estate and me said if there is not enough time for consultation its should be shelved.

Interestingly my chat in the Farm led me to understand there is a "Farm" faction who aren’t necessarily hardline supporters of LJAG. Who see there is an issue about consulting and getting the Loughborough estate residents involved more.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Just a totally non partizan unbiased reminder of the meeting tomorrow Thursday 6.30 pm at the Loughborough Centre (corner of Barrington & Angell roads) where the road closures will be.. discussed.
> 
> The person at Stockwell Partnership tasked with leading the consultation on behalf of Lambeth will be there, as will Cllr Rachel Haywood.



Ru going?

If I go I will be late. 

Also Im a cylist and neutral on the road closures. ie will give them a chance. 

Also think the underlying issues is not about road closures.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 30, 2015)

Be interested to get a report back on this. I am going to be at Royal College of Physicians, so apologies.
_"Almost everything you think you know about differences between the two sides of the brain is wrong. So why is the brain, an organ that exists only to make connections, divided and asymmetrical?"
_
Meanwhile I noticed there is now a lot more "compliance" with the traffic ban - maybe because there are now some pretty obvious CCTV cameras in situ.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> When is it a good idea to introduce a societal change which favours a minority over a majority?
> Can you give an example of when you think political leadership has done well to do that?



Actually Winot is right. Its a debate that goes on in political philosophy.

Rights of minorities need to be protected in a democracy. Laws against hate crime is an example. 

btw I would argue that dropping these road closures will favour a minority- car owners. As the area as low car ownership.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> It shows that the vast majority of the total number of 633 people who joined in - at all -  with Lambeth's consultation process are basically cyclists.



Lambeth Cyclists campaigners did a lot to influence the results of the consultation -- see the story in their own words…
Lambeth Cyclists website: Space for cycling at Loughborough junction
"_Our scheme for Loughborough Junction was dead in the water" said one local Loughborough Junction activist "and then the cyclists came". _


----------



## Beasley (Oct 1, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I would argue that dropping these road closures will favour a minority - car owners. As the area as low car ownership.



The country is covered by routes that evolved over centuries to link settlements along their ways and in time those routes became public property -- there for the good of all, not the residents of any one place. Surely then, the local authority for any community on an established route is obliged not to close it without giving prior notice to users of the route, wherever they live, and providing an alternative route for them.

The change to the route between Herne Hill and Brixton via Railton Road and Atlantic Road was handled properly: an alternative route was defined before the south end of Railton Road was pedestrianised. Then it only took some new sign posts for Herne Hill to have a new public space that made the local people proud.

Barring a miracle the Loughborough Junction scheme looks set to bring its local people more embarrassment than pride. And annoyance -- plenty of that.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Actually Winot is right. Its a debate that goes on in political philosophy.
> 
> Rights of minorities need to be protected in a democracy. Laws against hate crime is an example.



Actually..  I don't think that the majority suffer / loose out as a result of laws against hate crime, for example.. but anyway, this argument is getting a bit silly.

My point was that local people - resident and working here in LJ - seem to be overwhelmingly against the closures, in direct contrast to the results of the official consultation.

And that is a real problem because the strong feeling of resentment this has stirred up - against the perceived powerful minority, including LJAG, - makes this feel a very angry and hostile environment to live in. I'm not saying all was fine before but the sharpness of this divide is something new.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Be interested to get a report back on this. I am going to be at Royal College of Physicians, so apologies.
> _"Almost everything you think you know about differences between the two sides of the brain is wrong. So why is the brain, an organ that exists only to make connections, divided and asymmetrical?"
> _
> Meanwhile I noticed there is now a lot more "compliance" with the traffic ban - maybe because there are now some pretty obvious CCTV cameras in situ.


Swap reports? Yes, the signs saying £130 fine and the ones with a picture of a camera have made a huge difference.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

Motorists are the majority in terms of vehicles using the roads. And cyclists the minority, although this is changing.

But motorists are not in the majority amongst local residents.

It's in motorists' self interest to oppose this scheme, and they are, as can be seen in the petition comments.


----------



## Manter (Oct 1, 2015)

This is a truly bizarre debate with a fair amount of whataboutery. And I have say anyone who uses 'think of the children' to try and get people in their corner- let alone the sick children- loses my support by default. Manipulative twaddle. I also cannot figure out any car journey that takes 5 minutes that takes nearly an hour by bus. I call bullshit.

Slightly sceptical of the class analysis too- car ownership is relatively high among some sectors of the poor because they work antisocial or unpredictable hours. Car ownership is relatively low among some sectors of the poor because it's expensive. You can prove anything you like with that sort of analysis! 

So why are people actually so angry and abusive, why are new members signing up here to leave posts in capitals about a really minor road change?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 1, 2015)

Manter said:


> So why are people actually so angry and abusive, why are new members signing up here to leave posts in capitals about a really minor road change?


It's not as bad as some on Urban 75 IMHO. We are "passionate"!


----------



## Manter (Oct 1, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It's not as bad as some on Urban 75 IMHO. We are "passionate"!


I know- but never about something as nimby as road markings!  This reads like the Herne Hill forum with extra pity posts….


----------



## CH1 (Oct 1, 2015)

Manter said:


> I know- but never about something as nimby as road markings!  This reads like the Herne Hill forum with extra pity posts….


I think you should come and look - it is hardly an idyll of rural beauty with all these signs and barricades al over the place. More like the entrance to a waste transfer station if you ask me.


----------



## Manter (Oct 1, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think you should come and look - it is hardly an idyll of rural beauty with all these signs and barricades al over the place. More like the entrance to a waste transfer station if you ask me.


oh I know, it looks shit, and the implementation has been a bit rubbish.  It may not even be the best place to do a closure- I don't know, I'm no specialist.  Maybe there are other roads that could be closed and traffic could be discouraged that way.  I'm just baffled by the hysteria.  We have poor sick children who can't get on buses because of wheelchairs and so will have to die in the street- or was it the other way round, I can't keep track.  It just seems completely and utterly disproportionate, and some of the random accusations are baffling.  I just made the mistake of going on the Facebook page- nazism? really?  a small road change in a city with one of the best public transport networks in the country?!


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 1, 2015)

Manter said:


> I know- but never about something as nimby as road markings!  This reads like the Herne Hill forum with extra pity posts….



.... and worse grammar


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

I think the reason for the strong feelings is not the road markings etc it's that local people - resident and working here in LJ - are for whatever reason right or wrong,  overwhelmingly against the closures, in direct contrast to the results of the official consultation.
And that's a problem because the strong feeling of resentment this has stirred up - against the perceived powerful minority who have 'had their way' because the council listens to them.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 1, 2015)

Beasley said:


> The country is covered by routes that evolved over centuries to link settlements along their ways and in time those routes became public property -- there for the good of all, not the residents of any one place. Surely then, the local authority for any community on an established route is obliged not to close it without giving prior notice to users of the route, wherever they live, and providing an alternative route for them.
> 
> The change to the route between Herne Hill and Brixton via Railton Road and Atlantic Road was handled properly: an alternative route was defined before the south end of Railton Road was pedestrianised. Then it only took some new sign posts for Herne Hill to have a new public space that made the local people proud.
> 
> Barring a miracle the Loughborough Junction scheme looks set to bring its local people more embarrassment than pride. And annoyance -- plenty of that.



Yes, but in that case only a slight diversion was required. In this case the 'diversion' would be CHL, Barrington Rd, St James's Cres, Angell Rd, Barrington Rd back onto Loughborough Rd. And they're hardly going to signpost that as an official diversion - it goes through previously quiet residential roads.
In this case the whole point is that there's no diversion. The diversion is this:


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 1, 2015)

Do you know that though, or are a small vocal percentage of car drivers using social media to promote their issue?

It's not like the comments under a Telegraph article actually reflect the view points of the general population; but those of a select few from a particular demographic.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

The oppression of motorists from Dulwich continues to be a theme in the petition comments.


----------



## Manter (Oct 1, 2015)

((Dulwich))


----------



## Winot (Oct 1, 2015)

Stockwell must be pleased.  It's like Passport to Pimlico.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

Here's a good one.



Another oppressed car driver. He is _forced_ to drive through residential streets to get to work. He's not able to use other transport modes, or to use the arterial routes which presumably would increase his journey time, which is more important than everyone else's journey time. He _has to drive through the residential streets._ And he _feels sorry_ for the residents of those streets, who have to put up with people like him, who _have no option_. But he doesn't want any measures to discourage people using the smaller streets, like the maze of one way systems and no entry signs he is _forced to tackle_ when he seeks his cut-throughs.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

Traffic is dangerous! Reopen our roads so the traffic can get through!!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 1, 2015)

Manter said:


> So why are people actually so angry and abusive, why are new members signing up here to leave posts in capitals about a really minor road change?



A really minor road change? May I ask where you live? I live 2 minutes from the pedestrian area on the Loughborough Road side and I do not consider it a "really minor road change". I agree there's a lot of unnecessary hot air going on but don't diminish people's concerns.

I do have a car but I'm predominantly a walker/public transport user but so far the closure isn't making any sort of good difference IMO. 

Much of it has to do with the appalling implementation of the closure by Lambeth Council, at the moment it's like living in a riot zone, barriers, signs, random road markings, it looks terrible, I'm certainly not feeling the nicer town centre style atmosphere we were promised.

And I know there's a lot of talk about all the gentrifiers down by Myatts Field being in favour of this but I wouldn't be in their position as every time I've been down by there, it's gridlock.

Also I know there has been other discussions on here about congestion on CHL and on what I've seen I have to agree with them, I walk into Brixton in the morning and there definitely seems to be more traffic going down CHL towards Brixton and then turning down Gresham Road. This is good you might think but this is also the route the buses take, so the public transport that many people have to use takes longer. 

I guess at the moment all the usual traffic is trying to find other ways through but there seem to be a lot of little, previously safe roads that right now have a lot more traffic than they did before, which to me defeats the purpose.

I have been against the closure but now that we have it, I've prepared to see what happens. However if it's going to fail, I want it to have been given a decent chance first, right now it's been set up to fail so stands no chance. The problem is if it isn't given a proper chance and isn't done properly, the idea of closing the junction will not go away, the trial's failure can be blamed on poor implementation and then we get another trial. At least if it's done properly and then fails, then it's failed because it was a bad idea and it won't be raised again.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Do you know that though, or are a small vocal percentage of car drivers using social media to promote their issue?
> 
> It's not like the comments under a Telegraph article actually reflect the view points of the general population; but those of a select few from a particular demographic.



I can't prove it but I think that the "paper based petition submitted by the Loughborough Estate TRA that was signed by 748 people " not all of them were motorists, or regular visitors to Dulwich gardening centre..


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I have been against the closure but now that we have it, I've prepared to see what happens. However if it's going to fail, I want it to have been given a decent chance first, right now it's been set up to fail so stands no chance. The problem is if it isn't given a proper chance and isn't done properly, the idea of closing the junction will not go away, the trial's failure can be blamed on poor implementation and then we get another trial. At least if it's done properly and then fails, then it's failed because it was a bad idea and it won't be raised again.



You should let your councillors know that you feel this way. There are a lot of people pressuring for the scheme to be abandoned before it's run its course.

I agree the barrage of barriers looks rubbish. But it's iin the nature of an experimental scheme that more permanent measures can't be put in place. And it's worth remembering that it's all there due to motorists' refusal to pay any attention to the less imposing signage that was initially put in.

When I look at the array of signs and warnings, I see it as an indication of the entitlement we've allowed motorists to develop in our car-dependent society. No-one has a fundamental right to drive on the public road. It is a privelege. You have to apply for a license and then you are supposed to observe the conditions attached to it. But people haven't been, and their disregard for others is reflected in the escalation of signage that has been necessary to make them comply with the rules associated with their privelege.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> I can't prove it but I think that the "paper based petition submitted by the Loughborough Estate TRA that was signed by 748 people " not all of them were motorists, or regular visitors to Dulwich gardening centre..


And how many residents are there on the estate (which is a bit of an arbitary definition of "local people" anyway, given there are many other streets involved)? If I remember correctly about 3000 familes.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Here's a good one.
> 
> View attachment 77494
> 
> Another oppressed car driver. He is _forced_ to drive through residential streets to get to work. He's not able to use other transport modes, or to use the arterial routes which presumably would increase his journey time, which is more important than everyone else's journey time. He _has to drive through the residential streets._ And he _feels sorry_ for the residents of those streets, who have to put up with people like him, who _have no option_. But he doesn't want any measures to discourage people using the smaller streets, like the maze of one way systems and no entry signs he is _forced to tackle_ when he seeks his cut-throughs.



You don't know what he does for a living. Maybe he needs to carry heavy/bulky items to work? You don't know how far he has to travel either.
You should be careful in case you hurt yourself falling off your high horse.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 77495
> 
> Traffic is dangerous! Reopen our roads so the traffic can get through!!



But this is the problem with closing Loughborough Road, it is used, a lot. Maybe not always by locals but it is used. And whether you like it or not, those car drivers aren't going to suddenly going to go "oh god they've blocked the route I take, I must get on a bike, that'll be better", no they're going to find a different route and because this hasn't been well thought out, they're going to go and get lost on the Loughborough Estate or one of the other ill equipped roads that are now being used. 

This is why I believe the road should have been kept open but better traffic management options introduced. The road is wide enough for traffic and cyclists, it's recently been re-surfaced and with some work could have helped create the feeling that was initially promoted. As it is, all the traffic is going down CHL and we will never have the "town centre" feeling we were promised as that is so much busier and everyone just flies through it. So far the plan seems to have had the opposite effect.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

irf520 said:


> You don't know what he does for a living. Maybe he needs to carry heavy/bulky items to work? You don't know how far he has to travel either.
> You should be careful in case you hurt yourself falling off your high horse.


If he needs a vehicle, he can use an alternative route that doesn't involve cutting through lots of residential streets, can't he. His journey is not now impossible. It might take a little longer. If he got behind efforts to remove unnecessary car journeys from the streets, then people like him, making their genuinely necessary journeys, could make them a bit more easily.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If he got behind efforts to remove unnecessary car journeys from the streets



Talking of which and on a slightly lighter note, maybe we should also be promoting this.....

Walk to School Month | Living Streets


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

LadyV said:


> But this is the problem with closing Loughborough Road, it is used, a lot. Maybe not always by locals but it is used. And whether you like it or not, those car drivers aren't going to suddenly going to go "oh god they've blocked the route I take, I must get on a bike, that'll be better", no they're going to find a different route and because this hasn't been well thought out, they're going to go and get lost on the Loughborough Estate or one of the other ill equipped roads that are now being used.



This point has already been covered. People do change their journey habits. Some will take different routes. Some will get on a bike. Some will use public transport. But the changes don't happen instantly.

I already posted this. Read it if you are interested.

Barriers to Modal Shift


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Talking of which and on a slightly lighter note, maybe we should also be promoting this.....
> 
> Walk to School Month | Living Streets


Absolutely.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)




----------



## Beasley (Oct 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> And how many residents are there on the estate (which is a bit of an arbitary definition of "local people" anyway, given there are many other streets involved)? If I remember correctly about 3000 familes.



Neither the leaflets advertising the consultation last year nor the letters advising about the experimental closures this year were delivered through the mail. It seems that these items were not delivered to flats that are not accessible from the street and that explains how the council failed to notify so many local people.

In any case, this is not simply a local issue and the council has overlooked that throughout. Some prominent notice boards beside the road would have conveyed the message to passing drivers quite effectively (and cheaply).


----------



## prunus (Oct 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The oppression of motorists from Dulwich continues to be a theme in the petition comments.
> 
> View attachment 77493



Excellent - I like to do six impossible things before breakfast. I'll add that to the list.


----------



## Winot (Oct 1, 2015)

LadyV said:


> But this is the problem with closing Loughborough Road, it is used, a lot. Maybe not always by locals but it is used. And whether you like it or not, those car drivers aren't going to suddenly going to go "oh god they've blocked the route I take, I must get on a bike, that'll be better", no they're going to find a different route and because this hasn't been well thought out, they're going to go and get lost on the Loughborough Estate or one of the other ill equipped roads that are now being used.


Not necessarily true.  It's pretty well established that the 'predict and provide' model of road planning is flawed - if you build more roads, they become full with new traffic.  The corollary is that removing roads can reduce traffic.  This happened when Hammersmith Bridge was closed for safety reasons, as detailed in this article from BBC News (I think there are more recent examples too but that was the first I found).

From the article:



> There have been significant traffic reductions in the immediate local area. Thirty thousand vehicles used to use Hammersmith bridge but they have not been found on the two neighbouring bridges and there are surveys which show that as much as a third of car trips which used to be made are now made by other methods [of transport].


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2015)

I'm not sure if it's directly related but there seems to be a lot more traffic heading west up Coldharbour Lane recently. There was a tailback from the  Atlantic Rd lights all the way back to Gresham Rd half an hour ago and it was the same story around 6.15pm last night.



*checks window: pretty much the same now too.


----------



## Winot (Oct 1, 2015)

Roads in south London have been fucked for a while due to a number of factors I think - including the road works at Oval and Elephant for the new segregated cycle lanes (pesky cyclists).  Maybe that's having a knock-on effect into Brixton.  Certainly cycling into work I've noticed high congestion on Brixton Rd/Clapham Rd/Kennington Lane and this morning the back streets around Vauxhall were unusually full.


----------



## prunus (Oct 1, 2015)

Just been looking at a map - it looks to me that they've made a mistake in not closing Denmark Road where it goes under the railway - this leaves a backstreets route from the top to the bottom of Loughborough Road via CHL, Denmark Road and Paulet/Knatchbull/Lilford I think?  Unless there are other restrictions already in place along that route?

Are these the residential streets people are seeing increased traffic on?  I had assumed that that was people exploring the backstreets looking for a way around, which would eventually peter out when they realised it was main roads or nothing, but if the above route is possible I imagine it could get quite busy, and those are narrow roads with lots of parked cars.

Will drive it on streetview just now 

e2a: yup that seems to work.  I think Denmark Road needs closing under the railway bridge to make this make sense.  I wonder why they didn't?


----------



## Angellic (Oct 1, 2015)

Are there any signs displayed indicating that Barrington Rd is closed to vehicle traffic?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 1, 2015)

editor said:


> I'm not sure if it's directly related but there seems to be a lot more traffic heading west up Coldharbour Lane recently. There was a tailback from the  Atlantic Rd lights all the way back to Gresham Rd half an hour ago and it was the same story around 6.15pm last night.
> 
> View attachment 77499
> 
> *checks window: pretty much the same now too.


Yesterday when I waked down to Brixton the traffic lights by the Dogstar were not working.  Do you think this could be the culprit - being as its a westbound traffic problem?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

Traffic lights at the bottom of herne Hill Rd are out of action at the moment too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Neither the leaflets advertising the consultation last year nor the letters advising about the experimental closures this year were delivered through the mail. It seems that these items were not delivered to flats that are not accessible from the street and that explains how the council failed to notify so many local people
> 
> In any case, this is not simply a local issue and the council has overlooked that throughout. Some prominent notice boards beside the road would have conveyed the message to passing drivers quite effectively (and cheaply).



Hmm. According to a Lambeth councillor, they use a mailing firm rather than in-house postal facilities for distributing letters and leaflets. IIRC it's one of the courier companies as it's cheaper than Royal Mail.
Last week on my estate we found that less than 50% of households had received a mail-out containing important material about our Tenants' Association. I suspect that the couriers may be binning some of their workload.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

prunus said:


> Just been looking at a map - it looks to me that they've made a mistake in not closing Denmark Road where it goes under the railway - this leaves a backstreets route from the top to the bottom of Loughborough Road via CHL, Denmark Road and Paulet/Knatchbull/Lilford I think?  Unless there are other restrictions already in place along that route?


Quite a lengthy detour for people coming down Hinton rd heading in Stockwell direction though. They might as well go via Gresham Rd. So maybe the reasoning is that people wouldn't consider it worthwhile as a cut-through. Whether or not they do is something that ought to become apparent during the experimental period I'd have thought.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 1, 2015)

prunus said:


> Just been looking at a map - it looks to me that they've made a mistake in not closing Denmark Road where it goes under the railway - this leaves a backstreets route from the top to the bottom of Loughborough Road via CHL, Denmark Road and Paulet/Knatchbull/Lilford I think? Unless there are other restrictions already in place along that route?



Please don't close that too, on the rare occasion I do drive, that's one of my few remaining routes to Camberwell and beyond to the east, we're kettled enough thank you very much!


----------



## prunus (Oct 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Quite a lengthy detour for people coming down Hinton rd heading in Stockwell direction though. They might as well go via Gresham Rd. So maybe the reasoning is that people wouldn't consider it worthwhile as a cut-through. Whether or not they do is something that ought to become apparent during the experimental period I'd have thought.



I strongly suspect that a fairly large proportion of people will in fact - from experience the route CHL-Gresham Road-Stockwell Road/Park Walk-Brixton Road is really quite a schlep, and likely to be even more so with the additional traffic coming from this closure.  As you say we shall see.


----------



## prunus (Oct 1, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Please don't close that too, on the rare occasion I do drive, that's one of my few remaining routes to Camberwell and beyond to the east, we're kettled enough thank you very much!



You'll be pleased to hear I don't have any powers to close any roads!

Anyway, take your point.  Perhaps it should be one-way (southbound) - that would have much the same effect, and Denmark Road is pretty narrow (certainly too narrow for two-way traffic to pass where cars are parked, even though parking is only allowed on one side).


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Yesterday when I waked down to Brixton the traffic lights by the Dogstar were not working.  Do you think this could be the culprit - being as its a westbound traffic problem?


Don't think so as the same kind of queues have been here when the lights were working fine.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm. According to a Lambeth councillor, they use a mailing firm rather than in-house postal facilities for distributing letters and leaflets. IIRC it's one of the courier companies as it's cheaper than Royal Mail.
> Last week on my estate we found that less than 50% of households had received a mail-out containing important material about our Tenants' Association. I suspect that the couriers may be binning some of their workload.



When I asked him to explain where the 10,991 letters that were apparently sent out last year were actually delivered, George Wright sent me this: 
http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/doc...city leaflets - LLB Confirmation Report 2.pdf 

It shows that a courier company delivered 4,200. I did ask him about this number and he said there were other deliveries but he didn't have the records for them.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

Bus drivers, they'd be the ones to ask for an informed view right? (about whether this has made driving down CHL  take significantly longer)


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)




----------



## Manter (Oct 1, 2015)

LadyV said:


> A really minor road change? May I ask where you live? I live 2 minutes from the pedestrian area on the Loughborough Road side and I do not consider it a "really minor road change". I agree there's a lot of unnecessary hot air going on but don't diminish people's concerns.
> 
> I do have a car but I'm predominantly a walker/public transport user but so far the closure isn't making any sort of good difference IMO.
> 
> ...


Like living in a riot zone? Jesus Christ love, how sheltered are you?  I agree with a lot of what else you say- needs to be implemented better, not about gentrifiers, needs to be given a proper chance.... And I raise an eyebrow at the seem to as walking around I don't see more traffic at all. I live just south of Brixton town centre and go into the city almost every day by a variety of routes. The onto change I have seen is more plastic sign boards and more online hysteria.

Full disclosure: have lived in Brixton in a variety of places for 10+ years, relatively well off (never figured out if that makes me a gentrifier or not), no car, use car club if need to drive, but public transport has always been fine for me, my partner, and my child- including regular hospital visits and commuting into both the City and wider London


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

Manter said:


> Jesus Christ love, how sheltered are you?


Jesus Christ love how patronising are you.. is it because she's a lady?


----------



## Manter (Oct 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> Jesus Christ love how patronising are you.. is it because she's a lady?


Laydeee surely. Get back to 1956


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

I was just suggesting you wouldn't have said  "love" if her name was Mr something instead of having Lady in it. ok? probably not ok.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> I was just suggesting you wouldn't have said  "love" if her name was Mr something instead of having Lady in it. ok? probably not ok.


Would you be crying "sexist" if Manter's handle didn't start with "Man"?


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

Yes. You're ok though because you're just a robot, and we both look like street signs.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes. You're ok though because you're just a robot, and we both look like street signs.


_Just_?

Are you trying to upset _everybody_?


----------



## Beasley (Oct 1, 2015)

prunus said:


> Just been looking at a map - it looks to me that they've made a mistake in not closing Denmark Road where it goes under the railway



This was never an option: Denmark Road is half in Southwark and this project was designed by Lambeth. People based in Denmark and Flodden Roads were described by George Wright as 'the losers' of the scheme.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

Beasley said:


> This was never an option: Denmark Road is half in Southwark and this project was designed by Lambeth. People based in Denmark and Flodden Roads were described by George Wright as 'the losers' of the scheme.


They could just close the Lambeth border


----------



## Rushy (Oct 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes. You're ok though because you're just a robot, and we both look like street signs.


Incidentally, I have always thought your avatar was a Santa Claus.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

Rushy said:


> Incidentally, I have always thought your avatar was a Santa Claus.


oh dear. I see what you mean. I thought I was a friendly traffic cone.


----------



## prunus (Oct 1, 2015)

Beasley said:


> This was never an option: Denmark Road is half in Southwark and this project was designed by Lambeth. People based in Denmark and Flodden Roads were described by George Wright as 'the losers' of the scheme.



Ah, right. Nothing like joined-up thinking.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 1, 2015)

Manter said:


> Like living in a riot zone? Jesus Christ love, how sheltered are you?  I agree with a lot of what else you say- needs to be implemented better, not about gentrifiers, needs to be given a proper chance.... And I raise an eyebrow at the seem to as walking around I don't see more traffic at all. I live just south of Brixton town centre and go into the city almost every day by a variety of routes. The onto change I have seen is more plastic sign boards and more online hysteria.
> 
> Full disclosure: have lived in Brixton in a variety of places for 10+ years, relatively well off (never figured out if that makes me a gentrifier or not), no car, use car club if need to drive, but public transport has always been fine for me, my partner, and my child- including regular hospital visits and commuting into both the City and wider London



If you live "just south of Brixton town centre" you don't actually live near all the signs, road markings, uncollected rubbish (the council refuse collectors don't seem to have gotten the hang of it either) so I don't think you can really comment on what it's like. Yeah ok using the phrase riot zone was ott but it's really not a nice place to be right now, it's never been fantastic but this is the worst it's been in a long time.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> Jesus Christ love how patronising are you.. is it because she's a lady?


Thank you for sticking up for me!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 1, 2015)

Did anyone get into the meeting at the Loughborough Centre this evening? I turned up and it was jam packed, couldn't get anywhere near the door. 

I know that one of the big arguments on this forum is that locals are too poor to have a car and the against party are people that just drive through the area not live here but from what I saw these were not the Dulwich yummy mummies types driving little Johnny to the garden centre etc these were local people who live nearby and they are mad, real mad!


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 1, 2015)

Anyway, tonight's meeting was busy.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 1, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Anyway, tonight's meeting was busy.


Just a bit, shame there wasn't as much interest before the decision was made, might not be in this situation


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

(some pics from tonights meeting at loughborough Centre)


----------



## Manter (Oct 1, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Thank you for sticking up for me!


he's is being a silly tosser.  As it happens I am female.  No lady (because it isn't 1956 FFS )


----------



## Manter (Oct 1, 2015)

LadyV said:


> If you live "just south of Brixton town centre" you don't actually live near all the signs, road markings, uncollected rubbish (the council refuse collectors don't seem to have gotten the hang of it either) so I don't think you can really comment on what it's like. Yeah ok using the phrase riot zone was ott but it's really not a nice place to be right now, it's never been fantastic but this is the worst it's been in a long time.


So I don't drive that way?  so I am not entitled to an opinion?  The nimby-ism is quite staggering.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Just a bit, shame there wasn't as much interest before the decision was made, might not be in this situation


That is the problem , the consultation was useless.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 1, 2015)

Manter said:


> So I don't drive that way?  so I am not entitled to an opinion?  The nimby-ism is quite staggering.


That s what you took from that? That's not what I meant, of course you're entitled to an opinion but living somewhere is very different to just travelling through, I happen to like where I live and the moment it's being ruined.
As for nimby-ism, quite frankly it's got nothing to do with not wanting it in my back yard so to speak, wouldn't want it in anyone's back yard, it's a flawed implementation of a flawed plan that was carried forward by a flawed consultation, so get back in your box.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

The meeting tonight was packed. 
People had to keep shushing each other because no PA system.
4 councillors were there.
People who spoke included: Cllr Rachel Haywood, an ambulance paramedic, a bus driver, a local garage owner, a woman who works in haematology at Kings, a cyclist who said 'not in my name' and several long time residents with various reasons for opposing the scheme.
Nobody mentioned difficulties with getting to Dulwich garden centre.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> The meeting tonight was chaired by Ann Hoad, secretary of LETRA.
> It was packed. people had to keep shushing each other because no PA system.
> 4 councillors were there.
> People who spoke included: Cllr Rachel Haywood, an ambulance paramedic, a bus driver, a local garage owner, a woman who works in haematology at Kings, a cyclist who said 'not in my name' and several long time residents with various reasons for opposing the scheme.
> Nobody mentioned difficulties with getting to Dulwich garden centre.


Will the minutes be published?


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

I could have a go but it wasn't that sort of meeting. It was a bit chaotic, too many people.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 1, 2015)

That meeting was really packed.  Shame they never had a microphone or something.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2015)

If anyone fancies knocking up a summary for Buzz, I'd really appreciate it.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 1, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Did anyone get into the meeting at the Loughborough Centre this evening? I turned up and it was jam packed, couldn't get anywhere near the door.
> 
> I know that one of the big arguments on this forum is that locals are too poor to have a car and the against party are people that just drive through the area not live here but from what I saw these were not the Dulwich yummy mummies types driving little Johnny to the garden centre etc these were local people who live nearby and they are mad, real mad!



Yes, I was there. It was absolutely packed out.

They started off by introducing themselves (the LJRoadMadness group) and the guests (ward councillors). They read out statements from local MPs who both expressed opposition to the scheme.

Near the beginning of the meeting they took a show of hands as to who was supportive and who was opposed to the scheme. There was ONE person in support - or at least with enough chutzpah to say so. She looked a bit like Anthea Masey, but I didn't get a good enough look to be sure it was her. The rest were all vehemently opposed.

Some of the ward councillors made statements where the indicated that they were opposed to the scheme and had previously tried to get it stopped.

A representative of London Ambulance Service made a statement saying that their response times had been significantly affected by the scheme and it therefore placed people's lives at risk.

Two representatives of local businesses made statements (the guy that runs Hinton Road car wash and another guy who runs a garage on Ridgway Road) saying that their business had been seriously impaired. The car wash guy said his trade had fallen by more than half, and I can believe him if the number of cars which passed me as I walked along Milkwood Road is anything to go by - there is noticeably less traffic along there now.

Then comments were invited from the floor. A number of people made statements opposing the scheme. Points made included:

Someone witnessed a child hit by a car on St James's Crescent. Another person witnessed a near miss.
Massive amounts of traffic on narrow residential roads caused by people trying to avoid the closures
Time wasted, extra costs and extra pollution incurred by having to drive a long way round and on roads which are already heavily congested.
One person suggested that the scheme was another way to try and force local residents out of the area to make way for more gentrification
At one point someone asked whether the lone supporter of the scheme would like to step up and articulate their reasons for supporting it. However she (the supporter) had disappeared by then. Probably a wise decision - some people were getting very heated.

At the end of the meeting the organisers said they would be doing another petition and the councillors said they would go back to the council and indicate the strength of feeling of the locals and the opinion of the LAS that the scheme is putting lives at risk. Attendees were asked to leave their comments and contact details either on paper or via email.

I forgot to say there was a journalist there - from the Evening Standard I think. He spoke to some people and took some contact details. So you might see an article in there in the near future.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2015)

Which are the narrow roads that have the massive amount of extra traffic? I'd like to go and have a look for myself.

Was the "representative of London Ambulance Service" there representing the organisation officially? I would have thought that if the Ambulance Service had concerns about people's lives being put at risk they would contact the council formally and directly, rather than sending someone to an unminuted campaign group meeting.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

editor said:


> If anyone fancies knocking up a summary for Buzz, I'd really appreciate it.



Meeting in opposition to Lambeth's Road Closures attracts hundreds of irate Loughborough Junctioners
Loughborough Centre was filled to capacity tonight, with people spilling out of the room and shushing each other at a meeting where those opposed to Lambeth’s controversial road closure scheme gathered to express their views.

The meeting was publicised via leaflets posted around the local area by the 'Loughborough Junction Road Madness group’ (see facebook), a local pressure group formed to give a voice to those who want the roads reopened.

Lambeth’s official consultation process resulted in the finding that 68% of those questioned were in favour of the experimental road closures in Loughborough Junction. However, only 633 people participated in Lambeth’s consultation questionnaire.
Opposition to the closures has so far been shown in a petition submitted by LETRA with over 748 signatures, and by various petitions online. 
Tonight was the first public meeting of those opposed to the closures and it was so well attended that the lack of a PA system was a problem.
Four Councillors were in attendance.
Those who took to the stand included Cllr Rachel Haywood, who strongly opposes the closures and notes the failure of Lambeth’s consultation process, an ambulance paramedic who expressed his concerns about the increased time it now takes to reach emergencies, a woman who works in the haematology Department at Kings College Hospital concerned at the problems people are having in reaching their appointments, a bus driver who has to drive down CHL every day and a cyclist who said ‘not in my name’.  
Others who got a chance to speak included two local business owners who said that business has been down by half since the six experimental road closures came into effect and several local residents with various reasons for their passionate opposition to the scheme. 

The loudest cheers from the crowd (not exactly rowdy but passionate) came when people called for direct action, as in the physical removal of the road signs and barriers in the roads.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Was the "representative of London Ambulance Service" there representing the organisation officially? I would have thought that if the Ambulance Service had concerns about people's lives being put at risk they would contact the council formally and directly, rather than sending someone to an unminuted campaign group meeting.


I don't think he was sent, I think he just cared.
I imagine he has contacted the council in writing as well. He had a document which he held up but I couldn't see.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which are the narrow roads that have the massive amount of extra traffic? I'd like to go and have a look for myself.
> 
> Was the "representative of London Ambulance Service" there representing the organisation officially? I would have thought that if the Ambulance Service had concerns about people's lives being put at risk they would contact the council formally and directly, rather than sending someone to an unminuted campaign group meeting.



St James's Crescent was mentioned twice if I remember correctly.
I have also personally seen large amounts of traffic on Denmark Road.
The LAS guy was there in uniform. Whether he was an "official" representative or not I couldn't say. He gave the impression that his opinion was shared by the rest of the people he works with.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which are the narrow roads that have the massive amount of extra traffic? I'd like to go and have a look for myself.


Yes, please continue the Teuchter Review and Assessment of All Things.
Try coming here, junction of Flaxman Rd & Gordon grove. 
We could have tea and wrestling.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> The meeting tonight was chaired by Ann Hoad, secretary of LETRA.
> It was packed. people had to keep shushing each other because no PA system.
> 4 councillors were there.
> People who spoke included: Cllr Rachel Haywood, an ambulance paramedic, a bus driver, a local garage owner, a woman who works in haematology at Kings, a cyclist who said 'not in my name' and several long time residents with various reasons for opposing the scheme.
> Nobody mentioned difficulties with getting to Dulwich garden centre.


Chair of the meeting is nothing to do with LETRA.


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Chair of the meeting is nothing to do with LETRA.


I'm sorry. Please correct.


----------



## Complain! (Oct 1, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Be interested to get a report back on this. I am going to be at Royal College of Physicians, so apologies.
> _"Almost everything you think you know about differences between the two sides of the brain is wrong. So why is the brain, an organ that exists only to make connections, divided and asymmetrical?"
> _
> Meanwhile I noticed there is now a lot more "compliance" with the traffic ban - maybe because there are now some pretty obvious CCTV cameras in situ.


I think it might be because of the £130 fine!  lots of cars no going through the heart of the estate....


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Chair of the meeting is nothing to do with LETRA.



(I've edited my bits to remove that reference )


----------



## irf520 (Oct 1, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I think it might be because of the £130 fine!  lots of cars no going through the heart of the estate....



Yes. I reckon they'll probably make back the £28K they pissed up the wall on this idiocy from the fines. They only need 200 tickets after all and I saw 3 cars go through in as many minutes on the way to the meeting this evening.


----------



## Complain! (Oct 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> That's a good article.
> However..
> This below is from the report on the consultation which Lambeth carried out about the road closures here in LJ.
> It shows that the vast majority of the total number of 633 people who joined in - at all -  with Lambeth's consultation process are basically cyclists.
> ...


I have it from a cyclist that, at the time of the consultation, people with leaflets were stopping cyclists on Loughborough Road so obviously gathering bias support for the scheme - they weren't handing out leaflets to the average resident....


----------



## bimble (Oct 1, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I reckon they'll probably make back the £28K they pissed up the wall on this idiocy from the fines. They only need 200 tickets after all and I saw 3 cars go through in as many minutes on the way to the meeting this evening.



Sounds crazy but its true, they must have made their money back by now already:
They say only about £18,000 of the £28,000 designated for this experiment has so far been spent.
£130 x 200 = £26,000.


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> £130 x 200 = £16,000.


No. No it doesn't.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 2, 2015)

Lambeth Cyclists website: Space for cycling at Loughborough junction

says it all,  seems one person made it their quest to get these roads closed


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

Manter said:


> No. No it doesn't.


oops. thanks. corrected.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 2, 2015)

Hmm someone named Clare Neeley is the Author/Director of Road Closures apparently works closely with LJAG.

It's all a bit CONTRADICTORY 

"_small group of residents expressed vocal opposition to the scheme we were able to rally the support of local cyclists and residents resulting in a positive response to the formal consultation on the scheme._"

THEN...
_"ran into huge opposition because it involved closing roads to through motor traffic."_

I don't think it was a small group last night at least 300 people present and the ambulance report was damning of the whole scheme along with others. I saw Anthea Massey from LJAG scuttle off I think she was the only supporter of the road closures present. One woman who has MS and has a family made it very clear how these closures are severely affecting her and her family, there where many others also. I've never attended such a full house not even full council meeting are that packed...


----------



## CH1 (Oct 2, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Hmm someone named Clare Neeley is the Author/Director of Road Closures apparently works closely with LJAG.
> 
> It's all a bit CONTRADICTORY
> 
> ...


I wouldn't have expected advocates of the scheme to venture into a meeting where everyone was opposed - I should think Anthea was gauging the situation in case LJAG have to climb down. Though I'm sure this is by no means over yet.

It's good 4 councillors were there and residents were able to set out their views in a comprehensive way at last.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

Yes, Clare Neely is a cycling campaigner. She was at the meeting on 16th September, very vocally in favour.
Clare Neely: cycle campaigner and activist


----------



## irf520 (Oct 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I wouldn't have expected advocates of the scheme to venture into a meeting where everyone was opposed - I should think Anthea was gauging the situation in case LJAG have to climb down. Though I'm sure this is by no means over yet.



I'm sure it's not. The militant cyclists won't be happy until everyone is forced to cycle out to the M25 to do their weekly shopping.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

Just an anecdote from last week when the blocks were still being moved in and out of the street here on my corner:
Clare Neely came along (on her bike) and got into an argument with a man who was dragging the roadblocks out of the way so he could get his van through. She started telling him off, saying the street was closed, and he ended up shouting at her "you don't own the street". It felt as if he was shouting at what she represents to him rather than just her as a person.


----------



## Winot (Oct 2, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I'm sure it's not. The militant cyclists won't be happy until everyone is forced to cycle out to the M25 to do their weekly shopping.



You clicked the wrong 'favourite' on your web browser mate - Daily Mail is that way --->>>


----------



## Crispy (Oct 2, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I'm sure it's not. The militant cyclists won't be happy until everyone is forced to cycle out to the M25 to do their weekly shopping.


Hyperbole doesn't help


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 2, 2015)

Nothing like a bit of hyperbole for a sunny Friday morning.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I wouldn't have expected advocates of the scheme to venture into a meeting where everyone was opposed - I should think Anthea was gauging the situation in case LJAG have to climb down. Though I'm sure this is by no means over yet.
> 
> It's good 4 councillors were there and residents were able to set out their views in a comprehensive way at last.


5 councillors turned out for it apparently, rather unusual for them... and they all seemed to be saying time to stop this experiment!


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It's good 4 councillors were there and residents were able to set out their views in a comprehensive way at last.


I've just been corrected. There were 5 cllrs present: 2 from herne hill ward 2 from coldharbour ward and 1 from vassal.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

From Clare Neely's cycling activism essay thing above. It's really very arrogant, noblesse oblige.


----------



## Winot (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> From Clare Neely's cycling activism essay thing above. It's really very arrogant, noblesse oblige.
> 
> View attachment 77537



That's not what noblesse oblige means.

You may not like her style, but which of her statements do you disagree with?


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

I think I've used the phrase correctly. I don't think the road closures in LJ are opening up the community, or giving people greater access to anything.


----------



## MrM (Oct 2, 2015)

'Noblesse oblige' refers to the sense that those with privilege tend to feel an obligation to use that position to help others less privileged. I expect the better-off members of LJAG feel that sums up their objective for this experiment quite neatly, but I don't think that's what your post was saying


----------



## critical1 (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think I've used the phrase correctly. I don't think the road closures in LJ are opening up the community, or giving people greater access to anything.



Oh yes they are, I ve just seen this post on the LJ madness page. Made me laugh I may need a trip to the Maudsley Hospital.

"Official sights of interest around Loughborough Junction."


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

ok, I was using it in a slightly sarcastic tone of voice, to describe her evident sense that it's her duty to extend the benefits of her greater wisdom to all, whether they like it or not.


----------



## MrM (Oct 2, 2015)

Sorry, missed the irony. I plead a caffeine shortage.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 2, 2015)

One lady felt so passionate about stopping the road closures she attended the meeting having only just had surgery.  She stood there on crutches and gave a very heartfelt speech.


----------



## prunus (Oct 2, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I'm sure it's not. The militant cyclists won't be happy until everyone is forced to cycle out to the M25 to do their weekly shopping.



Do piss off, there's a good chap.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 2, 2015)

I admit my comment was a bit facetious. But you have to admit there is a strategy being pursued here where nothing is ever quite sufficient. When they get (some of) what they want, they always come back for more. It's like the old "boil the frog slowly" strategy. I'm just hoping they've turned the heat up a bit too much this time and the frog has noticed something is wrong.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 2, 2015)

We went past today. There seemed to be quite a lot of traffic coming down Loughborough Rd, towards Coldharbour, but no one was turning into LR.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 2, 2015)

I really don't think London's cyclists are well served by its road design. I was in Vienna in the summer, and it's much more cycle-friendly, to the extent that parents will cycle with their kids on very busy arterial roads, which all have cycle lanes.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 2, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I admit my comment was a bit facetious. But you have to admit there is a strategy being pursued here where nothing is ever quite sufficient.



London has terrible cycle infrastructure and there's a long way to go before it could be called sufficient. The stuff that's going in at Oval should exist everywhere, as it does in major cycle-friendly cities on the continent (where, I might add, cycling is not seen as a weird middle class affectation, but as a sensible and normal thing that everyone does, because it's cheap, quick and pleasant).


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2015)

Thanks bimble and irf520 - I've included your reports in the Buzz feature. If anyone wants to write an article in response to this, please drop me a line - I'm all for getting the debate out there!

Meeting in opposition to Lambeth’s Road Closures attracts hundreds of irate Loughborough Junctioners


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)




----------



## teuchter (Oct 2, 2015)

On the subject of hyperbole I went to pick up a parcel at the camberwell sorting office this morning which involved walking down denmark road, apparently subject to massive amounts of through traffic. 

I was there at about 9.15 and there was not much traffic at all. It was perfectly possible to take a photo of the entire straight stretch without any vehicles on it. 

Walking back through the residential streets - flaxman rd etc - they were also very quiet, except for someone having a conversation with the operator of a mobile cctv car near one of the no entry locations.

Of course, things may be different at rush hour. I will continue with my investigations and report back.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 2, 2015)

teuchter said:


> On the subject of hyperbole I went to pick up a parcel at the camberwell sorting office this morning which involved walking down denmark road, apparently subject to massive amounts of through traffic.
> 
> I was there at about 9.15 and there was not much traffic at all. It was perfectly possible to take a photo of the entire straight stretch without any vehicles on it.
> 
> ...



You can call me a liar if you like, but I went past there at around 1745 on Wednesday afternoon and it was choc-a-bloc. There was a long queue stretching back along Denmark Rd from the Coldharbour Lane junction.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

There was a bus driver at last night's stop the closures meeting, in his bus drivers uniform.
He was very cross indeed and I think he's better placed than most of us to judge what this has done to traffic along CHL, which he spends all day driving up and down.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> There was a bus driver at last night's stop the closures meeting, in his bus drivers uniform.
> He was very cross indeed and I think he's better placed than most of us to judge what this has done to traffic along CHL, which he spends all day driving up and down.


His reports will be more meaningful after things have had a few months to bed in. Rather than being based on the first 4 days of enforced changes.


----------



## MrM (Oct 2, 2015)

There’s pretty broad agreement that the implementation of this project has been dreadful. Looking at the city as a whole, can we also agree that we need find ways to diversify transportation away from motoring? London’s population is growing. Road space cannot. Encouraging cycling seems preferable to alternative means of reducing car use. Otherwise they’ll end up restricting car use by the usual method: make it increasingly expensive, so as to generate revenue while keeping numbers down (privileging the well-off, which scores pretty badly in terms of social justice...)


----------



## yes (Oct 2, 2015)

Ms T said:


> We went past today. There seemed to be quite a lot of traffic coming down Loughborough Rd, towards Coldharbour, but no one was turning into LR.


When I was heading North on Loughborough Road this morning (8.45am) all the Southbound signs had been knocked over and barriers pushed to the side, but Northbound signs were intact.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> There was a bus driver at last night's stop the closures meeting, in his bus drivers uniform.
> He was very cross indeed and I think he's better placed than most of us to judge what this has done to traffic along CHL, which he spends all day driving up and down.



I would have thought that it would have been the bus company that's better placed than most of us to judge the macro impact of this measure. Was there anyone there in an official capacity from any of the bus companies, or from TFL? I didn't see that mentioned in your writing for Brixton Buzz.

I don't doubt he was 'very cross indeed', but there's a difference between being cross (aren't most bus drivers cross for one thing or another, most of the time?), and having a longitudinal technical impact assessment on bus travel in the area. Was there one?


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> a longitudinal technical impact assessment on bus travel in the area. Was there one?


No there wasn't one of those.  I don't think it would be too hard to find out more about this though. Maybe in this high tech world all bus journeys are recorded somehow,  logging the time taken between stops etc. I'll try to bimble down to the camberwell depot at some point, see if I can ask about it.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> No there wasn't one of those.  I don't think it would be too hard to find out more about this though. Maybe in this high tech world all bus journeys are recorded somehow,  logging the time taken between stops etc. I'll try to bimble down to the camberwell depot at some point, see if I can ask about it.



Is 'bimble' a verb? That's really cute


----------



## Crispy (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble
ˈbɪmb(ə)l/
BRITISH(informal)
_verb_

*1*.
walk or travel at a leisurely pace.
"on Sunday we bimbled around Spitalfields and Brick Lane"


----------



## LadyV (Oct 2, 2015)

Crispy said:


> bimble
> ˈbɪmb(ə)l/
> BRITISH(informal)
> _verb_
> ...


Personally I prefer pootle to bimble but bimble works perfectly in this case


----------



## LadyV (Oct 2, 2015)

teuchter said:


> His reports will be more meaningful after things have had a few months to bed in. Rather than being based on the first 4 days of enforced changes.


I quite agree, although with the terrible implementation and general antipathy that was shown last night, I don't know if it will get that far. Some locals are far too angry and with councillors potentially on side, who knows what will happen.

The local people I spoke to outside (I couldn't get into the meeting itself, too many people) were angry, there is definitely a feeling of this being a class thing and them being discriminated against, it was not nice to hear. 

Also one guy said to me that there was some sort of campaign against the LJMadness group that organised last night, he claimed (I can not substantiate, am merely repeating) that when the group had been putting up posters to promote the meeting, an unknown person was following them taking the posters down! I think this and other chinese whispers might be adding to the general feelings of anger and paranoia!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> I've just been corrected. There were 5 cllrs present: 2 from herne hill ward 2 from coldharbour ward and 1 from vassal.


Which one from Coldharbour couldn't be bothered to show their face? I'm sure I know, no doubt the one that never turns up to their clinic sessions!


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

LadyV said:


> The local people I spoke to outside (I couldn't get into the meeting itself, too many people) were angry, there is definitely a feeling of this being a class thing and them being discriminated against, it was not nice to hear.



That's what I am so upset about: This has done more than any POPs to polarise people and entrench the divisions felt here already. 
The degree of antipathy this has caused, towards LJAG, and people who look a bit like LJAG type people, has changed the place and not for the better.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 2, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Which one from Coldharbour couldn't be bothered to show their face? I'm sure I know, no doubt the one that never turns up to their clinic sessions!


Would it be proper for the Mayor to attend? If he was invited was it specified as a white glove event or not?


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

A bus related update:

I did go to the depot just now. * There in the middle of the reception area was the same man I'd met at the meeting last night.

He's not actually a driver, his job title is 'convener' for the Abellio bus company for all of south London, which I think means he is the top rung of management.
He said that he would be happy to collate some records over time to demonstrate what the increase in journey times in the LJ area has been since the closures.
Updates to follow.

*I work from home and have no self disciple, at all.


----------



## prunus (Oct 2, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Personally I prefer pootle to bimble but bimble works perfectly in this case



I think I would pootle about the house but bimble about the neighbourhood.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Would it be proper for the Mayor to attend? If he was invited was it specified as a white glove event or not?


Hmm probably not, as it's a council led project, not a TfL led project, it's independent of City Hall so beyond the mayor's realm I think. Plus I think he would have been lynched if he had turned up, I imagine the only reason the councillors escaped was because they were against the closures!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 2, 2015)

prunus said:


> I think I would pootle about the house but bimble about the neighbourhood.


I can see the logic in that but I'm still a pootler


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I can see the logic in that but I'm still a pootler


it's more of a mooching, when its inside the house, I think.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 2, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Hmm probably not, as it's a council led project, not a TfL led project, it's independent of City Hall so beyond the mayor's realm I think. Plus I think he would have been lynched if he had turned up, I imagine the only reason the councillors escaped was because they were against the closures!


Just for clarity - I am assuming Donatus Anywaru did not show up. I felt that as the current Mayor (of Lambeth) he might not be expected to involve himself in ward matters which might be controversial. So if it was he that didn't come it's likely he was being detached and regal like.

But not knowing who was missing I was just speculating.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

As to the conversation about who was missing from the meeting last night:

Stockwell Partnership is the organisation to whom Lambeth have outsourced the ongoing consultation, the qualitative side of it.

The person leading this project for them said (in an email) that she would be there last night but I have not yet had an answer from them as to whether or not anyone showed up.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Just for clarity - I am assuming Donatus Anywaru did not show up. I felt that as the current Mayor (of Lambeth) he might not be expected to involve himself in ward matters which might be controversial. So if it was he that didn't come it's likely he was being detached and regal like.
> 
> But not knowing who was missing I was just speculating.


Ah sorry I misunderstood, I thought you meant Boris, not the Mayor of Lambeth! Actually showing my ignorance here but I didn't even realise there was a Mayor of Lambeth!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> As to the conversation about who was missing from the meeting last night:
> 
> Stockwell Partnership is the organisation to whom Lambeth have outsourced the ongoing consultation, the qualitative side of it.
> 
> The person leading this project for them said (in an email) that she would be there last night but I have not yet had an answer from them as to whether or not anyone showed up.


I imagine if they were there, they kept rather quiet, I know I would in their position


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I imagine if they were there, they kept rather quiet, I know I would in their position


Yes, they should have kept quiet and listened and observed, that is their job, to find out about how people feel. So far in my attempts to learn what they are planning to do in their role as the official consulting body I have only been told that they don't know yet. What their budget is for their research I would like to know too, but have been trying to stay friendly.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

This is an email (last week) from the people tasked with the ongoing consultation with local people during the closures:


----------



## CH1 (Oct 2, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Ah sorry I misunderstood, I thought you meant Boris, not the Mayor of Lambeth! Actually showing my ignorance here but I didn't even realise there was a Mayor of Lambeth!


Bloody hell - you won't be getting a community award then (bet you can't guess who did?)


----------



## leanderman (Oct 2, 2015)

If LJ residents don't want the closure then sad but fair enough.

It could even be seen as a bit of a trade-off ...

The residents get to keep unrestricted motoring and can block alleged gentrification.

But must accept that six or seven of them will pay for this with their lives*.

* As a rough share of London's 10,000 premature deaths each year from air pollution.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 2, 2015)

leanderman said:


> If LJ residents don't want the closure then sad but fair enough.
> 
> It could even be seen as a bit of a trade-off ...
> 
> ...



not trying to belittle the statistics for London but can we see your working out, please ?


----------



## leanderman (Oct 2, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> not trying to belittle the statistics for London but can we see your working out, please ?



London population 8million. Guessing 5,000 people or so around that road.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 2, 2015)

leanderman said:


> London population 8million. Guessing 5,000 people or so around that road.


forgive me for saying but I think that is too simplistic for a number of reasons.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 2, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> forgive me for saying but I think that is too simplistic for a number of reasons.



It's a rough illustration of the conflicting choices here.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 2, 2015)

leanderman said:


> It's a rough illustration of the conflicting choices here.


sorry again but it's really not, For one thing you are ignoring the the type of traffic that passes through the closure zone and the fact that for London it was relatively congestion free before the closures came in......


----------



## leanderman (Oct 2, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> sorry again but it's really not, For one thing you are ignoring the the type of traffic that passes through the closure zone.



Horses?


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 2, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Horses?



lol, I think this shows a lack of willingness to engage on local issues rather than a reference to the Ebony
Horse Club so I will get on with cooking tea and leave you to enjoy your wine, have think how it got here while you do, I'd imagine petrol/diesel played a part, aviation fuel as well if it came from New Zealand.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> That's what I am so upset about: This has done more than any POPs to polarise people and entrench the divisions felt here already.
> The degree of antipathy this has caused, towards LJAG, and people who look a bit like LJAG type people, has changed the place and not for the better.



(Trying to catch up as my internets been down)

Didn't make the meeting but heard it was big. 

I agree with you and not sure what can be done about the polarisation. Also the anti cyclist comments that Im starting to hear.

My view be ( as one of the non aligned- and that's getting more difficult) is to keep reminding people that the road closures are ultimately the responsibility of Lambeth. 

I'm afraid that Council/ Cllrs will put the blame on the officer put in charge of this and LJAG.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I quite agree, although with the terrible implementation and general antipathy that was shown last night, I don't know if it will get that far. Some locals are far too angry and with councillors potentially on side, who knows what will happen.
> 
> The local people I spoke to outside (I couldn't get into the meeting itself, too many people) were angry, there is definitely a feeling of this being a class thing and them being discriminated against, it was not nice to hear.
> !



Its the Cllrs who should be getting the bollocking for this. 

From the comments Ive heard so far its LJAG who are getting the flack for being middle class gentrifiers. Was this the impression you got from the locals you talked to or not?


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 2, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> lol, I think this shows a lack of willingness to engage on local issues rather than a reference to the Ebony
> Horse Club so I will get on with cooking tea and leave you to enjoy your wine, have think how it got here while you do, I'd imagine petrol/diesel played a part, aviation fuel as well if it came from New Zealand.



Wine goes on container ships not aircraft as a rule (aviation being phenomenally expensive for delivering most goods).

Almost everything you have ever bought has involved transport via a lorry at some point.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> This is an email (last week) from the people tasked with the ongoing consultation with local people during the closures:
> 
> View attachment 77553



I did ask for Stockwell Partnership to be be invited to the next LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum on 15th October.

I think they should start consulting soon. Not leave it for later at near of trial.

I am not sure of how they work.

But imo there remit should be to look at the underlying issues. The class issue. The opposition to the road closures isnt just about this scheme. This has been building up for some time. A poor but large community who feel that improvements are not for them. But as someone said at the last Forum for the well off.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2015)

Been reading back a few pages.

See cyclists are taking the flack now as well as LJAG.

The question I would like to ask is where were all the Cllrs who turned up to the meeting last night when this was all being planned?

Did they comment or oppose the scheme in planning stage? As there was opposition to the scheme then.

Im new to LJ but its the Cllrs who should be held to account.

Lambeth Cyclists supported the scheme and lobbied for it. Thats there right in a democracy. If you disagree with them fair enough.

LJAG cannot force the Council to do anything. They can lobby the Council.

If , and I think this happened, the Cllrs/ Council took more notice of well to do middle class LJAG rather than the working class Council tenants does not this say something of how our Nu Labour Cllrs think? There bias?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 2, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Been reading back a few pages.
> 
> See cyclists are taking the flack now as well as LJAG.
> 
> ...



I suspect it was a case of LJAG and the cyclists pushing on an open door.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2015)

That is the issue I want raised. The "door".


MrM said:


> There’s pretty broad agreement that the implementation of this project has been dreadful. Looking at the city as a whole,* can we also agree that we need find ways to diversify transportation away from motoring?* London’s population is growing. Road space cannot. Encouraging cycling seems preferable to alternative means of reducing car use. Otherwise they’ll end up restricting car use by the usual method: make it increasingly expensive, so as to generate revenue while keeping numbers down (privileging the well-off, which scores pretty badly in terms of social justice...)



Im afraid the result of this will be the opposite.

The scheme will be dropped. 

The Council will move onto other projects and the Loughborough Estate will remain neglected. 

LJAG may not survive this. Lambeth Cyclists will campaign in other parts of the borough.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

Cllr Rachel Haywood has sent a very strong clear email to her fellow councillors and all relevant people at Lambeth. 
I hope it's ok to just quote this bit from it:

"The reputation of the council has been very badly damaged already, across a wide area and amongst huge numbers of people.  I am ashamed by our failure to listen to or respect the people we represent and serve."


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 2, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Been reading back a few pages.
> 
> See cyclists are taking the flack now as well as LJAG.
> 
> ...




The working class Council tenants were NOT leafletted about the consultation for Road closures
The working class Council tenants  did  NOT have their petition against the proposed road closures accepted by the Council
The working class Council tenants were NOT allowed to speak at the Call In by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel
The working class Council tenants were NOT told about the car free event last Saturday and the consultation for a "Parklet"
The working class Council tenants  are  NOT the only people who are angry,upset, worried, stressed etc about the road closures it is all classes, all ages.


----------



## bimble (Oct 2, 2015)

leanderman said:


> If LJ residents don't want the closure then sad but fair enough. .But must accept that six or seven of them will pay for this with their lives*.
> 
> * As a rough share of London's 10,000 premature deaths each year from air pollution.



Oh dear. Which 6 or 7 of us will it be? But maybe there are other things to worry about, such as the link between premature death and poverty, making coldhardbour ward one of the worst places in England to be, statistically, if you want to live past 75.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> Oh dear. Which 6 or 7 of us will it be? But maybe there are other things to worry about, such as the link between premature death and poverty, making coldhardbour ward one of the worst places in England to be, statistically, if you want to live past 75.



Meanwhile if you live on the other side of the road (Dulwich) you can easily expect an additional 5yrs.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 2, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I suspect it was a case of LJAG and the cyclists pushing on an open door.


The scheme for a public space was hatched by LJAG as an alternative to the station yard presented on page 32 of their Loughborough Junction Plan, 2013. The idea was dropped, presumably because freeholders of buildings on the site would not allow it.

At some point after publishing the Plan LJAG, Lambeth and DSDHA quietly devised a new plan for a space on Loughborough Road.

Lambeth Cyclists must have got involved by mid 2013 and their input helped push the scheme forward. As they put it in their recent newsletter "_Our scheme for Loughborough Junction was dead in the water" said one local Loughborough Junction activist [ie LJAG] "and then the cyclists came". _

After that there was barely another mention of the public space -- it's all about closures now. The space also has buses -- no more re-routing of the P5 as was depicted throughout the consultations. That idea was dropped from the final version of the scheme -- because of the voting figures, said Cllr Brathwaite.

It seems a lot happened behind closed doors during 2013 when the rest of us were distracted by Lambeth's Neighbourhood Enhancement projects. The public space idea only came out at the consultation meetings of Autumn 2014. Does anybody here know the history behind all this? Minutes of LJAG meetings and Public Realm Forum meetings are hard to come by.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 3, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Its the Cllrs who should be getting the bollocking for this.


I think the councillors were waiting to see which way the wind blew.
It must be very difficult in their position as the idea of "greening" the area is attractive, but they did not appreciate how some people in housing estates also cherish their freedom (as car owners).

To amplify what I've said before there was never a presumption that people in social housing can't own or drive cars.
There is ample car parking on the Loughborough Estates (old and new) - and Angel Town.

Seems a bit odd to punish tenants for doing what they have done since the mid 1950s and before. Like introducing prohibition really.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 3, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Its the Cllrs who should be getting the bollocking for this.



One would expect the whole Council to take a critical look at every scheme proposed by a pressure group before allowing things to get out of hand.

In this case, for example, Lambeth could have required LJAG and DSDHA to tone down their scheme, retaining the already improved Loughborough Road as a through route, traffic calming throughout with some closures of lesser roads and improvements to Wyck Gardens as the public space.

Voila! -- a simple and effective solution: what's wrong with that?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 3, 2015)

Beasley said:


> It would be reasonable to assume that the Council takes a critical look at schemes like this before getting carried away. Then for example, they could have insisted that LJAG and DSDHA tone down their proposal by retaining Loughborough Road as the through route, making selective closures of lesser roads and improvements to Wyck Gardens -- voila!


Well yes - but one of the concerns of traders and residents on the other dog-leg of Loughborough Road (to Brixton Road) is that it is multi parked up and traffic often cannot pass. This is due to overparking - not to excess traffic on the part of Loughborough Road we have been discussing.

Not sure about the lesser roads. Maybe bimble can comment on that vis as vis Lilford, Flaxman etc.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 3, 2015)

I think ljag's influence might be being over exaggerated here? Some posts appear to be suggesting their ability to define and direct LA Policy is almighty.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> the other dog-leg of Loughborough Road (to Brixton Road) is that it is multi parked up and traffic often cannot pass



Well that also needs attention although it isn't in the LJAG area and wasn't covered by the LJ Plan.

How about one side only parking or one-way only travel for motor vehicles and retaining one-way travel on Mostyn Road? As for Mostyn it has always looked like the new buildings were placed too close to the road leaving no space for trees on the north side, let alone two lanes of traffic.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 3, 2015)

From LJAGs website

"
• LJAG will hold Lambeth council to account for the quality of its consultation during the period of the road closures and encourage adjustments during the experimental closure period if aspects clearly are not working or causing obvious hardship."


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Well yes - but one of the concerns of traders and residents on the other dog-leg of Loughborough Road (to Brixton Road) is that it is multi parked up and traffic often cannot pass. This is due to overparking - not to excess traffic on the part of Loughborough Road we have been discussing.
> 
> Not sure about the lesser roads. Maybe bimble can comment on that vis as vis Lilford, Flaxman etc.



Morning. I'm not a driver so perspective is limited by that but. 
Here on my corner of Flaxman Road I was not aware of a traffic problem before the closures came into effect.
Most of the problems happening now are caused by drivers being confused and doing U-turns, people getting out of their cars and shouting at each other and so on.

The other issue is that the route to the scrap metal yard on Gordon Grove is now blocked, and so people with big trucks full of iron girders and such are trying to do what they are told, which is turn down eastlake Road (the only legal option) and the corner is tight. Several times a day the pavement is blocked by large reversing vehicles trying to obey the road signs.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> I think ljag's influence might be being over exaggerated here? Some posts appear to be suggesting their ability to define and direct LA Policy is almighty.



Yes. As Gramsci said recently, "JAG cannot force the Council to do anything. They can lobby the Council.".

The problem with this whole thing (my opinion) is the complete failure of Lambeth's consultation process.
Only 633 people filled out the relevant consultation questionnaire from which the figure they use (68% in favour) is taken.
As we have noticed, over half of those who filled it out the form were cyclists who may or may not live in the area, this due to effective campaigning by the cycle lobby.

The council say that it's due to budgetary constraints that the vast majority of people in the area were not informed of the consultation process, that there was no money for effective leafletting (eg to residents of the Loughborough Estate) or for posters informing people what was being considered and where to go if they want to express a view.

Seems to me that if LJAG was used by the council as a cheap way of outsourcing the whole difficult process of 'consulting with local people' that is not their fault but the council's.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Curious. 
Has anybody here received this letter (or do you have to be the sort of person who spends their time looking for it online?)


----------



## prunus (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Curious.
> Has anybody here received this letter (or do you have to be the sort of person who spends their time looking for it online?)
> 
> View attachment 77578 View attachment 77579



Yup, I have it right here.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Interesting. Was it posted to you or put through the letterbox do you remember?


----------



## prunus (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Interesting. Was it posted to you or put through the letterbox do you remember?



That I don't remember I'm afraid   It was a while ago.


----------



## Bobzillard (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Has anybody here received this letter (or do you have to be the sort of person who spends their time looking for it online?)



That letter was delivered on 21 August to letterboxes of houses in the consultation area. I don't think it was delivered to many residents of blocks or businesses. I got one and scanned it as a pdf document with text you can highlight and copy.

Posted it way back on this forum on the same day (page 10, post #299). Here it is again -- click to download…


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> But imo there remit should be to look at the underlying issues. The class issue. The opposition to the road closures isnt just about this scheme. This has been building up for some time. A poor but large community who feel that improvements are not for them. But as someone said at the last Forum for the well off.



Do you think there would be a way of persuading people otherwise? That the improvements don't just benefit the well off?

I think you are right that this has turned into a class issue. But the fact that that's the/an underlying cause for the opposition doesn't change the fact that many of the objections being brought up are nonsensical. Unfortunately this means that it's really hard to argue the benefits because actually people don't want to be persuaded otherwise. You can make a strong a case as you want using the rational arguments for the scheme but it'll never change opinion because it isn't dealing with the real reason for objection.

I wonder, had the consultation been done better, whether there was any chance that these objectors could have been persuaded. From comments that I read, I'm not sure they could. It would already be taken as a given that any kind of scheme like this is simply designed to promote gentrification.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

Also... I still don't think we can necessarily assume that a majority of Loughborough Estate residents are strongly opposed to this. But it's clear that there are quite a lot of people with strong feelings. Looking at the photos of the packed room for the meeting, I can't help but think that it's a shame such interest couldn't be mobilised in the Higgs development. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the planning decision on that, in terms of gentrification and long term changes to Loughborough Junction, that development is going to have a much more profound effect than a traffic calming scheme. If there's a tipping point for small-business light industry being driven out of LJ, and an increase in its desirability as a middle class residential area, then the Higgs development (and the other developments that will inevitably follow in its tail) we be it. Not the road closure proposals.

Some pedestrianisation and better public space can co-exist with the continuation of central LJ as a place with a diversity of local employment and small scale industrial activity. Less so, the appearance of a very substantial number of residential units.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Also... I still don't think we can necessarily assume that a majority of Loughborough Estate residents are strongly opposed to this. But it's clear that there are quite a lot of people with strong feelings. Looking at the photos of the packed room for the meeting, I can't help but think that it's a shame such interest couldn't be mobilised in the Higgs development. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the planning decision on that, in terms of gentrification and long term changes to Loughborough Junction, that development is going to have a much more profound effect than a traffic calming scheme. If there's a tipping point for small-business light industry being driven out of LJ, and an increase in its desirability as a middle class residential area, then the Higgs development (and the other developments that will inevitably follow in its tail) we be it. Not the road closure proposals.
> 
> Some pedestrianisation and better public space can co-exist with the continuation of central LJ as a place with a diversity of local employment and small scale industrial activity. Less so, the appearance of a very substantial number of residential units.


Can you expand on this?

Are you suggesting that Loughborough Estate residents should have been concerned to the same degree about the Higgs Estate development as they are about a driving ban on their main local road?


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I wonder, had the consultation been done better, whether there was any chance that these objectors could have been persuaded. From comments that I read, I'm not sure they could. It would already be taken as a given that any kind of scheme like this is simply designed to promote gentrification.


Had the consultation been done better clearly we would not be in the situation we're now in.
Either the scheme would have been modified or at least there would be solid statistics to show that a lot of people were in favour. We could either way have avoided what has happened, this polarisation of the 'community'.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Bobzillard, prunus & anybody else who got the letter above, do you live inside this red line ?


----------



## Beasley (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I wonder, had the consultation been done better, whether there was any chance that these objectors could have been persuaded.



The consultation could indeed have been done better with proper letters to all residential and business addresses, kerbside notices for passing traffic and due adjustment for the influence of the cycling campaign.

This is a diverse community and the scheme affects everybody whatever their class background. The real issue is that the scheme was badly designed -- wrong place for a public space, wrong road closed.

Given its location, should not the Higgs Triangle and church redevelopment plan have been required to provide a public space fronting onto Coldharbour Lane? I do believe Brixton Society or HH society may have mentioned this in their submissions (but it's too late now).


----------



## CH1 (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Bobzillard, prunus & anybody else who got the letter above, do you live inside this red line ?
> View attachment 77584


I saw the letter - but not sure whether it actually came through the letter box or I saw it here, or because of this debate.
I live in Coldharbour Lane, so if it was delivered it was slightly out of area - but no more than your redlined area above.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Can you expand on this?
> 
> Are you suggesting that Loughborough Estate residents should have been concerned to the same degree about the Higgs Estate development as they are about a driving ban on their main local road?



If the concern is about gentrification of LJ and the effects on existing local business/employment, then yes.

If the concern is about the cyclo-nazis taking away the rights of motorists then no.


----------



## prunus (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Bobzillard, prunus & anybody else who got the letter above, do you live inside this red line ?
> View attachment 77584



I don't, no.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Given its location, should not the Higgs Triangle and church redevelopment plan have been required to provide a public space fronting onto Coldharbour Lane? I do believe Brixton Society or HH society may have mentioned this in their submissions (but it's too late now).



I certainly would have been completely in favour of that. Like you say, it's too late now, though. It's something that a proper masterplan could have made happen, had it been adopted into planning policy before the Higgs application went in. A proper masterplan is something LJAG have been pushing for, for a while, by the way.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

prunus said:


> I don't, no.


 ok, so they did send them out wider than that area then (that red line thing is what George Wright was able to show, proof of posting-wise).


----------



## ricbake (Oct 3, 2015)

We received the letter through the door and via email, I live at the north end of Calais Street which has become an oasis of calm now that drivers have realised that it is actually a cul-de-sac. It's a delight. 
The number of occasions driver get out of their cars and move the road blocks to illegally drive through the No Entry signs appears to be less than once a day. Residents, park users and passing cyclist put them back almost immediately. 

There is probably a slight increase of traffic on Cormont Road but only slight. Walking through to Flooden Road to get the P5 towards Brixton at 08:15 in the morning there doesn't seem to be much more traffic. If I drive the routes aren't complicated and besides which I'm in the car so it isn't a hardship. If I walk into Brixton about the same time  there does appear to be a lot less traffic on Ackerman Road and Patmos Road, there doesn't seem to be much affect on the traffic at the North end of Loughborough Road which is a disaster area between Fiveways and the lights on Brixton Rd. There is an increase behind Max Roach Park and on Gresham Road but it isn't anything chronic.

I'm sure I've seen figures concerning Brixton Road & Clapham Road during rush hours in recent years having more people travelling by cycle than by private car.

The crux of the problem in Vassall ward is the lack of any parking control - the local community play host to over 1,000 cars every working day, subsidising those drivers journeys by about £5,000 per year. Many of those drivers are people who could be persuaded to use alternative means to travel to work at International House, Blue Star House, Camberwell Bus Garage, Kings College Hospital or an onward commute.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 3, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> From LJAGs website
> 
> "
> • LJAG will hold Lambeth council to account for the quality of its consultation during the period of the road closures and encourage adjustments during the experimental closure period if aspects clearly are not working or causing obvious hardship."



Like they did for the petition against of 700+ handed in to Lambeth.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes. As Gramsci said recently, "JAG cannot force the Council to do anything. They can lobby the Council.".
> 
> The problem with this whole thing (my opinion) is the complete failure of Lambeth's consultation process.
> Only 633 people filled out the relevant consultation questionnaire from which the figure they use (68% in favour) is taken.
> ...




What is even more curious is that LJAG has not taken a stand with those they purport to represent in Loughborough faced with such stiff opposition to the scheme and instead want it to go ahead.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

[QUOTE="ricbake said:


> We received the letter through the door and via email


hello. May I ask what mailing list or group you subscribed to in order to get the email version ?


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> What is even more curious is that LJAG has not taken a stand with those they purport to represent in Loughborough faced with such stiff opposition to the scheme and instead want it to go ahead.


You're right. I'm just trying not to make the 'we hate LJAG' thing worse, I really think it's the council's fault that the way this process has been handled is such a trainwreck.


----------



## ricbake (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> hello. May I ask what mailing list or group you subscribed to in order to get the email version ?


Certainly our TRA and possibly via Councillor Gadsby or Vassall View


----------



## critical1 (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> You're right. I'm just trying not to make the 'we hate LJAG' thing worse, I really think it's the council's fault that the way this process has been handled is such a trainwreck.



It surely is but if LJAG had been on the ball as they claim to have the community behind them  surly they must realise where they stand in all this, now they are insidiously trying to distance themselves away from this mess "it wasn't me"


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Agreed. As some else said a page or so ago, LJAG may not survive this. This is now what they are known for, and they won't be able to get people back 'on side' .


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

I can't see any mention of the closures - or details of whom to contact to express your views - anywhere on the LJAG website. 
That really is rubbish.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 3, 2015)

I heard reports that LJAG now have moved onto seizing a plot of land from Loughborough residents. This is without any consultations as far as I'm aware. How does this help the current situation. IMHO they have a lot as do Lambeth to learn about community engagement and consultation.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Agreed. As some else said a page or so ago, LJAG may not survive this. This is now what they are known for, and they won't be able to get people back 'on side' .



They can always do a name change. Set up some new forums to distance themselves.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> What is even more curious is that LJAG has not taken a stand with those they purport to represent in Loughborough faced with such stiff opposition to the scheme and instead want it to go ahead.


They try to represent everyone in LJ surely, not just the people who oppose this scheme.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Bobzillard, prunus & anybody else who got the letter above, do you live inside this red line ?



I got that letter and I live inside the red line on the south side of Lilford Road which is in Coldharbour ward. It was dropped through our letterbox early one morning (not by the Royal Mail). I think that letter, the road closures map and all other supporting stuff is available on the Lambeth website at www.lambeth.gov.uk/lj


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> They try to represent everyone in LJ surely



That is an impossible task for any organisation, or "group of local volunteers ". 
Made significantly more impossible after this divisive disaster.

That's why you have to look back at the council, if anyone is supposed to represent 'everyone in LJ' surely it's elected cllrs.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 3, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> From LJAGs website:
> • LJAG will hold Lambeth council to account for the quality of its consultation during the period of the road closures and encourage adjustments during the experimental closure period if aspects clearly are not working or causing obvious hardship.


When this point was presented by LJAG at their AGM (on 9 July) it did look like a clear attempt to pull back.


critical1 said:


> [LJAG] must realise where they stand in all this, now they are insidiously trying to distance themselves…from this mess "it wasn't me"


LJAG have clearly been well-intentioned and done a lot of good but they have made some mistakes. From now on they should evolve from a "group of local volunteers" into a more democratic body able to reflect the diversity of opinions in this community.

They need proper votes at meetings and full minutes published straight afterwards. Lambeth Council and the Charity Commissioners should be able to guide them on this and the result might be a kind of community council. Wasn't there one here some years back and doesn't Southwark have them now?

Oh and, [my post #884] it would be good to know how LJAGs public space idea was developed during 2014 if anyone remembers. Minutes of LJAG meetings and Public Realm Forum meetings should provide the answer but they are hard to get hold of and there is nothing about it on their Facebook timeline.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Minutes of LJAG meetings and Public Realm Forum meetings .



Seems like you can read the minutes of all LJAG's 'public realm steering group' meetings here:
Meeting minutes | Loughborough Junction Action Group


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> That is an impossible task for any organisation, or "group of local volunteers ".
> Made significantly more impossible after this divisive disaster.
> 
> That's why you have to look back at the council, if anyone is supposed to represent 'everyone in LJ' surely it's elected cllrs.


Agreed.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Agreed.



!


----------



## Rupert (Oct 3, 2015)

ricbake said:


> We received the letter through the door and via email, I live at the north end of Calais Street which has become an oasis of calm now that drivers have realised that it is actually a cul-de-sac. It's a delight.
> The number of occasions driver get out of their cars and move the road blocks to illegally drive through the No Entry signs appears to be less than once a day. Residents, park users and passing cyclist put them back almost immediately.
> 
> There is probably a slight increase of traffic on Cormont Road but only slight. Walking through to Flooden Road to get the P5 towards Brixton at 08:15 in the morning there doesn't seem to be much more traffic. If I drive the routes aren't complicated and besides which I'm in the car so it isn't a hardship. If I walk into Brixton about the same time  there does appear to be a lot less traffic on Ackerman Road and Patmos Road, there doesn't seem to be much affect on the traffic at the North end of Loughborough Road which is a disaster area between Fiveways and the lights on Brixton Rd. There is an increase behind Max Roach Park and on Gresham Road but it isn't anything chronic.
> ...





ricbake said:


> We received the letter through the door and via email, I live at the north end of Calais Street which has become an oasis of calm now that drivers have realised that it is actually a cul-de-sac. It's a delight.
> The number of occasions driver get out of their cars and move the road blocks to illegally drive through the No Entry signs appears to be less than once a day. Residents, park users and passing cyclist put them back almost immediately.
> 
> There is probably a slight increase of traffic on Cormont Road but only slight. Walking through to Flooden Road to get the P5 towards Brixton at 08:15 in the morning there doesn't seem to be much more traffic. If I drive the routes aren't complicated and besides which I'm in the car so it isn't a hardship. If I walk into Brixton about the same time  there does appear to be a lot less traffic on Ackerman Road and Patmos Road, there doesn't seem to be much affect on the traffic at the North end of Loughborough Road which is a disaster area between Fiveways and the lights on Brixton Rd. There is an increase behind Max Roach Park and on Gresham Road but it isn't anything chronic.
> ...


I am sure your road is wonderfully quiet and I disagree Flodden Road, Denmark Road, Knatchbull Road and Minet Road are significantly busier - all through the day and night. It must be a quiet time of day you travel. However I do agree with you that a cpz is needed through out the area and roll on 20mph the sooner the better.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

If you close the main artery it follows that vehicles will drive to where they need to go via alternative circuitous routes.
In this case, George Wright said that it was not feasible to do a study of where the traffic would be moved to by the closures.
He said they consulted with TFL but it was agreed for whatever reason that they couldn't predict what would happen when the traffic was displaced to the smaller surrounding roads.

That there is more traffic now going along smaller roads in the area is surely just a fact.

At least until everybody, including the delivery vans, scrap metal people, car repair customers and so on, get with the program and get on bicycles instead.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 3, 2015)

George Wright said that residents of Denmark and Flodden Roads would be amongst 'the losers' of this project. Afaik, the LJ Road Madness group have consistently tried to look at how the scheme would affect everyone -- not just their own streets, not just locals etc etc  -- and that is a more sensible approach, in my opinion.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 3, 2015)

Beasley said:


> When this point was presented by LJAG at their AGM (on 9 July) it did look like a clear attempt to pull back.
> 
> LJAG have clearly been well-intentioned and done a lot of good but they have made some mistakes. From now on they should evolve from a "group of local volunteers" into a more democratic body able to reflect the diversity of opinions in this community.
> 
> They need proper votes at meetings and full minutes published straight afterwards. Lambeth Council and the Charity Commissioners should be able to guide them on this and the result might be a kind of community council. Wasn't there one here some years back and doesn't Southwark have them now?



I am now just wondering how LJAG will hold them to account, by writing letters to Lambeth or holding public meetings with the local community which are obviously going to be well advertised in all of the surrounding areas.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 3, 2015)

Beasley said:


> George Wright said that residents of Denmark and Flodden Roads would be amongst 'the losers' of this project. Afaik, the LJ Road Madness group have consistently tried to look at how the scheme would affect everyone -- not just their own streets, not just locals etc etc  -- and that is a more sensible approach, in my opinion.



I was at a meeting when someone asked the question and he said this, that "it is well known that traffic modelling is highly inaccurate and that this is a well known fact". So tfl are wasting millions of pounds on something that does not and cannot effectively work, even the P5 bus route is ineffectual as tfl used traffic modelling to design that bus route.
Mr Wright is overtly qualified to make such comments at a public meeting. maybe that is why he recently stated "my role is to just listen" "I can't comment"


----------



## CH1 (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If the concern is about gentrification of LJ and the effects on existing local business/employment, then yes.
> If the concern is about the cyclo-nazis taking away the rights of motorists then no.


No rather I was thinking in modern "silo" theory terms that Loughborough Estate tenants might not feel much concern about Higgs Estate, and likewise people in the traditional LJAG areas feel no empathy for residents in the Loughborough Estate - other than to tell them to comply with what's good for them.

Had LETRA turned out in force to assist the objections of Herne Hill Road and other largely owner occupier residents south of CHL I would have been amazed - as I was indeed amazed that LJAG actually arranged to leaflet the Loughborough Estate about the Higgs Issue.

To be clear I note that LJAG, Herne Hill Society and the Brixton Society all objected to the Higgs development  - and all spoke at the planning meeting I seem to recall.

When it comes to the pedestrianisation of Loughbrough Road the Brixton Society objected, the Herne Hill Society seem to have ignored it, and LJAG seem to be a "driver" (in terms of pushing this policy).


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Ok, so where all the cars and vans would go once the main artery was shut was impossible to predict accurately, that makes sense. 
I wonder how (i.e. where) they will be doing the traffic measuring, the evaluation by which they'll judge if this experiment has been a success or not, trafficwise. Does anyone know ?


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I was at a meeting when someone asked the question and he said this, that "it is well known that traffic modelling is highly inaccurate and that this is a well known fact".


Ok, so where all the cars and vans would go once the main artery was shut was impossible to predict accurately, that makes sense. 
I wonder how (i.e. where) they will be doing the traffic measuring, the evaluation by which they'll judge if this experiment has been a success or not, trafficwise. Does anyone know ?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> No rather I was thinking in modern "silo" theory terms that Loughborough Estate tenants might not feel much concern about Higgs Estate, and likewise people in the traditional LJAG areas feel no empathy for residents in the Loughborough Estate - other than to tell them to comply with what's good for them.
> 
> Had LETRA turned out in force to assist the objections of Herne Hill Road and other largely owner occupier residents south of CHL I would have been amazed - as I was indeed amazed that LJAG actually arranged to leaflet the Loughborough Estate about the Higgs Issue.
> 
> ...


You're very keen to push the notion that LJAG and others do all this out of self-interest. It's an easy assumption to assume and exploit.

I don't think there is a self-interest agenda behind supporting the road scheme. You can say it's misled or ill-conceived or whatever but I think that the intention is a genuine attempt to make LJ better for everyone that lives here. 

Likewise, you are trying to imply that the campaign against the Higgs development was all about the self interest of residents nearby. It's true that there was an element of objection amongst car owners anxious about parking issues (this mainly directed towards the church development). By mentioning owner occupiers you imply there's a property value interest involved. Well, I'm pretty sure that the impact of the Higgs developemnt on local property values will be positive, because it will remove a large chunk of the slightly messy looking industrial usage and replace it with shiny new flats and an office tower. It will fundamentally change the feel and nature of the central part of LJ and it'll make it a more attractive place for people looking for somewhere to buy a flat and commute into town. That's why I say it will have a much more significant effect on the gentrification of LJ than will the traffic scheme.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Seems like you can read the minutes of all LJAG's 'public realm steering group' meetings here:
> Meeting minutes | Loughborough Junction Action Group


Those minutes only go up to July 2014 (public realm) or November 2014 main steering group.
So it might possible give background thinking somewhere, but nothing directly relevant to the things post 31st August 2015.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Yes, it's odd. The minutes available on their website are almost a year old.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You're very keen to push the notion that LJAG and others do all this out of self-interest. It's an easy assumption to assume and exploit.
> 
> I don't think there is a self-interest agenda behind supporting the road scheme. You can say it's misled or ill-conceived or whatever but I think that the intention is a genuine attempt to make LJ better for everyone that lives here.
> 
> Likewise, you are trying to imply that the campaign against the Higgs development was all about the self interest of residents nearby. It's true that there was an element of objection amongst car owners anxious about parking issues (this mainly directed towards the church development). By mentioning owner occupiers you imply there's a property value interest involved. Well, I'm pretty sure that the impact of the Higgs developemnt on local property values will be positive, because it will remove a large chunk of the slightly messy looking industrial usage and replace it with shiny new flats and an office tower. It will fundamentally change the feel and nature of the central part of LJ and it'll make it a more attractive place for people looking for somewhere to buy a flat and commute into town. That's why I say it will have a much more significant effect on the gentrification of LJ than will the traffic scheme.


I don't know about that. I think that the push on pedestrianisation comes from a naive desire to have a green space transcending the current Loughborough Road. I think this is ideological. It is good for us - like prohibition (and generalised smoking bans).

Unfortunately there seem to be quite a few residents in the area with an investments in cars or vans. I say unfortunately - perhaps I should say inconveniently for the scheme as they are (perfectly justifiably) kicking up.

Telling some one not to smoke in the pub is not the same as telling someone who has a £10,000 HP agreement not to use their car freely.

Everyone has self interests.Only a puritan would say people should not be allowed to express these.

Clearly you are not the LJAG representative who opposed the Higgs Industrial estate redevelopment at the planning committee!


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

What makes me sad is this:
I'm invited to have a drink at the Hero of Switzerland this eve (the only pub left in central LJ) by some people who are against the closures.
My downstairs neighbour and friend is an LJAG volunteer and she's been banned by the landlord from that pub now, because the pub hates the closures.


----------



## prunus (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> What makes me sad is this:
> I'm invited to have a drink at the Hero of Switzerland this eve (the only pub left in central LJ) by some people who are against the closures.
> My downstairs neighbour and friend is an LJAG volunteer and she's been banned by the landlord from that pub now, because the pub hates the closures.



Glad to see everyone's behaving like grown-ups...  Really - that's pathetic.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Yes, it's shit but it's understandable. And just an example of what I am talking about, re the effect this had had on "the community".


----------



## irf520 (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> What makes me sad is this:
> I'm invited to have a drink at the Hero of Switzerland this eve (the only pub left in central LJ) by some people who are against the closures.
> My downstairs neighbour and friend is an LJAG volunteer and she's been banned by the landlord from that pub now, because the pub hates the closures.



That's unfortunate. But really anyone with a modicum of common sense should have been able to foresee that this proposal would be very unpopular with residents and businesses in the local area.
When you combine that with the underhand way it was railroaded through by getting a load of cycling activists from outside the area to engage in something akin to ballot stuffing and LJAG, who purport to represent all the people in the area, quite happy to go along with that if it meant they get their pet project through, then you have a recipe for disaster.


----------



## prunus (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, it's shit but it's understandable. And just an example of what I am talking about, re the effect this had had on "the community".



Yes, it's sad. As far as I am aware (and I'm really not very) LJAG are just a group of local people trying to make the area - which is and has been it has to be admitted somewhat neglected - nicer for everyone.  Where did all this mistrust come from?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, it's shit but it's understandable. And just an example of what I am talking about, re the effect this had had on "the community".


Or alternatively, what effect the landlord has had on the community.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Unfortunately there seem to be quite a few residents in the area with an investments in cars or vans.


What makes you say this?

The summary of the meeting gave the impression that the opposition is all about making sure the ambulances can get to hospital on time, and stopping the children being hit by car and van drivers on side streets, and making sure the buses don't get held up in resultant traffic jams on CHL.

The arguments in favour of this are fairly consistent. But those against contradict one another.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The arguments in favour of this are fairly consistent. But those against contradict one another.



No, they don't contradict one another there are just a lot of different arguments against, lots of different reasons why different people oppose the closures.

The arguments in favour are pretty homogenous and simple yes. They go something like, "wouldn't it be nice if..  "


----------



## CH1 (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What makes you say this?


I do walk through Loughborough Estate(s) from time to time. And use Minet Road (estate end) from time to time as a (pedestrian) cut through.
I do notice a lot of cars parked up. Including on Saturdays and Sundays.

Unless the cars are all due to a branch of the Seventh Day Adventists in the area I am not aware of, or a mass influx of Sunday worshippers, one assumes they belong to local residents (of the estates).

I'm not judging them.I don't drive. But if you want to alter people's behaviour you need to persuade them, tempt them - or punish them.

Seems you prefer the latter. And are not open negotiation.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Unless the cars are all due to a branch of the Seventh Day Adventists in the area I am not aware of, or a mass influx of Sunday worshippers, one assumes they belong to local residents (of the estates)..



I learnt something this evening by meeting someone who explained to me what it's like to live on the estate and work two jobs, morning and night shifts and have 2 children at 2 different schools who they feel would not be safe because of gang problems either walking home or cycling on nickable bikes.

In the daily life she described to me a car is not a luxury item and a family sized bicycle with a wicker basket on is not a viable alternative.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> The working class Council tenants were NOT leafletted about the consultation for Road closures
> The working class Council tenants  did  NOT have their petition against the proposed road closures accepted by the Council
> The working class Council tenants were NOT allowed to speak at the Call In by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel
> The working class Council tenants were NOT told about the car free event last Saturday and the consultation for a "Parklet"
> The working class Council tenants  are  NOT the only people who are angry,upset, worried, stressed etc about the road closures it is all classes, all ages.



FYI I’m a Council tenant. You don’t speak for me I make up my own mind.

My post was that the anger should be directed Cllrs not LJAG. 

Having been to recent meetings and talked to locals to LJ there is an issue around class in LJ.

Was chatting to someone Friday. After going on about the road closures then went on about LJAG and the Farm. 

I am not criticising anyone I am seeing what the underlying issue is.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> What makes me sad is this:
> I'm invited to have a drink at the Hero of Switzerland this eve (the only pub left in central LJ) by some people who are against the closures.
> My downstairs neighbour and friend is an LJAG volunteer and she's been banned by the landlord from that pub now, because the pub hates the closures.



This is what concerns me. Does not surprise me that happened. Its getting that nasty. 

As I said to local I chatted to on Friday its getting to the point where you have to take sides. Being non aligned or listening to both sides in not enough.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> there is an issue around class in LJ.


Yes.
What could have done more to exacerbate this - in what might be one of the sharpest ends of the whole class / gentrification divide in London - than an abjectly bungled consultation by Lambeth on the closure of the major road in the area with a vision of farmers markets and 'parklets' ?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> I learnt something this evening by meeting someone who explained to me what it's like to live on the estate and work two jobs, morning and night shifts and have 2 children at 2 different schools who they feel would not be safe because of gang problems either walking home or cycling on nickable bikes.
> 
> In the daily life she described to me a car is not a luxury item and a family sized bicycle with a wicker basket on is not a viable alternative.


So - what about parents in a similar situation who don't have a car? What do they do? They just have to accept that if they don't have a car, their children are at risk on their journeys to and from school?

These are basically the same arguments used to defend gun ownership in the USA.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So - what about parents in a similar situation who don't have a car? What do they do? They just have to accept that if they don't have a car, their children are at risk on their journeys to and from school?
> 
> These are basically the same arguments used to defend gun ownership in the USA.



She said that without the car they would be forced to sign on instead of working.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> She said that without the car they would be forced to sign on instead of working.


That doesn't answer my question.

What do parents without cars do?


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> These are basically the same arguments used to defend gun ownership in the USA.


Please explain.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> That doesn't answer my question.
> 
> What do parents without cars do?


I was just saying that I learnt something from her, about how for some people a car is an essential. 
Me I got the bus to school but I grew up in leafy suburbia.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes.
> What could have done more to exacerbate this - in what might be one of the sharpest ends of the whole class / gentrification divide in London - than an abjectly bungled consultation by Lambeth on the closure of the major road in the area with a vision of farmers markets and 'parklets' ?



Have you seen the lasted edition of South London Press ( Brixton edition)? LJAG have started there fight back by getting two pages in SLP on the Farm and the Platform. "Pop-up may become more permanent" about making the cafe a regular thing. With lovely pictures of happy LJers from the other side of the tracks tucking in. This is really going to go down well on the estate. 

I saw it at Tube this morning and bought it. Its imo a PR mistake by LJAG? They really need some advice on this.

I know some LJ locals are concerned, before this article in SLP, that LJAG wanted to turn the Farm into a LJAG version of Pop Brixton.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

Let's for the sake of argument accept the premise that without a car, you can't get a job, and your children can't get to school safely.

So, you can see the problem/solution as

(a) People without a car are massively disadvantaged. We need to let everyone have a car.

or

(b) People without a car are massively disadvantaged. We need to do things to change this, so that things are balanced more in favour of pedestrians and public transport users.

Which one are you going to go for, (a) or (b)?


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Oh that reminds me:

I hear there will be an article in the Evening Standard on Monday on the LJ road closure story. 
Don't know what it will say but the journalist was at Thursday's meeting.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which one are you going to go for, (a) or (b)?



I choose B! But your penchant for either ors , is just not very constructive in the real world of what's going on here.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> I learnt something this evening by meeting someone who explained to me what it's like to live on the estate and work two jobs, morning and night shifts and have 2 children at 2 different schools who they feel would not be safe because of gang problems either walking home or cycling on nickable bikes.
> 
> In the daily life she described to me a car is not a luxury item and a family sized bicycle with a wicker basket on is not a viable alternative.



And?

I have a friend who got a car because her mother is getting old and ill. Its the only way to make sure she can get to her when needed. We all know stories like this. 

Are these road closures about banning car ownership?

No.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> But if you want to alter people's behaviour you need to persuade them, tempt them - or punish them.
> 
> Seems you prefer the latter. And are not open negotiation.



When it comes to getting people out of their cars, tempting and persuading just doesn't work. This is what the evidence says. Did you read the extensive piece about bringing about modal shift that I posted up a link to twice already?


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Have you seen the lasted edition of South London Press ( Brixton edition)? LJAG have started there fight back by getting two pages in SLP on the Farm and the Platform. "Pop-up may become more permanent" about making the cafe a regular thing. With lovely pictures of happy LJers from the other side of the tracks tucking in. This is really going to go down well on the estate.
> 
> I saw it at Tube this morning and bought it. Its imo a PR mistake by LJAG? They really need some advice on this.
> 
> I know some LJ locals are concerned, before this article in SLP, that LJAG wanted to turn the Farm into a LJAG version of Pop Brixton.



That is a PR disaster, from the point of view of where I went for a drink tonight.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Are these road closures about banning car ownership?
> 
> No.



No, just forcing drivers to do circuitous routes with a view to encouraging them to cycle instead.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> No, just forcing drivers to do circuitous routes with a view to encouraging them to cycle instead.



So it wont stop anyone owning a car.

Changing road to encourage cycling is being done across London. The new partly finished cycle highways is an example. Im already seeing how the loss of road space for cars is causing longer times for cars journeys in central London. The new road layouts favour cyclists not car as well.  So is this to be complained about as well? Logically yes.

The new cycle highways are starting to be opened to cyclist as roadworks move on. Its making my life a lot easier.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> When it comes to getting people out of their cars, tempting and persuading just doesn't work.


So you have to force them. By closing the roads. Then they'll learn. The scaffolders and the delivery people, they'll learn how to balance things on bikes. It's sad but true that everything you depend on to live in the city is delivered to the shelf by a vehicle. There are of course places where things are done better.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> No, just forcing drivers to do circuitous routes with a view to encouraging them to cycle instead.


It's not just about getting people to cycle instead. Walking and public transport too. I would never argue for a system where cycling is a necessity, any more than one where driving is a necessity. But somewhere like London, if you can get as many people who are able and willing to, to use bikes, it takes the strain off other modes of transport including buses and tubes.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> So you have to force them. By closing the roads. Then they'll learn. The scaffolders and the delivery people, they'll learn how to balance things on bikes. It's sad but true that everything you depend on to live in the city is delivered to the shelf by a vehicle. There are of course places where things are done better.
> View attachment 77608


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

I know I'm being silly but I think you are too, it's just not an A or B situation here.
I agree, of course, less cars in London wouold be an entirely good thing, but this what has happened here in LJ is not the way to achieve that.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> So you have to force them. By closing the roads. Then they'll learn. The scaffolders and the delivery people, they'll learn how to balance things on bikes. It's sad but true that everything you depend on to live in the city is delivered to the shelf by a vehicle. There are of course places where things are done better.
> View attachment 77608



Its already happening. These bikes are used in central London for small parcel deliveries.They are becoming popular as get around more easily than small van. Small parcels could be dropped off at depo by lorry then distributed by bikes like this for example.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> I choose B! But your penchant for either ors , is just not very constructive in the real world of what's going on here.


The real world? There is masses of literature on this and plenty of real world examples where restricting car use has brought results, without anything terrible happening. As Gramsci says there are numerous schemes already underway in other parts of London. None of the arguments I'm making here are new. You need to do your homework.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> When it comes to the pedestrianisation of Loughbrough Road the Brixton Society objected, the Herne Hill Society seem to have ignored it



The Herne Hill Society did make a critical submission on 5 Mar 2015 which included the following comments (full text attached):
*The scheme lacks any justification – *no clear objectives for the scheme have been given, no alternatives examined, no analysis or causal link established between the traffic closures and the upgrading of the area…
*The public consultation was inadequate, and its reporting biased -* no record has been found of the Herne Hill Society … and no mention made of consultations with the Camberwell Society …  The only civic society response quoted – from the Brixton Society – describes the scheme as ‘fundamentally flawed’.  
*The scheme is premature, and fails to recognise the current and likely future planning context of the area –* neither the major housing developments underway around Myatts Fields, nor the evolving proposals for the Higgs Industrial Estate (and its potential CIL/  S106 contribution) , are mentioned or factored into the future plans.
*The scheme is not a value for money use of the remaining £95,000 in the Loughborough Junction project budget –* spending 30% of the remaining budget on a un-justified and arguably un-connected experimental road closure is not a good use of monies intended for improving the public realm.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> I know I'm being silly but I think you are too, it's just not an A or B situation here.
> I agree, of course, less cars in London wouold be an entirely good thing, but this what has happened here in LJ is not the way to achieve that.


Go on then, how do we achieve it without taking measures that make things less convenient for car drivers? Backed up by some examples of where your proposed method has brough about real world results elsewhere.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So - what about parents in a similar situation who don't have a car? What do they do? They just have to accept that if they don't have a car, their children are at risk on their journeys to and from school?
> 
> These are basically the same arguments used to defend gun ownership in the USA.



Here's one argument to defend gun ownership, made by one of the people that wrote the US constitution:

Sic Semper Tyrannis : Madison, Federalist # 46 and gun rights

I assume though you're referring to the other argument that goes along the lines of:

Everyone has the right to defend themselves;
If you are attacked by someone much larger than you then unless you have some sort of weapon, you're probably dog meat;
Thus you should have the right to carry a weapon.
So I assume that the point you're trying to make is that the person in question should give up their car, let their children walk/cycle to school and if they get robbed/mugged/beaten up that's just tough shit.
I'd like to see you explain that to them face to face.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

My interest is different from yours, I'm not so much concerned with the macro big picture re modal shift as with the disastrous impact this failed consultation and muddled scheme has had on my immediate area, what it feels like to live here.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Here's one argument to defend gun ownership, made by one of the people that wrote the US constitution:
> 
> Sic Semper Tyrannis : Madison, Federalist # 46 and gun rights
> 
> ...



Double like. 
Especially the bit about  "were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force..  it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."


----------



## Winot (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> My interest is different from yours, I'm not so much concerned with the macro big picture re modal shift as with the disastrous impact this failed consultation and muddled scheme has had on my immediate area, what it feels like to live here.



So nimbyism.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Go on then, how do we achieve it without taking measures that make things less convenient for car drivers? Backed up by some examples of where your proposed method has brough about real world results elsewhere.



I'll have to do my homework, as you suggested. 

Just to clarify though, the reason I'm upset about what is going on here is that the utter failure of Lambeth to conduct anything like a representative consultation process has resulted in a drastic measure being implemented against the will of the majority of residents and this has made the place a very angry place to be, causing an already simmering rift between those who have the ear of the council and access to influence and those who feel ignored and oppressed by it to become irreparably exacerbated.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 3, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> And?
> 
> I have a friend who got a car because her mother is getting old and ill. Its the only way to make sure she can get to her when needed. We all know stories like this.
> 
> ...



Your answer is true in a literal sense. However it's slightly disingenuous. Banning smoking in public places isn't about _banning_ smoking altogether. We also have people campaigning to ban smoking outside in public places. Now we have smoking banned in cars in the presence of someone under the age of 18. Logically if it is dangerous to smoke in the presence of someone under 18 in a car, it's also dangerous at home. So the next step would be to ban smoking at home if anyone under 18 is present. In that case for someone with children, where is left for them to smoke?

The current war on motorists is reminiscent (at least to me) of the war on smokers. No, I'm not a smoker - but I wouldn't want to see it banned.

As it happens I don't think cars will ever be completely banned - if only because the illuminati won't want to cycle or take public transport along with the Untermenschen. However it could get to the point where it is essentially banned as far as most people are concerned.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

Winot said:


> So nimbyism.


I don't think you understand. Nimbyism sounds very nice and cosy, sort of domestic like an aesthetic preference about what's going on next door.
The atmosphere in that meeting on Thursday was not anything like that. people are furious about what has happened here and its getting really nasty.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> I don't think you understand. Nimbyism sounds very nice and cosy, sort of domestic like an aesthetic preference.
> The atmosphere in that meeting on Thursday was not anything like that. people are furious about what has happened here and its getting really nasty.



Absolutely. At one point I was wondering if it was all going to kick off.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Absolutely. At one point I was wondering if it was all going to kick off.


Yep.
I have to admit I think Anthea Massey (LJAG lady) had real balls to have shown up in there. I was for a moment concerned about her.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yep.
> I have to admit I think Anthea Massey had real balls to have shown up in there. I was for a moment concerned about her.



So it was her then? I wasn't 100% sure. She scarpered fairly quickly though - certainly before that other woman asked her to say why she supported the closures. I guess she probably left when she was booed.


----------



## bimble (Oct 3, 2015)

It was. Very brave. She's tiny.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yep.
> I have to admit I think Anthea Massey (LJAG lady) had real balls to have shown up in there. I was for a moment concerned about her.



It nearly did turn into something else, Massey made a very silent getaway I am told


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2015)

Their was a CCTV car positioned by the junction of Loughborough Road and Coldharbour Lane today ready to snap cars for the £130 fine. Loads of drivers were clearly confused and one local was standing about to point out the CCTV car and warn them not to proceed...


----------



## irf520 (Oct 4, 2015)

editor said:


> Their was a CCTV car positioned by the junction of Loughborough Road and Coldharbour Lane today ready to snap cars for the £130 fine. Loads of drivers were clearly confused and one local was standing about to point out the CCTV car and warn them not to proceed...



At around 4pm there was one at the end of Gordon Grove. Didn't see any around the other closures - maybe theres just the one car switching between the different points.
There was also a nose-to-tail westbound traffic jam on Coldharbour Lane from Denmark Rd to the Loughborough Rd junction.


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2015)

I often see the same little white cctv car, same unfortunate bloke inside it getting people's views on the closures.

It seems to move around the area (parked in Gordon Grove yesterday, later sighted at the junction just outside 'touch of difference' hair salon.

This is interesting:
Lambeth's in the top 5 London Boroughs for something anyhow;
We're up there with Harrow & Westminster for revenues generated from cctv enforced parking / driving offences. 

CCTV 'spy' cars to be banned after London councils rake in

maybe we should phone these people.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2015)

irf520 said:


> ?
> 
> The current war on motorists is reminiscent (at least to me) of the war on smokers. No, I'm not a smoker - but I wouldn't want to see it banned.
> 
> As it happens I don't think cars will ever be completely banned - if only because the illuminati won't want to cycle or take public transport along with the Untermenschen. However it could get to the point where it is essentially banned as far as most people are concerned.



To you its a war. But thats not how I see it.

I did ask one estate resident there opinion on the issue. They said they wanted traffic reduction but not this particular scheme.

One person told me instead they wanted the area to become a CPZ zone. Which I reckon is part of the "war" on motorists.

So I think the opposition to this scheme should not become being about a victory for the motorist in the "war".


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2015)

This just in..

The amount of money Lambeth has set aside for QUALITATIVE measures to ascertain whether or not this is a successful scheme is £8,200.
As far as I know this money is for Stockwell Partnership ltd, who are the ones officially engaged to find out how people feel about the closures.

Stockwell Partnership it is interesting to note was "was founded by Mr George Ross James Wright" amongst others.
The same George Wright as is leading the road closures project for Lambeth.
https://www.duedil.com/company/03801173/the-stockwell-partnership-limited

So far Stockwell Partnership have been unable to tell us anything concrete at all about how they are planning to do their job.
They were apparently unable to make it to the meeting on Thursday, despite saying they'd come.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> This just in..
> 
> The amount of money Lambeth has set aside for QUALITATIVE measures to ascertain whether or not this is a successful scheme is £8,200.
> 
> ...


Doesn't seem VERY arms length does it?

That is the nature of the Lambeth beast. George Wright was originally a co-worker at Lambeth Public Transport Campaign (with John Stuart who now campaigns against Heathrow at HAKAN).

People  move in and out of council jobs and related NGO/pressure group jobs. Probably facilitated by LinedIn these days!

In my young day giving your own NGO a council piece of work would have been considered corrupt. Now it is expected - giving out "a consultancy" of £8,200 as a reward like a grant or bit of "social enterprise fundraising".


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2015)

A very short arm's length, indeed.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> I often see the same little white cctv car, same unfortunate bloke inside it getting people's views on the closures.
> 
> It seems to move around the area (parked in Gordon Grove yesterday, later sighted at the junction just outside 'touch of difference' hair salon.
> 
> ...


That article is over a year old. Eric Pickles is no longer a minister.
I dare say that promise will be forgotten since it was made by "the coalition".
I certainly haven't heard anything about this affecting Lambeth - have you?


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I certainly haven't heard anything about this affecting Lambeth - have you?


No, don't know anything about that. Impressive revenue figures though.


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2015)

Can somebody scientific comment on what this means?

It's from the document Lambeth has made explaining how they're doing the air quality measurements as part of their assessment of the scheme.
Does it say that any increase in pollution detected on Coldhardbour Lane will be ignored / judged to be unrelated to the closures?


----------



## prunus (Oct 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Can somebody scientific comment on what this means?
> 
> It's from the document Lambeth has made explaining how they're doing the air quality measurements as part of their assessment of the scheme.
> Does it say that any increase in pollution detected on Coldhardbour Lane will be ignored / judged to be unrelated to the closures?
> ...



No, it's saying they'll use monitoring on Chl to represent the background level of pollutants, which might be expected to fluctuate due to things unrelated to the closure. 

Personally I think this is a mistake, as chl will not be unaffected, given it's the main thoroughfare right next to (indeed, adjoining) the closed road.  My conjecture would be that this will overestimate the reduction in pollution on Loughborough road (as I'm guessing that pollution on chl will go up due to traffic diverted onto it, giving a higher 'background' reading, implying that the levels on Loughborough are relatively lower than they are. I emphasise this is just a conjecture though - I don't have all the info).


----------



## bimble (Oct 4, 2015)

Well.. exactly. But I'm still a bit confused: 
So it does say that any increase in pollution detected on CHL will not be taken into account when they determine what effect the closures have had on air pollution in the local area? 
Because that's where it seems the effect has been greatest, displaced traffic-wise.


----------



## prunus (Oct 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Well.. exactly. But I'm still a bit confused:
> So it does say that any increase in pollution detected on CHL will not be taken into account when they determine what effect the closures have had on air pollution in the local area?
> Because that's where it seems the effect has been greatest, displaced traffic-wise.



If that's all the document has to say on the matter then yes that is how I would interpret it - it looks like the project's remit is to assess changes in pollution on and around Loughborough road - not elsewhere. I would still suggest that using chl as a control is probably a mistake though - one cannot use a site [likely to be or potentially] affected by one's treatment as a control of that treatment... that's basic experiential design. 

I'd have to read the whole document to have a decent idea though - point me at it and I might  albeit it's a lovely day out and I might just sit in that for a bit


----------



## critical1 (Oct 4, 2015)

Currently sat outside the lovely Stockwell town Centre created by George Wright observing the  Pleasant view of buses passing by the tube station.
The pigeons were of great significance as they didn't seem to mind me being sat with them.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 4, 2015)

Isn't that just a lovely picture....  wonderful  so enriching....	

as for pollution counts   what are they going to compare it to when they did no counts before the scheme....  no they did NOT do one on Loughborough Road.
When George Wright was asked for various sets of data as such he had none.

How ironic one of  the drivers of the CCTV car lives on Loughborough Est   spied the other night.
That has a long journey to get round the closed roads no exemption for that CAR.

They say they want to encourage people to get out of their cars   walk   cycle   not everyone can cycle some are not strong enough well enough not confident enough cannot store a bike cannot get a bike into or too their home  some flats have no lifts, no space to keep a bike all sorts of reasons.
Some people cannot walk very far, buses cannot connect them without long walks, some too nervous to walk out alone, many many reasons we do not know people have for using a car you cannot make people suffer the many  things they now are just for the sake a very very small minority wanting a bit of space and another very small minority having a pretty cycle route.


----------



## Winot (Oct 4, 2015)




----------



## CH1 (Oct 4, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> They say they want to encourage people to get out of their cars   walk   cycle   not everyone can cycle some are not strong enough well enough not confident enough cannot store a bike cannot get a bike into or too their home  some flats have no lifts, no space to keep a bike all sorts of reasons.


I know what you mean. When I moved to Brixton in 1978 bikes were not allowed in the block I moved to (Effra Court). So I just sold my bike and changed to public transport. 

I guess if they had been more liberal or accommodating, I might have kept it up and been much healthier for it.

I do rather regret stopping cycling, but I had no alternative (economically).


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Some people cannot walk very far, buses cannot connect them without long walks, some too nervous to walk out alone, many many reasons we do not know people have for using a car you cannot make people suffer the many  things they now are just for the sake a very very small minority wanting a bit of space and another very small minority having a pretty cycle route.



I had to go up to Slough this morning. Getting train to Slough was no problem. At Slough the buses I  was trying to get to were on hourly basis. Ended up getting a cab- expensive but no other option. Shared the cab with someone else.

I cannot afford a car. Like a lot of people in this area.

As has been pointed out several times on this thread car ownership is low in this area. This is not down to lifestyle middle class choice. This is due to not being able to afford it.

What I object to is this insinuation that this is all about a middle class minority. Its not.

I really resent the fact that public transport in London is expensive. Also that if you want to get anywhere there is often a lack of public transport.

Car owners aren’t the majority.

I cycle in London as its cheap and it my living.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> This just in..
> 
> The amount of money Lambeth has set aside for QUALITATIVE measures to ascertain whether or not this is a successful scheme is £8,200.
> As far as I know this money is for Stockwell Partnership ltd, who are the ones officially engaged to find out how people feel about the closures.
> ...



There is a LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum as u say. Not happy the cant come.

Reading the posts here not happy they got the job of consulting. Yet again its Lambeth just imposing there form of consultation onto people.

I will be going to the Forum.

I want to object to Stockwel Partnership getting this job. I want to know how they were chosen and why.

I also want to suggest alternative. Social Life. Who I rate. They have done consultation at somerleyton and Cressingham.

I also want the remit to be extended/ narrowed? as to concentrate on the Loughborough Estate and how the people feel about the area, what they want and what they feel are the problems in the area. ie lack of oppurtunity for training and activities for young people growing up on the estate. Something that imo came up when people at last meeting were complaining about the Farm. As seems to me that the issues for people and families on the estate have been neglected over the years. Hence this anger now imo.

I would like to get away from the really personal stuff and attack on LJAG to see Council can be made to deal with the real serious issues affecting an area like this where a lot of people are struggling.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 4, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Its already happening. These bikes are used in central London for small parcel deliveries.They are becoming popular as get around more easily than small van. Small parcels could be dropped off at depo by lorry then distributed by bikes like this for example.



Thats a great idea, the cyclist would all have to receive a London Living Wage and increased postal costs would also have to be covered by sender and user. I have noticed that a few private postal companies operating in London also employ youths at minimum wage.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 5, 2015)

How silly whoever did this!		 ljroadmadness do NOT condone this action

 on


----------



## bimble (Oct 5, 2015)

It wasn't me. Fines will not be enforceable while it looks this way , maybe that's what whoever did it was thinking.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 5, 2015)

Presumably if there is active CCTV the record will be checked.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 5, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Its the Cllrs who should be getting the bollocking for this.
> 
> From the comments Ive heard so far its LJAG who are getting the flack for being middle class gentrifiers. Was this the impression you got from the locals you talked to or not?



They weren't mentioned by name by the people I spoke to so I can't comment. Although I think we may be giving the LJAG group more name recognition than they have, I think people that have been interested in the improvement plans for a while know who they are but I think those who have only just got interested because the road is closed don't know about them by name. I think LJAG have been keeping a reasonably low profile in the last couple of months and with good reason.

As much as I think they were misguided to tag along with the council and put their head above the parapet, I think it's unfair for people to lay the blame with them, they may have supported it but then so did lots of other non-LJAG affiliated locals, it's the council that's responsible.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> Bobzillard, prunus & anybody else who got the letter above, do you live inside this red line ?
> View attachment 77584


I got the letter delivered, not sure by who but don't live in the area marked, like on Styles Gardens. However my postbox is available from the street, you don't have to get in to the building to deliver.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 5, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Its the Cllrs who should be getting the bollocking for this.



In defence of two of them, they did speak up about this, Rachel Heywood spoke out against it and did try to submit the 750 or so name petition but names were collected after the consultation period so it was too late and not considered. And Matt Parr was the one who had it called back in for review. So they have tried but it was led by other forces, combine that with a council that doesn't give a shit about the poor area and wants to keep the more affluent areas happy and you get what we got.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 5, 2015)

LadyV said:


> They weren't mentioned by name by the people I spoke to so I can't comment. Although I think we may be giving the LJAG group more name recognition than they have, I think people that have been interested in the improvement plans for a while know who they are but I think those who have only just got interested because the road is closed don't know about them by name. I think LJAG have been keeping a reasonably low profile in the last couple of months and with good reason.
> 
> As much as I think they were misguided to tag along with the council and put their head above the parapet, I think it's unfair for people to lay the blame with them, they may have supported it but then so did lots of other non-LJAG affiliated locals, it's the council that's responsible.


I was with some friends in Streatham last night and apparently a similar issue has arisen in Rosendale Road. The person talking to me blamed it on Sustrans - which seems to be a national cycling campaign who have got active in these local proposals/disputes.

I haven't seen any of the correspondence or town hall papers - I'm only reporting this because it suggests that the Loughborough Road is part of a larger policy shift.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 5, 2015)

Article about what's happening in Enfield which may be of interest

Bike lane blues: why don’t businesses want a £30m cycle-friendly upgrade?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 5, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Article about what's happening in Enfield which may be of interest
> 
> Bike lane blues: why don’t businesses want a £30m cycle-friendly upgrade?



Goodness that all sounds very familiar doesn't it? Not quite the same situation though, town centre versus a stretch of dilapidated shops, road closure versus proper cycle lanes etc, shame they didn't go for the proper cycle lanes with us first. But I definitely recognise the general hysteria and polar opposite opinions


----------



## prunus (Oct 5, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Goodness that all sounds very familiar doesn't it? Not quite the same situation though, town centre versus a stretch of dilapidated shops, road closure versus proper cycle lanes etc, shame they didn't go for the proper cycle lanes with us first. But I definitely recognise the general hysteria and polar opposite opinions



It (our issue) is not about cycling - it's about making a pedestrian area, and to reduce through-traffic on residential backstreets.  I know it seems to have become cyclists vs non-cyclists (especially with accusations of co-ordinated cyclist action to push it through), but that's not actually the point.  

*Some* people might decide to walk instead of drive from eg the top of Loughborough Road to the shops at LJ, and a tiny few might get on a bike, but as far as I can see it's mainly about diverting long-distance (ie from south of the area to north of it and vice-versa) journeys by car *around* the area, onto the main roads (and possibly some of those journeys onto buses and/or trains), reducing traffic in the closed-off zone. 

I find it surprising that people don't want this, or even to try it.  Less traffic through one's area is *wonderful*.  It feels (and this is based mainly on reading this forum and similar comments elsewhere) that the opposition is more knee-jerk against the instigators and less reasoned against the results.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Here's one argument to defend gun ownership, made by one of the people that wrote the US constitution:
> 
> Sic Semper Tyrannis : Madison, Federalist # 46 and gun rights
> 
> ...



*Sigh*

No, I am not saying that because I am not talking about banning anyone from using their car, am I?

I am saying that it's not a marginal increase in inconvenience to those who have a car already that we should be focussing on, it's the fact that lots of other people don't have the option of using a car to get around their worries about the safety of their kids going to and from school.

To address this problem, giving everyone a car is not only completely infeasible but it would make things even worse for anyone walking or using PT.

On the other hand, the more people there are out and about, walking and using PT instead of barricaded inside cars, the safer the streets are. This is not speculation, there is plenty of research that shows that increased pedestrian footfall makes streets safer.

Therefore I support measures to make things easier for people without cars, and these benefits completely outweigh the inconvenience (mainly longer journey times) for those who do have the option of taking their kids to school by car.

Maybe you think we should give guns to the kids who have to walk, right? By your logic, denying them the right to arms would amount to saying, well, we could give you a gun, which would make you a lot safer because no-one would mess with you, but we're not going to, so if you get robbed/mugged/beaten up that's just tough shit. So are you going to say that to their face, or are you going to provide them with arms?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Therefore I support measures to make things easier for people without cars, and these benefits completely outweigh the inconvenience (mainly longer journey times) for those who do have the option of taking their kids to school by car.


It does seem like ending the school run might actually make school children safer for a variety of reasons.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 5, 2015)

LadyV said:


> In defence of two of them, they did speak up about this, Rachel Heywood spoke out against it and did try to submit the 750 or so name petition but names were collected after the consultation period so it was too late and not considered. And Matt Parr was the one who had it called back in for review. So they have tried but it was led by other forces, combine that with a council that doesn't give a shit about the poor area and wants to keep the more affluent areas happy and you get what we got.


The consultation period ended on the 31st October 2014.  They were handed to George Wright's office and a receipt received on the 31st October so he received them on time. Yes they were later presented to Full Council by Rachel Heywood but that did not take away the fact they were received ON TIME by George Wright.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2015)

teuchter's truth check 05/10/2015

Had a look at Denmark Road again, this time during rush hour.

Southern end of Denmark rd (ie junction with CHL), looking N, 5.25pm:
 
Pretty quiet.

Same time, looking the other way, a queue of 3 cars waiting to get onto CHL:
 


Further down Denmark Rd, where it goes under the railway bridge. By now it was 5.55pm:

There were some cars passing but it was fairly quiet, certainly not "choc-a-bloc".

I then walked back up to CHL. This is near the junction with Warner Rd. I would not say there was heavy traffic passing at this point but you can see that, at this point in time, there was quite a queue waiting to get onto CHL, visible in the distance:


This is taken roughly halfway between the Warner rd junction and the CHL junction. The queue was backed up to this point.

There were quite a lot of drivers doing U-turns just here. A clear sign that people are still figuring out alternatie routes.



It is true that there was a lot of traffic on CHL - backed up and slow moving from LJ until around the junction with Denmark Rd. I'd say the queue on Denmark Rd is created by the fact that there's a lot of traffic on CHL meaning people have to wait a long time to pull out onto it. It's not really indicative of heavy traffic using Denmark Rd as a through route, as evidenced by the fact that it was not really busy further up.


----------



## bimble (Oct 5, 2015)

It is really odd, given that CHL does seem to be where the most of the displaced traffic problem is, that the plan is to use CHL as the 'control' when they measure pollution before and after this experiment. Any increase of pollution detected on CHL will not be the attributed to the closure of Loughborough Road. and it will not be included in the figures Lambeth use to show us how much less polluted the area is with the the closures then before. 
(am away from computer will put up the document when I get back)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> It is really odd, given that CHL does seem to be where the most of the displaced traffic problem is, that the plan is to use CHL as the 'control' when they measure pollution before and after this experiment. Any increase of pollution detected on CHL will not be the attributed to the closure of Loughborough Road. and it will not be included in the figures Lambeth use to show us how much less polluted the area is with the the closures then before.
> (am away from computer will put up the document when I get back)


It doesn't really make sense to me either. Also looking at the partial document you posted earlier, it looks like the data collected will consist of just two 4 hour periods, before and after. I'm no expert on this but that dosn't seem like anywhere near enough of a sample to draw reliable conclusions from.


----------



## Winot (Oct 5, 2015)

It seems that 3rd parties have assumed that Brixton Buzz has an editorial line on this:


----------



## CH1 (Oct 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> It is really odd, given that CHL does seem to be where the most of the displaced traffic problem is, that the plan is to use CHL as the 'control' when they measure pollution before and after this experiment. Any increase of pollution detected on CHL will not be the attributed to the closure of Loughborough Road. and it will not be included in the figures Lambeth use to show us how much less polluted the area is with the the closures then before.
> (am away from computer will put up the document when I get back)


I am happy for them to measure CHL. I live on CHL and choke to death. I want to know how CHL compared with other roads in Brixton.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 5, 2015)

Black mark for Morgan as his bogus identity gets found out


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Article about what's happening in Enfield which may be of interest
> 
> Bike lane blues: why don’t businesses want a £30m cycle-friendly upgrade?



Interesting read. Good to know the kind of hostility in LJ is not unusual.  I’m no lover of Councils but imo this kind of improvement to urban space is progressive.

My friend lives in the Walthamstow "Mini Holland". Need to ask her hows it going. 

Read the Evening Standard article today about the building of the Cycle Super Highway on Embankment. There its chauffeur driven business people complaining about increased journey time. They may even have to use the Underground with all the other proles as its quicker to get to a meeting that way. So the class thing works both ways.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 5, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Read the Evening Standard article today about the building of the Cycle Super Highway on Embankment. There its chauffeur driven business people complaining about increased journey time. They may even have to use the Underground with all the other proles as its quicker to get to a meeting that way.



This is the Evening Standard piece. It contains the claim that reducing driver lanes can reduce total traffic.

The moaning businessman was revealingly hilarious.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2015)

My unscientific survey of the cars queued up on Denmark Rd earlier -

1 Jaguar, several BMWs, a couple of upmarket Audis. One of those bloated Sloane Ranger machines. One hippy van. One other van. Various other cars. I couldn't see anything that was obviously a trade vehicle.

As is nearly always the case when you look, 95% of the cars had a single occupant. Everyone in that queue could have fitted into the lower deck of a bus with space left over.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 5, 2015)

critical1 said:


> What is even more curious is that LJAG has not taken a stand with those they purport to represent in Loughborough faced with such stiff opposition to the scheme and instead want it to go ahead.



I was having one of my chats with a local and he said he warned LJAG that there would be stiff opposition to the Loughborough Road "parklet". The Farm known as "her Farm" in some quarters was already causing resentment.The "parklet" idea was seen as LJAG colonizing the space for themselves.

So I don’t understand why LJAG appeared to be adamant about this part of it. 

Reading the reports from the meeting what I am not clear on is if now there is general opposition to road traffic reduction or its just this particular scheme.

As one person I talked to from LETRA told me that in the consultation doc they opposed the planned experiment but ticked box saying they wanted traffic reduction. ie its was this particular plan they opposed not the idea.

But from reports from the meeting looked like business were complaining that reduction in through traffic was damaging there business. ie the Car Wash in Hinton road.

If another plan was brought forward to reduce through traffic, ie block traffic at Hinton road but not not completely closing off Loughborough Road at top, this would still be about trying to reduce traffic.

So there would still be losers whatever scheme is brought in.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2015)

What's this "parklet" and where is it proposed?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What's this "parklet" and where is it proposed?


That's the whole point LJAG make it up as they go along, you won't find parklets in any of their minutes or anywhere else. 

I have an idea why not put some chairs and a table in some parking spaces wih some plants... Hmm and why not call it a parklet then we can sit with our cups of tea and watch fire, ambulance, police, and other vehicles go by.. Now isn't that a nice idea.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What's this "parklet" and where is it proposed?



It started to be used as the roads were first closed. Then on the car free day disaster there were some rather bemused people trying to do a consultation on a "parklet".

I think critical1 has a point about LJAG.

Like Brixton Green it has one or two strong characters at the top who have fixed ideas. Making it up as they go along is also a Brixton Green trait. Not that all the ideas are bad. But it can rub people up the wrong way if they feel they are just having them suddenly appear with no discussion. 

Good question to ask at the next LJ Neighbourhood planning forum.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

critical1 said:


> That's the whole point LJAG make it up as they go along, you won't find parklets in any of their minutes or anywhere else.


So why is everyone going on about "parklets" if it's not even something they've even proposed?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So why is everyone going on about "parklets" if it's not even something they've even proposed?



Its Kafkaesque.



Seriously though I think your question is a good one. Will try to remember to ask it at the planning forum meeting coming up. Whether it was sudden brainwave of a Council officer or LJAG or both. 

Either way it was a red rag to a bull having that "parklet" consultation there on Car free day.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So why is everyone going on about "parklets" if it's not even something they've even proposed?


It was said it would be in operation on the traffic fee day - Sunday 21st September. From what I can  remember what actually happened (according to posters on Urban) was there were some youngish pro closure activists outside the Platform Bar (which was serving booze) but they hadn't got it together to erect their parklet allegedly due to hostility from locals.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

Winot said:


> It seems that 3rd parties have assumed that Brixton Buzz has an editorial line on this:



Someone needs to warn them that those kinds of questions constitute a bannable offence.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It was said it would be in operation on the traffic fee day - Sunday 21st September. From what I can  remember what actually happened (according to posters on Urban) was there were some youngish pro closure activists outside the Platform Bar (which was serving booze) but they hadn't got it together to erect their parklet allegedly due to hostility from locals.



I have a couple of photos of the parklet consultation on the day.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2015)

According to a comment on Buzz: 


> In today’s Evening Standard, David Williams reports that John Rice, team leader from the Oval Ambulance Station is alerting that journey times are taking much longer because of the road closures and lives are being put at risk. Imogen Walker, speaking on behalf of Lib Peck and Lambeth Council is still not agreeing to reopen the roads. what are they waiting for – a death?


Coldharbour Lane gridlock as the Loughborough Junction closure experiment goes pear shaped


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> It started to be used as the roads were first closed. Then on the car free day disaster there were some rather bemused people trying to do a consultation on a "parklet".
> 
> I think critical1 has a point about LJAG.


I chatted to a LJAG person on Saturday and strongly recommended that they make a statement about this whole affair. I don't think their silence is helping matters at all.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 6, 2015)

Why do you need a 'parklet' right next to an existing park?

I wonder whether LJAG are just being 'useful idiots' in first suggesting something that subsequently gets taken over and railroaded through by others (cycling campaigners and Lambeth council) who probably wanted to do it anyway, but this way they get LJAG to take a large share of the flak for it.


----------



## bolgerp (Oct 6, 2015)

Does anyone have a link or a scan of the ES article on the road closures from last night? I can't seem to find it on their website.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 6, 2015)

bolgerp said:


> Does anyone have a link or a scan of the ES article on the road closures from last night? I can't seem to find it on their website.



You can read it here:

LJ Road Madness


----------



## bolgerp (Oct 6, 2015)

Excellent... many thanks.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 6, 2015)

This claim to be 'greening' the area is all horse shit. They've just got rid of a massive green space just up the road and replaced it with 'luxury' apartments. How is that greening anything?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> sorry again but it's really not, For one thing you are ignoring the the type of traffic that passes through the closure zone and the fact that for London it was relatively congestion free before the closures came in......



Particulates from diesel engines still being part of the problem even though filtering is much more effective now than 20 years ago, but ime the biggest issue is congestion - places like Brixton Road and Streatham High Road are still potential killers for asthma sufferers and others with respiratory issues.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2015)

If that document is correct, the one about how they intend to measure pollution in LJ before & after, then we'll never know anything useful either way about whether the air is better or worse with / before the closures. 
Seeing as there's far more shops bus stops and pedestrians on coldharbour lane than on Loughborough road I'd have thought the increased fumes there from tailbacks would be an issue to consider but sadly seems not part of the plan.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

irf520 said:


> You can read it here:
> 
> LJ Road Madness


More crap journalism from the ES. No attempt to fact-check or question anything said at the meeting.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Oct 6, 2015)

I cycled through CHL and Loughborough Rd last Friday around rush hour and couldn't honestly say is was any worse than normal. I couldn't see the chaos others have described. Maybe people are learning to avoid it.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Particulates from diesel engines still being part of the problem even though filtering is much more effective now than 20 years ago, but ime the biggest issue is congestion - places like Brixton Road and Streatham High Road are still potential killers for asthma sufferers and others with respiratory issues.



The preponderance of diesels is due to previous attempts to 'be green' since diesels have lower carbon dioxide emissions but higher emissions of particulates and nitrogen oxides.

If congestion is the problem, how is forcing all traffic through a small number of bottlenecks going to improve that? I know some people will say the overall level of traffic will fall. But if you look at the Hammersmith Bridge example someone posted a while back, even if you accept their figures that a third of traffic disappeared, it still means that the other two thirds of the traffic was forced onto adjacent routes. So the traffic on those routes obviously increased and congestion there must have increased. The same will happen here. Some proportion of the traffic might switch to public transport, cycling or even Shanks' pony, but the rest will be forced through central Brixton or Camberwell Green. So congestion there will increase and air quality there will fall.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> The working class Council tenants were NOT leafletted about the consultation for Road closures
> The working class Council tenants  did  NOT have their petition against the proposed road closures accepted by the Council
> The working class Council tenants were NOT allowed to speak at the Call In by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel
> The working class Council tenants were NOT told about the car free event last Saturday and the consultation for a "Parklet"
> The working class Council tenants  are  NOT the only people who are angry,upset, worried, stressed etc about the road closures it is all classes, all ages.



If you're a working class council tenant, then the above is "business as usual" for Lambeth's council cabinet.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> More crap journalism from the ES. No attempt to fact-check or question anything said at the meeting.



Must admit I agree, it wasn't much of an article, happy to quote the council in its "ongoing consultation" work and not interested in researching anything below the surface.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2015)

editor said:


> I chatted to a LJAG person on Saturday and strongly recommended that they make a statement about this whole affair. I don't think their silence is helping matters at all.


They have an active Facebook page: Loughborough Junction Action Group (LJAG) but they don't seem to be managing it at all. There is no guidance as to what LJAG's current view is - just a few posters shouting the odds on both sides.

LJAG could start by making a clear reasoned statement of their current position on their own Facebook page.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

From the roadmadness facebook page, another heartbreaking tale of someone who can't drive his car through any more.



> I've been out the country, so missed this all being implemented. So glad you've got a campaign going as I've been doing my absolute nut over the past few days. Almost everyone I know who lives south of Brixton uses either Loughborough Road or Calais Street to get up to Kennington and the west end beyond that. Has been this way for as long as I can remember. These closures are totally insane. It's pushing all the road users onto the main drags of Coldharbour or Brixton Road, which now resemble car parks! I can usually do Vauxhall to Crystal Palace in about 20-25 mins. Took me over an hour on Saturday. Ridiculous! Spent half that time doing 3-point turns as every road I went down seemed to be a no-entry! What makes matters worse is once you've battled through Brixton, you then get to Kennington and all the roadworks where they're stitching motorists up even more and putting in the cycle lanes. Something has to be done to make Lambeth see sense! I'll be sure to publicise this page and campaign to everyone I know. Please keep up the good work and let us all know if there's anything we can do to help the cause.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> They have an active Facebook page: Loughborough Junction Action Group (LJAG) but they don't seem to be managing it at all. There is no guidance as to what LJAG's current view is - just a few posters shouting the odds on both sides.
> 
> LJAG could start by making a clear reasoned statement of their current position on their own Facebook page.


That was indeed what I suggested to them - and they could send it to Buzz and we'd be happy to publish it. I've also asked Lambeth Cyclists and Cyclists In The City if they'd like to contribute their views.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2015)

Given the obvious confusion by drivers over this scheme, I did find this lurking CCTV Enforcement car a little provocative on the weekend. 

Instead of trying to financially punish any cars inadvertently driving through, why not get the fucker out of the car and get him to stand by the junction and explain what the fuck is going on? I saw several cars on both sides of the barrier stop for ages while they tried to work out what was happening, and several times a local would walk across and advise them to clear off or face a fine.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2015)

Rachel Heywood is saying that the barriers have gone


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

irf520 said:


> But if you look at the Hammersmith Bridge example someone posted a while back, even if you accept their figures that a third of traffic disappeared, it still means that the other two thirds of the traffic was forced onto adjacent routes. So the traffic on those routes obviously increased and congestion there must have increased. The same will happen here. Some proportion of the traffic might switch to public transport, cycling or even Shanks' pony, but the rest will be forced through central Brixton or Camberwell Green. So congestion there will increase and air quality there will fall.


Nope, it's not saying that a third of the traffic that used the bridge disappeared. It's saying that a third of traffic in the local area disappeared. Not all traffic in the local area will have been using the bridge. And it specifically says that extra traffic was not found to be using neighbouring bridges.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> If that document is correct, the one about how they intend to measure pollution in LJ before & after, then we'll never know anything useful either way about whether the air is better or worse with / before the closures.
> Seeing as there's far more shops bus stops and pedestrians on coldharbour lane than on Loughborough road I'd have thought the increased fumes there from tailbacks would be an issue to consider but sadly seems not part of the plan.



My guess is they're not really interested in any sort of objective data. They know the result they want and that's all that matters.
There's a fairly standard M.O. people in government / positions of authority use to implement an unpopular change. It goes something like this:


Come up with an idea you want to implement which you know will meet a large amount of opposition
Create a problem or exacerbate an existing problem to which your idea can be marketed as the solution
By means of small changes make the problem worse until people start to grumble about it
Create a media storm about the problem to intensify the grumbling and make people think 'something must be done!' It's especially helpful if you can attribute a certain number of deaths to the problem, and then focus intensively on the victims to make the population at large sympathetic. Lines like "Your child could be next!" are especially effective.
Repeat steps 3 and 4 until the chorus of 'something must be done' becomes deafening
Propose your original idea and now get a lot of support
For me this whole LJ road closure business is one of the small changes in step 3 in this procedure. They want to make the congestion worse. The endgame here is tolling of all through roads.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> From the roadmadness facebook page, another heartbreaking tale of someone who can't drive his car through any more.



Does gloating over others' misfortune make you happy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> There is a LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum as u say. Not happy the cant come.
> 
> Reading the posts here not happy they got the job of consulting. Yet again its Lambeth just imposing there form of consultation onto people.
> 
> ...



Word of warning re: Social Life. A lot of the individual workers are good folks, but the boss was entirely happy to accede to Lambeth's request to redact an entire report from the overall Cressingham consultancy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It doesn't realmy make sense to me either. Also looking at the partial document you posted earlier, it looks like the data collected will consist of just two 4 hour periods, before and after. I'm no expert on this but that dosn't seem like anywhere near enough of a sample to draw reliable conclusions from.


When sampling was done on Streatham High Rd (at the junction of Prentis Rd and SHR) in the early '90s to measure PM10 levels, they took 4 samples an hour, every hour between 6am and 8pm, for 7 days. Admittedly they weren't attempting to establish a before and after result as at LJ,  but multiple samples does reduce the likelihood of "wild cards" skewing the results, and the likelihood of the result being engineered.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 6, 2015)

irf520 said:


> If congestion is the problem, how is forcing all traffic through a small number of bottlenecks going to improve that? I know some people will say the overall level of traffic will fall. But if you look at the Hammersmith Bridge example someone posted a while back, even if you accept their figures that a third of traffic disappeared, it still means that the other two thirds of the traffic was forced onto adjacent routes. So the traffic on those routes obviously increased and congestion there must have increased. The same will happen here. Some proportion of the traffic might switch to public transport, cycling or even Shanks' pony, but the rest will be forced through central Brixton or Camberwell Green. So congestion there will increase and air quality there will fall.



I agree. Its why I made a point about the need for an improved and better-integrated (especially in terms of accessibility) public transport system. It's pretty much the only way to prevent the sort of congestion "pass the parcel" you mention.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2015)

irf520 said:


> My guess is they're not really interested in any sort of objective data. They know the result they want and that's all that matters.
> There's a fairly standard M.O. people in government / positions of authority use to implement an unpopular change. It goes something like this:
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but I think if anyone clearly stands to gain here it is Network Rail who are coming in to evict the existing arch tenants in LJ, renovate and greatly increase the rent for whatever the new tenants might be, as in not car repair shops as now but the kind of businesses that can afford high rents, so food retail etc. As it is LJ clearly can't sustain lots of gourmet burger and champaign bars but maybe the pedestrian area makes sense as part of that sort of vision of the future.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I agree. Its why I made a point about the need for an improved and better-integrated (especially in terms of accessibility) public transport system. It's pretty much the only way to prevent the sort of congestion "pass the parcel" you mention.


Except the evidence shows that this does not work. I am all for improving public transport, but it does not get people out of their cars. You have to do the disincentives too.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Does gloating over others' misfortune make you happy?


A reminder for readers of your position on all this:



irf520 said:


> I'm sick to death of these cyclo-nazis trying to ram cycling down everyone's throat. Personally I have no interest whatsoever in cycling. They can shove it where the sun don't shine. It's not enough for them to fuck up all the main roads in order to put in segregated cycle lanes (anyone seen Victoria Embankment recently? or Blackfriars Road? or St George's Circus?), now they want to close all the back roads as well.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> From the roadmadness facebook page, another heartbreaking tale of someone who can't drive his car through any more.



What a hero with his 'battling through Brixton' in a car. 

We in Brixton have to battle through his exhaust fumes.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 6, 2015)

irf520 said:


> The endgame here is tolling of all through roads.


Sounds fair. With exemptions for trade vehicles, taxis and disabled people.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Except the evidence shows that this does not work. I am all for improving public transport, but it does not get people out of their cars. You have to do the disincentives too.



Exactly. While driving is sufficiently cheap and convenient commuters will stay in their cars.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2015)

It's in the Standard today:


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> From the roadmadness facebook page, another heartbreaking tale of someone who can't drive his car through any more.





irf520 said:


> Does gloating over others' misfortune make you happy?



This is a particularly puzzling complainant from this FB page, and is similar to the Dulwich to Stockwell lady gardener who couldn't see her children as there was No Other Way than via Loughborough Road, with her buckets and spades. 


On all my permutations of Google maps, I can’t make it from Vauxhall to Crystal Palace in 20 minutes. All are over 30 to 35 minutes. So either this is hyperbole, or this complainant is advocating reckless speeding through built up residential areas, such as Loughborough Road (and to be fair, that is the best road to speed down, as it’s wide), a place where we know that there is heavy footfall and school children crossing.


I’ll grant that there are parts of Coldharbour Lane and Brixton Road that look like car parks, but the clue is in the title. It’s cars parking, not pedestrians or cyclists. So if the number of cars were reduced, then cars would be able to move more freely. And what is one of the proven most effective way to reduce cars?: traffic management. So he’s pushing back against a system that will ultimately help him or her.


Further to this, she/he spent half his time doing three point turns as every road that he went down was no entry. So why go down the roads if they are flagged as no entry?


So as well as speeding, we now have a driver who is wilfully ignoring no entry signs.


I’m not sure why this is misfortune or gloating? By their own admissions, this is a driver displaying unsafe behaviours.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2015)

"Consultation over the closure was comprehensive"


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 6, 2015)

How are LJAG making all the decisions they are? 
Farm, Loughborough Road, Parklet, Platform, Wyck Gardens etc etc
When and where do they meet because quite a few people joined LJAG at their AGM earlier this year and none have been invited to a meeting?
Yet they are making more and more decisions and coming up with ideas about what they are doing at Loughborough Junction and even more so on or either side of Loughborough Road.  According to the SLP they are looking at making the Farm permanent.
They planted a "prairie garden" in Wyck Gardens and earlier in the year an orchard planting took place in Wyck Gardens.
No wonder  locals are not feeling included. Are there ever leaflets sent out or posters in the local areas?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 6, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> This is a particularly puzzling complainant from this FB page, and is similar to the Dulwich to Stockwell lady gardener who couldn't see her children as there was No Other Way than via Loughborough Road, with her buckets and spades.
> 
> 
> On all my permutations of Google maps, I can’t make it from Vauxhall to Crystal Palace in 20 minutes. All are over 30 to 35 minutes. So either this is hyperbole, or this complainant is advocating reckless speeding through built up residential areas, such as Loughborough Road (and to be fair, that is the best road to speed down, as it’s wide), a place where we know that there is heavy footfall and school children crossing.
> ...



 Maybe because as in the case of Lilford Road, Gordon Grove there is NO sign at the beginning of these roads warning of the up and coming NO Entry.
So drivers go down the road as they may have done for years or their sat navs direct them to low and behold half way down NO ENTRY  even then some of the signs are behind trees or so high up you can barely notice them. As for Loughborough Road the signs have been dreadful  and quite misleading hence so many drivers on them then having no choice but uturning.
People need to stop going on at people on here posting their complaints because they choose to drive a car. They have their reason for this and there are so many reasons. As I also keep posting it is not just CARS on these roads, they are stopping or forcing all the business vehicles to extend their fuel and time consumptions to either travel beyond the closed roads or into the closed roads areas.
People seem fixated on here about car drivers   don't you have deliveries or whatever other businesses or services needing access to your home???


----------



## leanderman (Oct 6, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> People seem fixated on here about car drivers   don't you have deliveries or whatever other businesses or services needing access to your home???



See post #1066


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> See post #1066


I wish you were in charge then instead of George Wright & co. 
we might not have needed to shut the main road after all?


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Exactly. While driving is sufficiently cheap and convenient commuters will stay in their cars.


Meanwhile, here's the feelgood news from the BBC: 

UK car sales hit September high - BBC News


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

It's going to take delivery drivers an extra 5 or 10 minutes maybe to get to some addresses. The price to the customer won't change because they don't adjust pricing on that kind of micro level. 

It's an outrage.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> People need to stop going on at people on here posting their complaints because they choose to drive a car. They have their reason for this and there are so many reasons.


They've got "reasons" so how dare we question them.


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2015)

editor said:


> Meanwhile, here's the feelgood news from the BBC:
> 
> UK car sales hit September high - BBC News


Hurrah ! *waves hat in the air*


----------



## bimble (Oct 6, 2015)

Tuechter, I wish you'd come round to gordon grove and do some research amongst the vans trying to get to the scap metal yard.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Tuechter, I wish you'd come round to gordon grove and do some research amongst the vans trying to get to the scap metal yard.


Tell me more.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Tuechter, I wish you'd come round to gordon grove and do some research amongst the vans trying to get to the scap metal yard.



I'm still wanting to see them wrestle


----------



## LadyV (Oct 6, 2015)

It's not proper research or anything, more personal experience but at around the 9 am mark it is definitely taking longer to get from Loughborough Junction station to Brixton and beyond on the bus, both yesterday and today, I've had to go to the Clapham end of Acre Lane, so have caught the 35 to do so. In the past it's taken around 10 minutes, 15 at max to travel LJ station to the Town Hall, so all the way round the one way etc, yesterday I estimated that the journey took about 25 minutes, this morning I timed it, 28 minutes and that's just to the town hall, not even my final destination. 13 of those minutes were spent on Gresham Road, one of the shortest stretches of the journey. I know that bit sometimes gets a bit congested if TfL have been tinkering with the light sequence but as far as I could tell, this morning it was just weight of traffic causing the delay.

I really am trying to get a bit more on board with the whole pedestrian zone thing but if an argument for it is that we can all use public transport instead then that maybe needs more thought, as my personal experience is that public transport, especially buses, is being affected. It's already near high impossible to catch a Thameslink train at Loughborough Junction as it is, which is why I've gone back to walking to Brixton tube but on the days when a bus should be the best option, it is taking longer to travel. I appreciate it's still early days but it does make it hard to appreciate the possible good.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 6, 2015)

Got to say, for all the claims this is about middle class vs working class, or cars versus cyclists, it rather smacks to me of people outraged by change (on which admittedly they were consulted insufficiently). I remember the very good scheme to pedestrian the centre of Brixton was screwed by a few car owners on surrounding roads who thought it would ruin their lives. I feel sorry for local authorities in these situations. There is always a percentage of people who hate any change, and get outraged at anything that might cause them a minute's inconvenience. It stops a lot of improvements to the public realm that would be improvements for the majority of people. Taking three minutes longer to drive home is not a human rights abuse y'know, and you aren't being persecuted. By all means force Lamebeth to consult properly, but everyone would get used to this (and the traffic adjust) within a few months, and LJ does need some radical reworking to make it feel like the centre of something rather than, well, a junction.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 6, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> The consultation period ended on the 31st October 2014.  They were handed to George Wright's office and a receipt received on the 31st October so he received them on time. Yes they were later presented to Full Council by Rachel Heywood but that did not take away the fact they were received ON TIME by George Wright.



Ah apologies, I wasn't aware of that fact, I thought they had only gone to Rachel Heywood. Why were they ignored by George Wright then? Are we talking negligence of some sort or sabotage?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> It's not proper research or anything, more personal experience but at around the 9 am mark it is definitely taking longer to get from Loughborough Junction station to Brixton and beyond on the bus, both yesterday and today, I've had to go to the Clapham end of Acre Lane, so have caught the 35 to do so. In the past it's taken around 10 minutes, 15 at max to travel LJ station to the Town Hall, so all the way round the one way etc, yesterday I estimated that the journey took about 25 minutes, this morning I timed it, 28 minutes and that's just to the town hall, not even my final destination. 13 of those minutes were spent on Gresham Road, one of the shortest stretches of the journey. I know that bit sometimes gets a bit congested if TfL have been tinkering with the light sequence but as far as I could tell, this morning it was just weight of traffic causing the delay.
> 
> I really am trying to get a bit more on board with the whole pedestrian zone thing but if an argument for it is that we can all use public transport instead then that maybe needs more thought, as my personal experience is that public transport, especially buses, is being affected. It's already near high impossible to catch a Thameslink train at Loughborough Junction as it is, which is why I've gone back to walking to Brixton tube but on the days when a bus should be the best option, it is taking longer to travel. I appreciate it's still early days but it does make it hard to appreciate the possible good.


It does seem that there is extra congestion on CHL at the moment but I hope you can give it a couple of months before coming to a judgement about it. It really is early days and it's also very hard to untangle the effects of the road closure from other stuff going on in the area which could be having an effect.

I think it's also worth pointing out that it seems to be confined to rush hour. It's not like CHL is a logjam all day.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 6, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> Got to say, for all the claims this is about middle class vs working class, or cars versus cyclists, it rather smacks to me of people outraged by change (on which admittedly they were consulted insufficiently). I remember the very good scheme to pedestrian the centre of Brixton was screwed by a few car owners on surrounding roads who thought it would ruin their lives. I feel sorry for local authorities in these situations. There is always a percentage of people who hate any change, and get outraged at anything that might cause them a minute's inconvenience. It stops a lot of improvements to the public realm that would be improvements for the majority of people. Taking three minutes longer to drive home is not a human rights abuse y'know, and you aren't being persecuted. By all means force Lamebeth to consult properly, but everyone would get used to this (and the traffic adjust) within a few months, and LJ does need some radical reworking to make it feel like the centre of something rather than, well, a junction.



Agreed, people don't like change, especially when they feel as if they haven't been consulted, and no it's not abuse of human rights, it's an inconvenience but there is a bit of a feeling of being kettled and it's not that nice, just a personal opinion, not based on anything.

As for LJ being anything other than a junction, that's what it is and by closing Loughborough Road it's now just a thoroughfare as it's just Coldharbour Lane, until they do something to that road to reduce speed and make it more of a space, it will continue to be a row of shops and a train station, nothing more. What should be considered is laying those speed reducing cobbles on the road from Tesco to about the Co-Op, add in some better options for parking or at least stopping and you might actually get more people engaged with the area, but no doubt that is quite expensive so instead we get a badly handled road closure with crappy signs that no one understands and everyone just speeding through as normal.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> I remember the very good scheme to pedestrian the centre of Brixton was screwed by a few car owners on surrounding roads who thought it would ruin their lives. I feel sorry for local authorities in these situations.



When was this?

By the way I was reminded the other day that part of the original proposals for Windrush Sq involved fully pedestrianising the very bottom bit of Tulse Hill, so that Windrush Sq and the gardens in front of St Matthews Church could be a contiguous public space. That would have been nice to have. But that plan was also trashed by people living in the nearby streets who objected to the notion of having to go a slightly less convenient route if they wanted to drive to and from their houses. Shame.

(Incidentally, with all this talk of parklets and sinister plans to "green" Loughbrough Rd, I recall that certain people were objecting that the new Windrush Square design didn't have enough green space)


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> When was this?
> 
> By the way I was reminded the other day that part of the original proposals for Windrush Sq involved fully pedestrianising the very bottom bit of Tulse Hill, so that Windrush Sq and the gardens in front of St Matthews Church could be a contiguous public space. That would have been nice to have. But that plan was also trashed by people living in the nearby streets who objected to the notion of having to go a slightly less convenient route if they wanted to drive to and from their houses. Shame.


 We're talking about the same thing! Sorry if my description wasn't clear.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It does seem that there is extra congestion on CHL at the moment but I hope you can give it a couple of months before coming to a judgement about it. It really is early days and it's also very hard to untangle the effects of the road closure from other stuff going on in the area which could be having an effect.
> 
> I think it's also worth pointing out that it seems to be confined to rush hour. It's not like CHL is a logjam all day.



I am trying to give it a chance, I really am and I know it's like that all day but as I travel during rush hour, that's the times I see. The whole thing frustrates me so much, as much as I hate to admit it, it has the potential to be great but Lambeth have gone and buggered it up! As I've said before if it's going to fail, I want it to fail because it doesn't work and it's a bad idea not because someone couldn't do their job properly. 

If the rumours are true and the barriers, signs etc are coming down, what I would like to know is, is it permanent or merely a suspension so they can get their act together because to me, it's more likely to be a temporary reprieve only.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> We're talking about the same thing! Sorry if my description wasn't clear.


Ah. I thought you meant the main road outside the tube station. That would have been quite radical.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I am trying to give it a chance, I really am and I know it's like that all day but as I travel during rush hour, that's the times I see. The whole thing frustrates me so much, as much as I hate to admit it, it has the potential to be great but Lambeth have gone and buggered it up! As I've said before if it's going to fail, I want it to fail because it doesn't work and it's a bad idea not because someone couldn't do their job properly.
> 
> If the rumours are true and the barriers, signs etc are coming down, what I would like to know is, is it permanent or merely a suspension so they can get their act together because to me, it's more likely to be a temporary reprieve only.


I've no idea about your circumstances and I know that there are people who aren't physically able but out of interest have you considered walking to Brixton tube instead of getting the bus? Because walking only takes about 15 minutes. I rarely get the bus for the pragmatic reason that it generally doesn't save any time - certainly not at rush hour anyway.


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2015)

Got a right faceful of exhaust fumes walking along CHL just now. Really busy traffic.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I've no idea about your circumstances and I know that there are people who aren't physically able but out of interest have you considered walking to Brixton tube instead of getting the bus? Because walking only takes about 15 minutes. I rarely get the bus for the pragmatic reason that it generally doesn't save any time - certainly not at rush hour anyway.


Oh I do walk if I'm just going to Brixton but this morning I was going to the other end of Acre Lane and it was chucking it down so I caught the bus


----------



## LadyV (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Ah. I thought you meant the main road outside the tube station. That would have been quite radical.



Would make it a proper town centre! I'm not suggesting it but it would be nice, not good for catching buses though


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Would make it a proper town centre! I'm not suggesting it but it would be nice, not good for catching buses though


Buses-only pedestrianisation seems to work ok. St Johns Rd in Clapham for example. Not as nice as full pedestrianisation but better than a regular road.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 6, 2015)

editor said:


> Got a right faceful of exhaust fumes walking along CHL just now. Really busy traffic.



You should try Brixton Hill. Same every day. Even my children were complaining about the fumes this morning.

Which is what is so depressing about this badly-planned scheme  - and the more ridiculous oppostion to it - that it may set back attempts to curb pollution elsewhere.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> How are LJAG making all the decisions they are?
> Farm, Loughborough Road, Parklet, Platform, Wyck Gardens etc etc
> When and where do they meet because quite a few people joined LJAG at their AGM earlier this year and none have been invited to a meeting?
> Yet they are making more and more decisions and coming up with ideas about what they are doing at Loughborough Junction and even more so on or either side of Loughborough Road.  According to the SLP they are looking at making the Farm permanent.
> ...


1 The parklet was possibly George Wright/Lambeth Traffic's idea? 
Beasley said in post #506 that George Wright had emailed the details, viz:

*Loughborough Road Car Free Day: Saturday 26 September 2015*
A quick reminder to say that Loughborough Road will be closed to all traffic outside Wyck Gardens and Loughborough Farm between 12 noon and 9pm tomorrow.
The pop-up café at The Platform will be open during this time and the Farm will be open from 1pm.
Pop up parks will be there from 12.00 to 2.30pm to consult on the designs for a parklet planned for the Pedestrian Zone; the start of the greening of this road space.
Best wishes
George Wright, Project Manager, Capital Delivery Team, London Borough of Lambeth
T: 020 7926 07

2 The structure of LJAG is certainly not a conventionally democratic one. It seems to depend on a cadre of enthusiasts who make the policy decisions about their specific project areas and kind of synchronise this formally in monthly steering group meetings. It is diffuse and lacking central policy control - rather depending on a "shared sense of values". Apparently this road closure issue has left them embarrassed because the nucleus group cannot understand the needs and desires of people living on housing estates who might not have any freedom as regards their housing, but have been used to freedom to drive where they like.

3. I've noticed the creeping abolition of Wyck Gardens as a park. The Ebony Pony Club takes up a lot of space as well. All these things can be defended as good community uses, but I am dead certain they would have been allowed in Brockwell Park for example. Is this another example where middle class minority values are imposed on a population deemed lumpen and unused to consultation or protest (until now).


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> When was this?
> 
> By the way I was reminded the other day that part of the original proposals for Windrush Sq involved fully pedestrianising the very bottom bit of Tulse Hill, so that Windrush Sq and the gardens in front of St Matthews Church could be a contiguous public space. That would have been nice to have. But that plan was also trashed by people living in the nearby streets who objected to the notion of having to go a slightly less convenient route if they wanted to drive to and from their houses. Shame.
> 
> (Incidentally, with all this talk of parklets and sinister plans to "green" Loughbrough Rd, I recall that certain people were objecting that the new Windrush Square design didn't have enough green space)


S/he must mean precisely this scheme to pedestrianise Effra Road to link St Mathews Peace Garden with Windrush Square.
My recollection of this was it was a potential TFL scheme involving the Tram from Camden to Brixton - which never happened, but I'm sure that was not cancelled because of "a few car owners on surrounding roads". That comment is hair brained.


----------



## Winot (Oct 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> S/he must mean precisely this scheme to pedestrianise Effra Road to link St Mathews Peace Garden with Windrush Square.
> My recollection of this was it was a potential TFL scheme involving the Tram from Camden to Brixton - which never happened, but I'm sure that was not cancelled because of "a few car owners on surrounding roads". That comment is hair brained.



It was the revamp of Windrush Square.  One option was to close Effra Rd between the (now) BCA and St Matthews church.  It was indeed killed because of residents in Saltoun Rd and around there not wanting to give up vehicular access via Effra Rd.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> S/he must mean precisely this scheme to pedestrianise Effra Road to link St Mathews Peace Garden with Windrush Square.
> My recollection of this was it was a potential TFL scheme involving the Tram from Camden to Brixton - which never happened, but I'm sure that was not cancelled because of "a few car owners on surrounding roads". That comment is hair brained.


I don't think it was linked to the tram.

But having done a bit of hasty digging back...I remember now, there was a group called "Effra Residents' Group".

Doing a search brings up a load of posts, that I'm not going to try and dredge through to reconstruct exactly who was complaining about what and when.

Search Results for Query: "Effra Residents Group" | urban75 forums

The complaints seem to be attributed to a combination of fears about street crime without car traffic, traffic diverting through side streets, and access for the residents on those streets. So all pretty similar to what we have here.

I won't claim my memory of discussions from that far back is highly reliable but I am pretty sure i remember conversations which involved people living in the adjacent streets saying that it was unacceptable that they should have to drive around the houses to get to their streets.

What I'd note is the similarity in the types of complaints. There was no social housing estate being "kettled" in that instance. Mainly fairly well-to-do streets, and about as well-connected to public transport options as anywhere in the country. As I've said before in this thread, the same objections tend to come up anywhere restrictions to motor vehicles are proposed. That's why I'm a bit wary of the attempts being made here to make this into an issue of class division. It's not like the class issues can be ignored, but it's also a rather convenient hook to hang arguments on - and it works. Certain posters and commentators who've previously expressed a strong alignment with the political reasoning behind restricting motor traffic, and bringing possession of our city streets back to pedestrians and cyclists, seem to have lost their tongue, or are even arguing for the other side.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I don't think it was linked to the tram.
> 
> But having done a bit of hasty digging back...I remember now, there was a group called "Effra Residents' Group".
> Doing a search brings up a load of posts, that I'm not going to try and dredge through to reconstruct exactly who was complaining about what and when.
> ...


I can see there were lots of local complaints (or repeated ones). I did have a strong recollection that it was originally linked with the tram, and the tram map in this Wkipedia article confirms this, at least in terms of location. Cross River Tram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perhaps if the tram had gone ahead the pedestrianisation would have gone ahead too. FWICR the idea was tram tracks in Effra Road - so it was not going to be totally pedestrian, but pedestrian & tram (and presumably cycle).


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2015)

editor said:


> Rachel Heywood is saying that the barriers have gone



Loughborough Road still had all those improvised signs and barriers - and traffic through the "banned" zone is extremely light (talking 4.30 pm here)
Maybe Rachel Heywood is referring to Calais Street etc.

I noticed coming down Barrington Road that those no entry signs (at the St James's Crescent end) have been over-daubed in black paint.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Certain posters and commentators who've previously expressed a strong alignment with the political reasoning behind restricting motor traffic, and bringing possession of our city streets back to pedestrians and cyclists, seem to have lost their tongue, or are even arguing for the other side.



I have been struck by this too.

I suspect they don't want to risk being seen to give even the most indirect backing to what some fear is gentrification!


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2015)

The less traffic on the roads the better for me, but this experiment seems to be handled very badly indeed and I can see why some people are feeling pissed off.

And much as I'm happy to see law breaking cars being fined to fuck, parking a CCTV enforcement car on the CHL/Loughborough Rd junction rather than having someone there to explain what was going on seemed particularly inflammatory.

I don't think I know enough of the particular circumstances of the closures to b for or against it, but I know that (a) Buzz has rarely had so much negative feedback on any given topic and (b) the traffic on my road is very much up.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 6, 2015)

With regards to the signs on Loughborough Road specifically, does anyone know why they didn't put up No Entry signs like on the other roads? I can't help thinking that those would have been more effective than the Pedestrian Zone ones they put up, the situation would still have got everyone's back up but at least we could have avoided the multiple sign and barrier situation that we're in now


----------



## leanderman (Oct 6, 2015)

editor said:


> b) the traffic on my road is very much up.



Good news for you then if the scheme gets scrapped!


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Good news for you then if the scheme gets scrapped!


I'd love to see a well thought out scheme that reduces traffic everywhere in the area. However, I suspect that this particular scheme is unlikely to achieve that aim, or be given much of a chance due to the manner in which it has been implemented.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 6, 2015)

editor said:


> I'd love to see a well thought out scheme that reduces traffic everywhere in the area. However, I suspect that this particular scheme is unlikely to achieve that aim, or be given much of a chance due to the manner in which it has been implemented.



Don't hold your breath. Although it would be good practice for what we will all have to do if pollution levels are not brought under control.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2015)

The only way to achieve an overall reduction in traffic in the area is to consistently support schemes that are designed to make things easier for those who don't or can't own a car, and which are designed to discourage unnecessary car journeys.

In every instance, supporting such schemes necessarily involves trying to hold back the pressure asserted by motorists who are invested in their own mode of transport rather than the communities they drive through. Promoting their vocal objections certainly does not help.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> More crap journalism from the ES. No attempt to fact-check or question anything said at the meeting.



Lets not forget that Anthea Massey Chair of LJAG works/worked for the Evening Standard for many years, so maybe you have a point.

Have a read of "Rich pickings" by Anthea Massey Rich pickings in Richmond


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Lets not forget that Anthea Massey Chair of LJAG works/worked for the Evening Standard for many years, so maybe you have a point.


A point to note - the former SLP journalist Ben Morgan told me that it's the editor who writes the headline, so the groan-worthy title of the article is probably not Anthea's.

I found a more recent example about Brixton which I actually thought quite good: Spotlight on Brixton
leanderman Winot etc should note the article is from 2011 so the prices have at least doubled since then.

I personally would not criticise Anthea's journalism - the formula obviously works.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> A point to note - the former SLP journalist Ben Morgan told me that it's the editor who writes the headline, so the groan-worthy title of the article is probably not Anthea's.
> 
> I found a more recent example about Brixton which I actually thought quite good: Spotlight on Brixton
> leanderman Winot etc should note the article is from 2011 so the prices have at least doubled since then.
> ...



Why should I note that?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Why should I note that?


You used to be quite keen on house prices per sq metre when it was a popular topic on here (Foxtons thread etc)


----------



## leanderman (Oct 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You used to be quite keen on house prices per sq metre when it was a popular topic on here (Foxtons thread etc)



True. It makes for valid comparisons.


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2015)

Update: Loughborough Junction road closures: vandalised signs, an ‘art protest’ and CCTV fines


----------



## critical1 (Oct 7, 2015)

editor said:


> Update: Loughborough Junction road closures: vandalised signs, an ‘art protest’ and CCTV fines



“But if you oppose the road closure, why block the road further?” Don't make any sense!!!
looks like *Hyper Fanatical Zealous Cyclists Statement... *
They didn't realise Lambeth had already moved the concrete blocks from all the roads in anticipation of the Evening Standard Story.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 7, 2015)

Doesn't look like it was CH1 who added the photos to me


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2015)

Fanatical Hyper Zealous Cyclists.

Are they a subset of the cyclo-nazis or vice versa?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> A point to note - the former SLP journalist Ben Morgan told me that it's the editor who writes the headline, so the groan-worthy title of the article is probably not Anthea's.
> 
> I found a more recent example about Brixton which I actually thought quite good: Spotlight on Brixton
> leanderman Winot etc should note the article is from 2011 so the prices have at least doubled since then.
> ...



What about another little insightful gem by Anthea Massey chair of LJAG 
List of contents does not include: Hidden agendas, Ulterior Motives, Self interest
*"How to Sell Your House as Quickly as You Can for as Much Money as You Can"*
*



*


----------



## critical1 (Oct 7, 2015)

The silence is deafening....


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 7, 2015)

Perhaps cos the accusations are a bit pathetic?


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

editor said:


> Update: Loughborough Junction road closures: vandalised signs, an ‘art protest’ and CCTV fines



That barrier was not errected by people who want the road open.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

What are those white objects on the pavement in picture above ?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> That barrier was not errected by people who want the road open.


Just seen this on LJ Road Madness










There is CCTV on that corner... So could well have been captured on that, or from residents who witnessed it happening? It was observed by local residents and reported to police according to Cllr Rachel Haywood


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

Must have taken a while to build. I'll be home in about an hour hope it's still there to see. What craziness. 

If anyone thinks that this was built by people who want the roads open they need to try hard to do a bit of logic.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 7, 2015)

critical1 said:


> What about another little insightful gem by Anthea Massey chair of LJAG
> List of contents does not include: Hidden agendas, Ulterior Motives, Self interest
> *"How to Sell Your House as Quickly as You Can for as Much Money as You Can"*
> *
> ...




 A bit of a disappointing post. This has been on Urban before, so I don’t understand the merit of reposting it, unless it’s an attempt to flame a debate.

But because you’ll have done your research around this book, you’ll be aware that it’s based on a Channel 4 television series. It’s quite common that freelance journalists are contracted to work on TV-tie ins. Just because Brian Masters wrote about the Yorkshire Ripper, it didn’t mean he was a serial killer.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

Re the barrier on Lilford: do you mean cyclists were seen / filmed creating that?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> Re the barrier on Lilford: do you mean cyclists were seen / filmed creating that?


Read Cllr Haywoods twitter


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2015)

Erecting the barrier of rubbish is equally as stupid as the spraying over of the road signs.

Clearly there are idiots on both sides of the "debate".


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2015)

Unless of course it was actually done by anti-closures people as an attempt to smear "the cyclists".


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Unless of course it was actually done by anti-closures people as an attempt to smear "the cyclists".


Ah yes, the plot thickens.. 
In which case maybe it was in fact George Wright who spraypainted over the signs the other day..to make the opposition look bad.  You never can tell.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

I can report that the white things are .. cuddly toy sheep. Two of them.

This is how Lilford road junction with Flaxman looks this afternoon.

(we need forensics on those boots, good expensive pair of caterpillar boots they are, hardly worn)


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

oh yes, PS: 
Whilst investigating the above I had a chat with a man in a bin van. 
No cigars for guessing which side of the debate he's on.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

Feel like I'm spamming the forum now but I just want to repost this, from the LJRoadMadness facebook page.


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2015)

I like the sheep.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

I like them too.
But.. what is the meaning of this ? Is it a sheeple type statement?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 7, 2015)

God, what a tip, regardless of whether you're for or against vandalism of signs and this kind of thing is silly, doesn't achieve anything. Although I do quite like the sheep, wonder where I could get one of those!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2015)

It must have been quite a few cyclists if they carried all those bricks in their panniers.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It must have been quite a few cyclists if they carried all those bricks in their panniers.


Maybe it was ... builders, yes, builders in a van, with their bricks and their paint and their caterpillar boots. Outraged that their vision of a pleasant cycle along Loughborough Road to get to work is being threatened by all this opposition to the helpful current closures?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 7, 2015)

Whoever did it  was not thinking of emergency vehicles or people's lives. Such morons, what are they actually gaining from it, mind you, what on earth are people in all the areas affected by these road closures gaining   oh yeh  pollution, additional costs of money, dangers from confused drivers of all types of vehicles including CYCLISTS, loss of business etc etc another long list.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

Is this a clue?
I think it's a clue.  
These yellow paint blobs have appeared overnight, both along Lilford where the sheep are and here on Gordon Grove.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 7, 2015)

Looks like a blob of paint from a motorcycle wheel


----------



## Angellic (Oct 7, 2015)

Vassall View: everything about Vassall Ward in Lambeth: Review of Loughborough Junction road closure programme brought forward


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Looks like a blob of paint from a motorcycle wheel


It is very mysterious. I think offroad unicycle.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Vassall View: everything about Vassall Ward in Lambeth: Review of Loughborough Junction road closure programme brought forward


Thank you. That's big news. 
Do you have any idea where else that change of plan is to be published or more info found on this imminent review?


----------



## Angellic (Oct 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> Thank you. That's big news.
> Do you have any idea where else that change of plan is to be published or more info found on this imminent review?



No, the article just appeared on FB.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 7, 2015)

This has just been tweeted by Rachel Heywood, the link of the Lambeth tweet goes to Road closure review brought forward

They're going to review it early but do not be fooled into thinking that the closure is suspended, you will be fined!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 7, 2015)

Also I seem to remember reading somewhere about a LJAG meeting on Monday 5th October, did I imagine that or did it happen? If it went ahead, anyone know what happened? Are they going to make any comment about what's going on?


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Also I seem to remember reading somewhere about a LJAG meeting on Monday 5th October, did I imagine that or did it happen? If it went ahead, anyone know what happened? Are they going to make any comment about what's going on?


I'm hoping to to ask my friend who is an active LJAG volunteer about what has been going on there in relation to this issue since the experiment began. Maybe she'll be able to write something for us.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 7, 2015)

LadyV said:


> This has just been tweeted by Rachel Heywood, the link of the Lambeth tweet goes to Road closure review brought forward
> 
> They're going to review it early but do not be fooled into thinking that the closure is suspended, you will be fined!



Further to last message, I tweeted Rachel Heywood and the council to ask about the signs on Loughborough Road and if they would be replaced and Lambeth replied saying that someone had been out today to assess the damage and they will repair or replace as needed


----------



## CH1 (Oct 7, 2015)

critical1 said:


> The silence is deafening....


Sorry I was waiting for Supreme Dalek Cameron to speak in Manchester, then at Lidl etc. Not up with events.

To answer your issue with the book: another poster beat you to it, and mentioned it a couple of weeks ago.
In any case I don't see anything wrong with writing such a book. How is it in any way bad for people in Loughborough Junction - or anywhere else?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 7, 2015)

LadyV said:


> This has just been tweeted by Rachel Heywood, the link of the Lambeth tweet goes to Road closure review brought forward
> 
> They're going to review it early but do not be fooled into thinking that the closure is suspended, you will be fined!



It does now state very clearly what the road closures are about don't you think?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 7, 2015)

LadyV said:


> This has just been tweeted by Rachel Heywood, the link of the Lambeth tweet goes to Road closure review brought forward
> They're going to review it early but do not be fooled into thinking that the closure is suspended, you will be fined!


I can't see how they can assess it properly anyway. Poor signage - looking like a war zone and only partial enforcement.
I agree with whoever said earlier on in the thread that if the council had been serious they would have had staff redirecting the traffic so it was properly enforced.

Shock horror they could even have given out explanatory leaflets so people passing through and without local knowledge could understand what was happening.

But maybe that is a £280,000 traffic scheme rather than a cut-price £28,000 one.

I remain opposed to the scheme - but I can't see how anyone could say it was a properly implemented trail.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 7, 2015)

critical1 said:


> It does now state very clearly what the road closures are about don't you think?


The extra road closures to mitigate "any knock on congestion" does not seem to have worked for Coldharbour Lane IMHO.


----------



## prunus (Oct 7, 2015)

critical1 said:


> It does now state very clearly what the road closures are about don't you think?




Yes, making Loughborough junction a cleaner, safer and more pleasant place is what it says. Anyone against that?


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

just linking to this fresh off the press at buzz:
Another U-turn from Lambeth Council as review for ‘experimental’ road closures at Loughborough Junction brought forward


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

prunus said:


> Yes, making Loughborough junction a cleaner, safer and more pleasant place is what it says. Anyone against that?



I want to write a proper response to this, it deserves one. But just please try to see that _* if you want a safer cleaner environment here in LJ or more generally that does not mean you should support the current scheme. *
_
Just as it is not the case that if you oppose the scheme as it has been implemented you must be a selfish anti-green motorist type.

Me for instance I'm a meticulous recycler with windowboxes and a bicycle who has never had a driving license and I think this is a really stupid scheme.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

Here - in full - is the document which Lambeth has made explaining how they will be evaluating the impact of the closures on air quality in LJ.
It was sent as a response to an information request (I've just done screenshot of the word document)
Please read if you can and comment.
Especially you who are keen on improved air quality and / or know about how scientific research should be done.

Note the bit about CHL as the 'control' and about how the whole monitoring process will apparently consist of 2 hours unless I'm reading it wrong?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> just linking to this fresh off the press at buzz:
> Another U-turn from Lambeth Council as review for ‘experimental’ road closures at Loughborough Junction brought forward


Previous Buzz article, by the editor, I thought was reasonably balanced.

But this one is back on the anti side.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> I want to write a proper response to this, it deserves one.



Do it, then.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Do it, then.


I will ! 
Your response to the next bit in bold & italics  in the meantime ?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> I will !
> Your response to the next bit in bold & italics  in the meantime ?


My response is that you are just making a statement of opinoin without anything to back it up.


----------



## bimble (Oct 7, 2015)




----------



## critical1 (Oct 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> Here - in full - is the document which Lambeth has made explaining how they will be evaluating the impact of the closures on air quality in LJ.
> It was sent as a response to an information request (I've just done screenshot of the word document)
> Please read if you can and comment.
> Especially you who are keen on improved air quality and / or know about how scientific research should be done.
> ...


Joke document with serious implications so the whole project is about what again?? As someone said previously running rings around us.


----------



## Complain! (Oct 7, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Joke document with serious implications so the whole project is about what again?? As someone said previously running rings around us.



Here's another twist to this sordid tale...if you have a look at www.howpollutedismyroad.org.uk/ and look up Loughborough Road you'll see it says 10k vehicles a day when Lambeth write 'our studies show that it is currently used by around 13,000 vehicles each week day'.
That's quite a big difference so I emailed George Wright for clarification and he replied "Two wheeler are included in the detailed counts".

Wow! so they included bikes in their count to up the figures!!!

The extent of dishonesty in this campaign is mind blowing!

Will they be counting the bikes as 'vehicles' in the new monitoring?!!!  I must email him and ask!


----------



## leanderman (Oct 7, 2015)

It's hard to imagine a significant road-closure scheme that would not inconvenience one interest group or other, or cause traffic displacement in the short term.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> I want to write a proper response to this, it deserves one. But just please try to see that _* if you want a safer cleaner environment here in LJ or more generally that does not mean you should support the current scheme. *
> _
> Just as it is not the case that if you oppose the scheme as it has been implemented you must be a selfish anti-green motorist type.
> 
> Me for instance I'm a meticulous recycler with windowboxes and a bicycle who has never had a driving license and I think this is a really stupid scheme.



Also if you support the scheme you are not a cycling nazi or cycling fanatic. Nor should you be barred from pubs.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2015)

leanderman said:


> It's hard to imagine a significant road-closure scheme that would not inconvenience one interest group or other, or cause traffic displacement in the short term.



Its become so nasty and unpleasant that as time goes on debate is going out the window. People will be judged by what side they take.

Reading the comments at end of BB article its going from criticizing this scheme to have a go at the new cycle superhighway.

This scheme is liable to fail. The end result will be that prioritising pedestrians and cycling across the borough will be set back big time.

Copying some of SimonS comment on end of BB article as its informative post



> Yes, we live in a democracy and the democratically elected council has a very clear policy on transport :
> t’s long term, publicly published Lambeth transport policy. You can read the the policy here https://goo.gl/GjShxW There is also a cycle strategy here – https://goo.gl/Ki32dy
> 
> These documents are very clear that the council is committed to prioritising walking, cycling and public transport use over the private car. Some extracts for you
> ...



As some local Cllrs now seem opposed to this scheme I wonder if they think Council policy is wrong? Or just this scheme? Good question to ask Cllr Rachel.

As if a different road closures was brought in, say at Hinton road , this will still reduce through traffic and be controversial for some.

Are those posting here who oppose this particular scheme opposed to the Council policy quoted above? Or just oppose this particular scheme and would support modified or different road closures?


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 7, 2015)

Complain! said:


> Here's another twist to this sordid tale...if you have a look at www.howpollutedismyroad.org.uk/ and look up Loughborough Road you'll see it says 10k vehicles a day when Lambeth write 'our studies show that it is currently used by around 13,000 vehicles each week day'.
> That's quite a big difference so I emailed George Wright for clarification and he replied "Two wheeler are included in the detailed counts".
> 
> Wow! so they included bikes in their count to up the figures!!!
> ...



Hardly dishonest. If anything, it's more accurate surely


----------



## CH1 (Oct 7, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> As some local Cllrs now seem opposed to this scheme I wonder if they think Council policy is wrong? Or just this scheme? Good question to ask Cllr Rachel.


I think everyone wants less congestion, better air quality, reduced danger for pedestrians and cyclists.

I would imagine the councillors want a scheme which has more general support and/or less strident opposition.

I think the mistake of LJAG is to treat the matter as if they were pedestrianising a village square. Loughborough  might be a village square to them, but hugely more people think it is a wide road, a historic right of way which they are accustomed to using.

[tangential I know but - my own home town in Suffolk got into this some years ago and settled on putting historic-looking cobbles on town centre street - which reduced traffic and the speed of the traffic without an outright ban]

Not suggesting cobbles - but it does seem to me that all technical methods to achieve those council objectives have not been thought of.

In Lambeth it is a case of let's have a ban, then consult/evaluate.

Cheap tactics - and the current dispute is the result.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 7, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Hardly dishonest. If anything, it's more accurate surely


How about motorbikes as well?


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> How about motorbikes as well?



I thought that was what the inclusion of "two wheelers" meant


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think everyone wants less congestion, better air quality, reduced danger for pedestrians and cyclists.
> 
> I would imagine the councillors want a scheme which has more general support and/or less strident opposition.
> 
> ...



To get less congestion better air quality etc will only happen if car traffic is reduced. To say everyone wants this is a platitude without policy/ action to do this. Which will mean prioritising some road users over others. Making tough choices in politicians jargon.

So the question still stands.

The argument about LJAG is about class.

My disagreement with the scheme is thats it mixed in LJAGs idea of making LJ a "destination" with car reduction.

They are two different things imo.

Its what Ive found so difficult about all this. Ive had people in same conversation go from complaining about road closures to the hated Farm and The Platform.

The road closure scheme is mixed in with other issues.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> As some local Cllrs now seem opposed to this scheme I wonder if they think Council policy is wrong? Or just this scheme? Good question to ask Cllr Rachel.
> 
> As if a different road closures was brought in, say at Hinton road , this will still reduce through traffic and be controversial for some.
> 
> Are those posting here who oppose this particular scheme opposed to the Council policy quoted above? Or just oppose this particular scheme and would support modified or different road closures?



All very good questions.

It does seem a bit pathetic that councillors are suddenly so stridently opposed to a scheme which sits within Lambeth policy and which they don't seem to have objected to at an earlier stage. Looks like they are more interested in jumping on whatever bandwagon seems likely to make them popular.

If closing a short section of road _to private motor vehicles only_ is truly such a profound assault on this "historic right of way" then it's surprising that they simply didn't notice what their own council was proposing, rather earlier. They didn't notice when the proposals were first talked about, they didn't notice when the road was actually closed for a car free day back in 2014 to initiate the consultation, and they didn't notice when the consultation was going on and reported back to the council.

I would like to especially congratulate them on now succeeding in bringing the review point forward, so that it can be based on less useful evidence than it would have been if it had been kept at the planned time.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 8, 2015)

Loughborough Road according to the "how polluted is my road map" is classed as LOW.
Thought pollution was one of the many reasons of closing it?

So despite ambulances, buses, absolute congestion on Coldharbour Lane and all the rest of the chaos on the roads Lambeth are only bringing forward their review time. Not re-opening when it is clear it is a dangerous, life threatening chaos adding even more pollution to thousands.
No one counted traffic on Denmark Road  strangely, no one counted traffic through Loughborough Estate between Harris and Howard House car parks off St James's Crescent. No one traffic counted through Angell Town.
All the rats runs traffic obviously would go round.
But then what would Lambeth Transport Officers know?
And now we get another officer's name to write to.  rmistry@lambeth.gov.uk
mystery alright!


----------



## CH1 (Oct 8, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Loughborough Road according to the "how polluted is my road map" is classed as LOW.
> Thought pollution was one of the many reasons of closing it?
> 
> So despite ambulances, buses, absolute congestion on Coldharbour Lane and all the rest of the chaos on the roads Lambeth are only bringing forward their review time. Not re-opening when it is clear it is a dangerous, life threatening chaos adding even more pollution to thousands.
> ...


I agree that pollution and traffic chaos on Coldharbour Lane make Loughborough Road look an oasis of tranquillity (either before or after this closure)
Perhaps it is difficult to form a completely balanced view when the traffic lights at the bottom of Herne Hill Road are replaced with temporary ones though. This could be adding to the problem.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 8, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> To get less congestion better air quality etc will only happen if car traffic is reduced. To say everyone wants this is a platitude without policy/ action to do this. Which will mean prioritising some road users over others. Making tough choices in politicians jargon.
> 
> So the question still stands.
> 
> ...



https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ consultation visualisations.pdf
A New Public Space
In response to residents’ feedback from consultation on the
Loughborough Junction Plan, Lambeth Council are now working
with the Loughborough Junction Action Group, local residents
and architects DSDHA to develop proposals to improve the
junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road for
pedestrians and cyclists and a new public space outside on
Loughborough Road at Wyck Gardens

Here is the start of the Road Closures. A public space between Loughborough Farm and Wyck Gardens.
Who are working with Lambeth	 LJAG? 
Which residents and how many were consulted?
Clearly not many, as we all keep reading	  the majority of people were NOT consulted throughout the closed roads areas.
A select handful have led to this chaos.
850 signatures against the closures were ignored by Lambeth Council
A cyclist supporting the closures was allowed to speak at the Call In
A resident from Calais Street supporting the road closures was also allowed to speak
No businesses or residents were allowed to speak against the closures at the Call In
As for LJAG = Farm= Platform= Road closure
The Farm	  run by LJAG 
The Platform in Wyck Gardens	   run by LJAG
The space/road  conveniently between the farm and the Platform	   wanted by LJAG 
Come on not exactly rocket science to see how LJAG are at the middle of all this and would obviously be part of the road closures conversation!


----------



## leanderman (Oct 8, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> To get less congestion better air quality etc will only happen if car traffic is reduced. To say everyone wants this is a platitude without policy/ action to do this. Which will mean prioritising some road users over others. Making tough choices in politicians jargon.
> 
> So the question still stands.
> 
> ...



True, tough choices.

One of them, your LJAG dilemma, is easier to cope with when you consider, as you have already noted, that the end result of this scheme's failure will be that prioritising pedestrians and cycling across the borough will be set back big time.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 8, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ consultation visualisations.pdf
> A New Public Space
> In response to residents’ feedback from consultation on the
> Loughborough Junction Plan, Lambeth Council are now working
> ...


I think you are right. This was  "bright idea" suggested by a pressure group - not the result of widespread consultation - in the immediate area or anywhere else.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> No one counted traffic on Denmark Road  strangely, no one counted traffic through Loughborough Estate between Harris and Howard House car parks off St James's Crescent. No one traffic counted through Angell Town.
> All the rats runs traffic obviously would go round.


Where have you found the list of traffic count locations?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

If you can find anywhere in the council's own statements about these road closures a mention of how they are doing this to encourage more people to get out of their cars, please share it.

Far as I can see the experiment is not about that at all:
As the name of this thread suggests, this is part of the evolving plan to change the layout of Loughborough Junction, redesigning it to make it "a destination in its own right".

If you go back to the first page on this thread you'll be reminded of the vision of the future being imagined, of which the trialled road closures are a small part.

Once the idea of closing the roads was out there the cycle lobby got involved (resulting in the positive results to the farcical consultation process) but nowhere far as I can see does Lambeth itself mention this being about anything apart from the remodelling of the immediate area.

This is corroborated by the document showing how they plan to assess what this might do to local air quality, which is a joke. (post 1158)

This is not about pollution.

*If we carry on arguing here as if it was 'an environmental issue' in anything but a very local and specific way we're wasting our time and missing the point of what this is actually all about.*

Instead of letting these road closures split us along imaginary green / motorist  or class war type lines, and getting stuck in a false distracting argument, it would be great if we could try to talk instead about what sort of LJ we actually want to see, what changes would work here & how we might try to move forward with the widest possible public engagement to reflect the diverse place this is - because there's no question that change is coming and very fast like it or not.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> And now we get another officer's name to write to.  rmystry@lambeth.gov.uk
> mystery alright!


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 8, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Loughborough Road according to the "how polluted is my road map" is classed as LOW.
> Thought pollution was one of the many reasons of closing it?
> 
> So despite ambulances, buses, absolute congestion on Coldharbour Lane and all the rest of the chaos on the roads Lambeth are only bringing forward their review time. Not re-opening when it is clear it is a dangerous, life threatening chaos adding even more pollution to thousands.
> ...


oops   spelling mistake	unusual for me			  rmistry@lambeth.gov.uk		  my bad   I have now edited previous spelling mistake


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> If you can find anywhere in the council's own statements about these road closures a mention of how they are doing this to encourage more people to get out of their cars, please share it.
> 
> ....
> 
> Once the idea of closing the roads was out there the cycle lobby got involved (resulting in the positive results to the farcical consultation process) but nowhere far as I can see does Lambeth itself mention this being about anything apart from the remodelling of the immediate area.


Wrong, it is presented as part of a borough-wide initiative in their own report about this scheme:



> Lambeth Council is committed to working with residents to make their local neighbourhoods cleaner and greener. The council is upgrading 130 miles of roads and pavements and improving dangerous junctions. A borough-wide 20mph limit is being introduced this year and the council is taking action to make the borough the most cycle friendly in London.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

Cycle strategy  | Lambeth Council



> Lambeth is one of the leading cycling boroughs in London and has won awards for various projects including its HGV/cycle training and secure residential cycle parking. There are more and more cyclists on the road - but the majority are young to middle-aged men.
> 
> We want to take a leap forward to become a place where cycling is normal for everyone: young, old, women, men, rich and poor. We hope that the Mayor’s recent 'Vision for Cycling' will be an opportunity to tackle main roads and junctions which have put many people off cycling and we believe that the time is right to make a big difference to cycling in the borough.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

I was talking about Lambeth's statements about the Loughborough Junction Public Space Improvements, what this thread is about Teuchter.
I think we are wasting our time here unless we change the conversation.
Big changes are coming in LJ and the road closure fight framed as bikes versus cars or whatever is a distraction.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I was talking about Lambeth's statements about the Loughborough Junction Public Space Improvements,


I was quoting from their report about the Loughborough Junction Public Space Improvements.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 8, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> They are two different things imo.



Here is a link to a presentation from Lambeth Council which says the two are linked............

https://secure.croydon.gov.uk/akscr...S&meet=13&href=/akscroydon/images/att5937.pdf

teuchter ...........it also states there was vocal opposition from ward councillors at the consultation stage

the presentation contains a reference to a S106 being "_earmarked for design development and construction_"
....... my understanding is this comes as a sweetener with large scale developments so presumably the Higgs thing
I have argued all along the road closures/greening are a distraction from a bigger plan, it's very hard to argue against safer cleaner environments, less crime etc but
in the present time it is no wonder these initiatives are viewed with cynicism by those who do not have the same influence on the council as LJAG
the impact of gentrification is well documented and some have a lot to gain from being early arrivals in an area that is "on the up"
.........others have a lot to lose.


----------



## MrM (Oct 8, 2015)

Bimble's quite right to reiterate the simple (!) objective here: to make LJ a more pleasant locale. 
It's a shame that aim is getting lost in the hostility this has generated. So what should be happening? And who is best placed to make it happen? Answer to the 2nd question still looks like LJAG: they seem to have the council's ear, and they may now be quite open to building some bridges and representing the wider area given the clattering they've received over the road closures. However, the answer to the first question is probably thornier. Oddly enough I find myself inching towards the idea that a really good first step would be reducing traffic...


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> I have argued all along the road closures/greening are a distraction from a bigger plan, it's very hard to argue against safer cleaner environments, less crime etc but
> in the present time it is no wonder these initiatives are viewed with cynicism by those who do not have the same influence on the council as LJAG
> the impact of gentrification is well documented and some have a lot to gain from being early arrivals in an area that is "on the up"
> .........others have a lot to lose.



Exactly.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

MrM said:


> So what should be happening? And who is best placed to make it happen? Answer to the 2nd question still looks like LJAG: they seem to have the council's ear, and they may now be quite open to building some bridges and representing the wider area given the clattering they've received over the road closures.


I don't think this is viable now. It looks to me like the divisive disaster of the closures have burnt any potential bridges there but maybe that's just my pessimistic opinion. LJAG must not be left to steer this alone.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I don't think this is viable now. It looks to me like the divisive disaster of the closures have burnt any potential bridges there but maybe that's just my pessimistic opinion. LJAG must not be left to steer this alone.


What do you want then? What's your suggestion?

Do you, like cuppa tee essentially argue we shouldn't do anything that might make LJ "nicer" because it will encourage gentrification?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

No Teuchter. I don't argue for no change, even if no change were an option which it very clearly isn't here.
I don't have the answers but I am trying to be constructive:

I'm suggesting that it would be stupid to carry on shouting about cars versus bikes whilst LJAG, the council and Network Rail get on with planning the future of Loughborough Junction.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What do you want then? What's your suggestion?
> 
> Do you, like cuppa tee essentially argue we shouldn't do anything that might make LJ "nicer" because it will encourage gentrification?



I think this is a misrepresentation of what I said, you consistently apologise for or deny the negative effects of gentrification and I don't think tht approach will have a happy outcome IRL


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 8, 2015)

> ............it’s worth making the point that creating people-friendly streets doesn’t have to cost much money. Simply removing through traffic with bollards doesn’t always create the kind of headline-grabbing environments liked by politicians, but for a fraction of the cost it’s possible to create child-friendly streets and *boost house prices*.





> So, is it all smiles in SW9? Well, children at the local schools have a fun new play area, while adults have a place to sit or stroll in the evening. The council has had bags of positive local coverage, as well as stories in the Evening Standard and on the ITV website. *The project will no doubt be beneficial for property prices in the immediate vicinity*, and – perhaps most importantly - a principle has been established that it can be a very good idea to restrict motor traffic on residential streets.



Van Gogh Walk in Lambeth is a fabulous people-friendly street but highlights need for more Dutch-style residential zones

...... all i'm saying is that it might be worth giving some thought to which children will be enjoying the streets..........


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I don't have the answers but I am trying to be constructive:


You're telling that the road closures scheme shouldn't be supported, but failing to actually be specific about what the real problems are, or offer any alternatives. That's not constructve.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

Hope we don't have to just settle in for a gentrification is bad / flower boxes are nice fight instead ? 
Change is happening here call it what you will I just hope the planning that's underway can somehow be made to include as many voices as possible not just LJAG, LAmbeth and Network Rail's.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> I think this is a misrepresentation of what I said,



Clarify your position then. So far you've twice refused to answer my questions about whether you support in principle favouring pedestrian/public transport/cycling over private car usage.



cuppa tee said:


> you consistently apologise for or deny the negative effects of gentrification



I don't think so. Examples?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

Teuchter, you just made me google 'vexatious litigant'.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 8, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> I think this is a misrepresentation of what I said, you consistently apologise for or deny the negative effects of gentrification and I don't think tht approach will have a happy outcome IRL


 But this is a difficult question isn't it? If making an area nicer puts up the property prices, should we not try to do it? I don't know the answer here, but the local authority is in a bit of bind isn't it?  They've also been accused (with some justification) of ignoring the area for some years prior to the current plans. Even if they consult all the residents properly, the changes they made resulting from that would still make the area more desirable I expect.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> Hope we don't have to just settle in for a gentrification is bad / flower boxes are nice fight instead ?
> Change is happening here call it what you will I just hope the planning that's underway can somehow be made to include as many voices as possible not just LJAG, LAmbeth and Network Rail's.


Vague statements blah blah blah.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

I don't understand why you're so consistently nasty mr T. It adds nothing to the conversation and it's also really boring.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> But this is a difficult question isn't it? If making an area nicer puts up the property prices, should we not try to do it? I don't know the answer here, but the local authority is in a bit of bind isn't it?  They've also been accused (with some justification) of ignoring the area for some years prior to the current plans. Even if they consult all the residents properly, the changes they made resulting from that would still make the area more desirable I expect.



There will be lots of people who object to any change at all but they will not succeed because the area is changing anyway and because the Loughborough Junction Plan is a thing, with plenty of funding behind it, which is being worked on now as it has been for a couple of years by Lambeth with interested parties.

So far the interested parties involved look to be just LJAG and Network Rail?

See https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf

The day after a couple of planters were created on my road here (not an LJAG thing) they were covered in 'stop social cleansing' stickers. We've got interesting times ahead.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I don't understand why you're so consistently nasty mr T. It adds nothing to the conversation and it's also really boring.



Because he's one of those people who insists that he's right and anyone who disagrees (or even doesn't wholeheartedly agree) with him is not only wrong, but a heretic who must immediately recant or be burnt at the stake.
There seem to be more and more people like that these days and that, to me, is one of the most depressing things about the modern (or maybe I should say post-modern) world.

My position on all this is basically all about personal freedom. Even in my bad tempered rant I never said I objected to anyone cycling. I just don't want to myself. What I object to is people trying to force their views on me. Everyone sees the world differently and things work better if there is give and take on all sides.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Not suggesting cobbles - but it does seem to me that all technical methods to achieve those council objectives have not been thought of.



oh look! Cobbles.  They're in the LJ masterplan after all, along with lots of bright pink.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> oh look! Cobbles.  They're in the LJ masterplan after all, along with lots of bright pink.
> View attachment 77820


That must have been Plan A. Isn't that a zebra crossing?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I don't understand why you're so consistently nasty mr T. It adds nothing to the conversation and it's also really boring.


I'm not being nasty. Just trying to get you to post something that isn't wiffle-waffle.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Because he's one of those people who insists that he's right and anyone who disagrees (or even doesn't wholeheartedly agree) with him is not only wrong, but a heretic who must immediately recant or be burnt at the stake.
> There seem to be more and more people like that these days and that, to me, is one of the most depressing things about the modern (or maybe I should say post-modern) world.
> 
> My position on all this is basically all about personal freedom. Even in my bad tempered rant I never said I objected to anyone cycling. I just don't want to myself. What I object to is people trying to force their views on me. Everyone sees the world differently and things work better if there is give and take on all sides.


We've all got a lot to learn from your considered and even-handed contributions to this debate.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

CH1 said:


> That must have been Plan A. Isn't that a zebra crossing?


Certainly looks like one.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> oh look! Cobbles.  They're in the LJ masterplan after all, along with lots of bright pink.
> View attachment 77820



Unlike CH1, I would say we should cobble the street, I think we should also do the same to Coldharbour Lane/CHL by the junction, it might provide the safer, nicer town centre feel we've been promised. For me, my objection to the partial closing of Loughborough Road/LR was never about cycling vs cars, for me it was about personal safety and the feeling of being kettled. As it happens, right now, neither of my concerns have come to anything but that's mostly because there are still people paying no attention to the closure!

However, I won't lie, so far the reduction in traffic on LR has been nice, until you get to CHL and that's where it falls down. The bulk of the "life" in the junction is on CHL, from pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and drivers and this closure just makes it easier for most of those people to fly through it. So if we take this plan back to it's origins of making LJ more of a destination with a obvious centre, surely we also have to look at CHL as well. 

Here's an idea, reopen Loughborough Road but have a zebra crossing where the pedestrian zone is, a big one, that no one can miss; cobble CHL from Tesco to Co-Op, LR from junction to the end of Wyck Gardens and then some on Hinton Road and Herne Hill Road; have dedicated cycle lanes along all routes; introduce and enforce the 20mph speed limit; think about how to make the road unpalatable for drivers, speed cameras, bumps, whatever is shown to work but still keeping things moving; make it harder for drivers to park in obvious bottlenecks, ie outside Tescos, but have some areas they can stop too so that businesses can have passing traffic; consider a bit of a CPZ on LR and some other areas that are taken advantage of. 

These things should keep people moving whatever they're using, feet, bike, car, bus. Just an idea though.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 8, 2015)

Do people really expect car drivers to stop at a zebra crossing though?

The contraflow on Norwood Road last night meant that the Herne Hill junction going to Tulse Hill was full of cars and buses.

Car drivers got frustrated by it so just drove through traffic lights which were green for pedestrians, blocked yellow hashed box areas and drove on the pavement.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

LadyV said:


> The bulk of the "life" in the junction is on CHL, from pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and drivers and this closure just makes it easier for most of those people to fly through it. So if we take this plan back to it's origins of making LJ more of a destination with a obvious centre, surely we also have to look at CHL as well. ..Here's an idea, reopen Loughborough Road but have a zebra crossing where the pedestrian zone is, a big one, that no one can miss . ..



Like that a lot and yes exactly, re CHL.

Whilst we're having good ideas, here's one that someone from Loughborough Estate told me about the other day:

There could be a market on that bit set back from the road, between Barrington and the Hero Of Switzerland, selling different things on different days including car boot stuff. She also said she makes really good cake and would sell it at £1 a slice. .


----------



## CH1 (Oct 8, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Do people really expect car drivers to stop at a zebra crossing though?
> The contraflow on Norwood Road last night meant that the Herne Hill junction going to Tulse Hill was full of cars and buses.
> Car drivers got frustrated by it so just drove through traffic lights which were green for pedestrians, blocked yellow hashed box areas and drove on the pavement.


In Norwood? I find drivers always stop on the Coldharbour Lane Zebra by Shakespeare Road. I think they also respect the crossing up by the Prince Albert pub.

On the other hand I am always shocked and frustrated at the Pelican by the Beehive and the one by 336 Brixton Road. Both of those make the pedestrians wait for about 5 minutes, so they end up dodging through the traffic. When the lights do change in favour of pedestrian crossing there are often no pedestrians left to cross. Presumably the motorists then feel "cheated" or whatever motorists feel when they don't have "road rage".

Apart from the frustration for motorists (it is rarely that cyclists respect pelican crossings TBF) I wonder whether someone (i.e. a pedestrian) is going to get killed at the Beehive pelican crossing - through taking a chance. That is an extremely dangerous spot.


----------



## MrM (Oct 8, 2015)

Some interesting ideas about what *should* be done around LJ - I was wondering about sending them on to LJAG to see if we get some interest in ideas other than the road closures and farm. 
Would any of the contributors (Bimble, Lady V Teuchter, Editor) prefer it if I didn't?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

LadyV said:


> However, I won't lie, so far the reduction in traffic on LR has been nice, until you get to CHL and that's where it falls down. The bulk of the "life" in the junction is on CHL, from pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and drivers and this closure just makes it easier for most of those people to fly through it. So if we take this plan back to it's origins of making LJ more of a destination with a obvious centre, surely we also have to look at CHL as well.


It's interesting you say the traffic reduction on LR has been nice, because I think you were previously quite anti, weren't you?

I agree that we have to look at CHL as well.

But as I keep saying... it has to be given time! We are barely a week or two into what's supposed to be a 6 month trial period.

If after a few months there are still problems on CHL then these have to be taken into consideration when judging the success of the scheme. But it really is worth giving it some time to see what happens in the longer term.

(As an aside, by the way, the claim that this closure makes it easier for traffic to "fly through" the junction isn't entirely compatible with the claim that CHL is now subject to slow-moving congestion)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

MrM said:


> Some interesting ideas about what *should* be done around LJ - I was wondering about sending them on to LJAG to see if we get some interest in ideas other than the road closures and farm.
> Would any of the contributors (Bimble, Lady V Teuchter, Editor) prefer it if I didn't?


Why not give the closures some time first?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

MrM said:


> Some interesting ideas about what *should* be done around LJ - I was wondering about sending them on to LJAG to see if we get some interest in ideas other than the road closures and farm.
> Would any of the contributors (Bimble, Lady V Teuchter, Editor) prefer it if I didn't?


I don't mind either way, although with recent developments who knows what influence LJAG have anymore


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

It would be a very good thing to know wouldn't it, how people could try to join in with the development of this big Loughborough Junction Plan other than through LJAG, who to contact etc. 
Anyone know?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It's interesting you say the traffic reduction on LR has been nice, because I think you were previously quite anti, weren't you?
> 
> I agree that we have to look at CHL as well.
> 
> ...



Yes I was quite anti and given the choice would prefer it to be open but I'm also a stickler for rules etc so now that we have it, I want people to observe it so that we can genuinely see if it makes the difference it promises. And yes I quite agree, things should be given time to bed in but due to the shocking implementation I don't know if it'll get to that.

Obviously my comment about traffic flying through refers to when the traffic lights at Herne Hill road are working etc, as I'm pretty sure that is what is causing the extra traffic at the junction itself. I think the knock on traffic from the closure is mostly at either end of CHL and Gresham Road.


----------



## MrM (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Why not give the closures some time first?


was meant as 'in addition to' rather than 'instead of'. 

And I totally agree that it's impossible to reach a reasoned view on the success or otherwise of the closures until it's properly bedded down and people have got used to their alternative routes etc. 

And the traffic lights are workig properly...


----------



## Peanut Monkey (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It does seem that there is extra congestion on CHL at the moment but I hope you can give it a couple of months before coming to a judgement about it. It really is early days and it's also very hard to untangle the effects of the road closure from other stuff going on in the area which could be having an effect.
> 
> I think it's also worth pointing out that it seems to be confined to rush hour. It's not like CHL is a logjam all day.



This is CHL in the middle of the day a couple of days ago. All this week there's been traffic backed up all the way to Brixton Road. I'm all for reducing traffic round here and implementing pedestrianised zones but this just obviously hasn't worked and it's badly thought out. More than anything, I think it's dangerous. I've witnessed drivers pulling all sorts of mad manoeuvres trying to get out of the jams, including someone yesterday who pulled a three point turn in the middle of the Brixton Rd/CHL junction because it was backed up all the way to there. I've also see ambulances struggling to get up CHL at a crawl because there's just no way through. Considering we've got Kings Hospital at one end and Brixton Fire Station at the other, CHL is a major route for emergency services.  
All


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> It would be a very good thing to know wouldn't it, how people could try to join in with the development of this big Loughborough Junction Plan other than through LJAG, who to contact etc.
> Anyone know?


I'm sure we have that info within the forum, I think there's an agency that did most of the original plans, there's obviously our friend Mr Wright, then the other council bods and our councillors, I think if we were to rummage back through old posts we would find all of their info


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

Have some more pictures of clogged chl (these were taken couple of days ago. It was a really stinky walk down to Brixton).


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Do people really expect car drivers to stop at a zebra crossing though?
> 
> The contraflow on Norwood Road last night meant that the Herne Hill junction going to Tulse Hill was full of cars and buses.
> 
> Car drivers got frustrated by it so just drove through traffic lights which were green for pedestrians, blocked yellow hashed box areas and drove on the pavement.



Yes I do expect them to stop and if there's an issue then we get into enforcement measures, I don't particularly like having cameras on everything but they do the job, the sign saying "you will be fined £130" has been the only vaguely effective sign on LR


----------



## CH1 (Oct 8, 2015)

MrM said:


> Some interesting ideas about what *should* be done around LJ - I was wondering about sending them on to LJAG to see if we get some interest in ideas other than the road closures and farm.
> Would any of the contributors (Bimble, Lady V Teuchter, Editor) prefer it if I didn't?


I don't mind being quoted - I always try to be fair.

bimble's pic with the zebra crossing is actually from a LJAG document (on Lambeth's website) https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf

The market idea is great - but would need to be organised. This is where LJAG score because they are very good at organising.

Finally I can't resist posting a different picture from the Masterplan showing how it is framed without taking account of existing reality or ownership. LJAG's consultants decided that Loughborough Junction needed more public open spaces (which they have called "Yards")

Apart from the Loughborough Road one we are presently debating, they also proposed one outside Loughborough Junction Station - involving the demolition of two, possibly three buildings none of which are currently owned by the council. In other words they assumed that the owners should be CPO'd in order to provide a public space.

As it happens Urban75 members have been trying to campaign against one of those building being altered without planning permission (see here The redevelopment of Loughborough House, Loughborough Junction) but what credibility does anyone have if the owner thinks they may be compulsorily purchased anyway?

Loughborough Yard


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I
> 
> bimble's pic with the zebra crossing is actually from a LJAG document (on Lambeth's website) https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf



Is that an LJAG document?
It says Lambeth on it and is on the Lambeth website.
The intro from Lambeth is this, which does say it was made in close collaboration with LJAG but I don't think it's an LJAG document. It was paid for by Lambeth in any case surely.


----------



## prunus (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> Have some more pictures of clogged chl (these were taken couple of days ago. It was a really stinky walk down to Brixton).
> View attachment 77829 View attachment 77828



This is, I would posit, (largely) not to do with the Loughborough Road closure, but to do with the fact that lights are out at the bottom of Herne hill road - without proper phasing there it always gets chocka (it has happened before). There are temporary lights in place now but they don't include the filter phase from Herne hill road (which allows eastbound traffic to continue on chl at the same time), so eastbound is getting very heavy.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 8, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Unlike CH1, I would say we should cobble the street, I think we should also do the same to Coldharbour Lane/CHL by the junction, it might provide the safer, nicer town centre feel we've been promised. For me, my objection to the partial closing of Loughborough Road/LR was never about cycling vs cars, for me it was about personal safety and the feeling of being kettled. As it happens, right now, neither of my concerns have come to anything but that's mostly because there are still people paying no attention to the closure!
> 
> However, I won't lie, so far the reduction in traffic on LR has been nice, until you get to CHL and that's where it falls down. The bulk of the "life" in the junction is on CHL, from pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and drivers and this closure just makes it easier for most of those people to fly through it. So if we take this plan back to it's origins of making LJ more of a destination with a obvious centre, surely we also have to look at CHL as well.
> 
> ...



I assume by cobbles you mean a raised surface where the road is at the same height as the pavement? Like Exhibition Road in South Kensington? I can't imagine actual honest-to-goodness cobbles would be very popular with pedestrians, cyclists or drivers.
This is a suggestion I could probably live with - although I don't think Hinton Road is wide enough for separate cycle lanes, but the rest would probably work.
But at least this is a constructive suggestion. Give and take, rather than just declaring that a large subset of the population is evil and need to be punished for something they've been doing for many years with no problems.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

CH1 said:


> bimble's pic with the zebra crossing is actually from a LJAG document (on Lambeth's website) https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf



I forgot about the original Framework plan, I actually really liked the ideas they had in this, none of which incidentally involved actually closing LR to any form of traffic, they suggested some of the things I mentioned a couple of posts ago, one in particular being the "raised table" (cobbles or similar) throughout the junction. Maybe we need to send everyone at the council back to their initial plan as I don't have a problem with things in that!

As for the "station yard" outside the station, given that Loughborough House has been altered beyond recognition, I wouldn't mind those buildings being cleared, quite frankly they are a bit of tip! Just a personal opinion but they do look a mess!


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

LadyV said:


> the original Framework plan,  none of which incidentally involved actually closing LR to any form of traffic


It's interesting isn't it. I don't know where the idea that we need to block 6 roads actually came from.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I don't mind being quoted - I always try to be fair.
> 
> bimble's pic with the zebra crossing is actually from a LJAG document (on Lambeth's website) https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Loughborough_Junction_Framework_Plan8.pdf
> 
> ...



You seem obsessed with that idea about CPOing the buildings by the station - you're forever posting up that image.

That proposal was never concrete - it is an option suggested in that initial masterplan document, prepared by DSDHA, the consultants employed to do it.

There are various suggestions made for that space, including a "light touch/short term" option (page 54) which focused on improvements to the public space outside the station that would not require any demolition.

The image you are posting is from their "long term" option. As with most masterplans of this nature there are proposals made which, simply put, would be nice but probably won't happen because of cost or other difficulties. Then there are alternatives that are more affordable/realistic in a short time frame. In planning lingo the former type are typically designated as "aspirational" - not a word I much like, because of its estate agent associations, but there is value in proposing something that probably can't happen because at least people can think "oh, actually maybe that would be quite good if we could do that", and maybe there is a halfway house solution, or maybe by good fortune a change in ownership of land, or similar at some point in the future, provides an opportunity to do something more radical.

So, no, it is not relevant to the objections to the changes being made to Loughborough House - changes which are being made without planning permission, and without any benefit for the streetscape or anyone except the developers. There is no issue of "credibility".

If there were the opportunity to make a public space there, by the train station, I'd be in support of pursuing it. It would be a considerable enough improvement that it could in my opinion potentially justify demolition of the "Loughborough House" building. As I believe I've said in that thread, it wasn't an architectural masterpiece or of huge historical value, but it was something distinctive that would be worth trying to keep rather than letting the building owners trash it, as they have done without proper planning permission. But given the choice between (the now nonexistent) Loughborough House building, and a public square, with renvated snowpake building, I'd probably choose the latter.

I actually think that initial masterplan (the DSDHA one) was pretty good. I hope its main ideas survive into the new one now being worked on. It's a shame it wasn't one that was adopted into policy because it could have lled to a better outcome for the Higgs site, for example. I think it understood quite well what LJ was about, and the proposals seemed to have good reasoning behind them.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I assume by cobbles you mean a raised surface where the road is at the same height as the pavement? Like Exhibition Road in South Kensington? I can't imagine actual honest-to-goodness cobbles would be very popular with pedestrians, cyclists or drivers.
> This is a suggestion I could probably live with - although I don't think Hinton Road is wide enough for separate cycle lanes, but the rest would probably work.
> But at least this is a constructive suggestion. Give and take, rather than just declaring that a large subset of the population is evil and need to be punished for something they've been doing for many years with no problems.



After have another flick through the original framework, it seems "Raised Table" is the proper term. They're not proper cobbles, just stones that monkey around with car suspension if you go over too fast. Obviously you don't want them in the cycle lane though, that wouldn't be good.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

There is no mention at all of road closures in the Loughborough Junction Plan.

The part which talks about 'routes and connections'  does suggest 'a Loughborough Junction-wide cycle network', which sounds nice. .


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

The scheme on Exhibition Road goes a bit further than the "raised table" idea, because it's formally identified as a "shared space" which means that drivers shouldn't expect any priority over pedestrians. I've not walked down there for a bit but last time I was there there were plenty of cars (mainly cabbies) angrily tooting their horns at pedestrians who dared stray into the supposedly shared carriageway.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

Maybe this road closure scheme is a devious plan by LJAG and co to get you lot to want the previous proposals instead, because they now seem tame in comparison. Have you considered that, conspiracy theorists?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 8, 2015)

LadyV said:


> As for the "station yard" outside the station, given that Loughborough House has been altered beyond recognition, I wouldn't mind those buildings being cleared, quite frankly they are a bit of tip! Just a personal opinion but they do look a mess!


Fair enough - but who's going to pay for buying out the owners then? You could be talking £1-2 million for creating a square by buying out the properties fronting Coldharbour Lane. IMHO Loughborough Hall at the back should stay - and the fact the report descibes it as a paint factory when it is actually a Celestial Church once again goes to show how "siloed" these consultants are. They never bothered to go and ask.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

CH1 said:


> the fact the report descibes it as a paint factory when it is actually a Celestial Church once again goes to show how "siloed" these consultants are. They never bothered to go and ask.



Wrong - it is identfied as Celestial Church on page 21 of their document.

But you didn't bother to read it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

I like the Celestial Church of Alfalfa. 
You can hear the singing on a Sunday morning from the station platform and the people coming and going from the service walk about with no shoes on, which never ceases to amaze me every Sunday.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

irf520 said:


> But at least this is a constructive suggestion. Give and take, rather than just declaring that a large subset of the population is evil and need to be punished for something they've been doing for many years with no problems.



Uh-huh.



irf520 said:


> I'm sick to death of these cyclo-nazis trying to ram cycling down everyone's throat. Personally I have no interest whatsoever in cycling. They can shove it where the sun don't shine.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

520 already sort of apologised for that thing said pages ago which you just spent your time seeking out, called it a bad tempered rant i think. And has shown interest in constructive suggestions instead of just banging on about closed roads good cars bad.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Wrong - it is identfied as Celestial Church on page 21 of their document.
> But you didn't bother to read it.


Because I was ranting - like you usually do.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> 520 already sort of apologised for that thing said pages ago which you just spent your time seeking out, called it a bad tempered rant i think. And has shown interest in constructive suggestions instead of just banging on about closed roads good cars bad.


In actual fact 2 out of his 3 most recent posts have just been ad hominem remarks about me, rather than addressing the points I've made. Not highly constructive.

Behind all his comments is the fiction that "the cyclists" are trying to force things on others. That they are trying to say people are "evil" and need to be "punished". That they are trying to stop people doing things that don't cause any problems for anyone else. As if there is some homogenous mass of "cyclists" that are forcing these schemes through in their own interests only. This of course is all rubbish. But it's also the kind of divisiveness you say you don't want.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> oh look! Cobbles.  They're in the LJ masterplan after all, along with lots of bright pink.
> View attachment 77820


That looks familiar to Peckham, does it not. Is LJ to become the new Peckham Town Centre.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

Does anyone know how come the roads got closed seeing as that was never suggested in the big Loughborough Junction Plan thing?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> Does anyone know how come the roads got closed seeing as that was never suggested in the big Loughborough Junction Plan thing?


No comment or I will be seen as ranting...


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Fair enough - but who's going to pay for buying out the owners then? You could be talking £1-2 million for creating a square by buying out the properties fronting Coldharbour Lane.



That is a very good point, I wasn't thinking that far ahead, merely looked a heck of a lot nicer than what we've got.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> Does anyone know how come the roads got closed seeing as that was never suggested in the big Loughborough Junction Plan thing?


I think there's another document, that of course I can't find right now, which bridged the original framework document to this document http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ consultation visualisations.pdf which does have the road closed but closed completely. At some point this changed again because of emergency access and not wanting to redirect the P5


----------



## critical1 (Oct 8, 2015)

critical1 said:


> No comment or I will be seen as ranting...


But perhaps someone more eminently knowledgeable such as teucher can answer this question?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The scheme on Exhibition Road goes a bit further than the "raised table" idea, because it's formally identified as a "shared space" which means that drivers shouldn't expect any priority over pedestrians. I've not walked down there for a bit but last time I was there there were plenty of cars (mainly cabbies) angrily tooting their horns at pedestrians who dared stray into the supposedly shared carriageway.



You have a point there, Exhibition Road can still be a nightmare, even after having time to settle in, I think most cars just avoid it now so I guess it might be considered a success from an air quality pov


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

critical1 said:


> But perhaps someone more eminently knowledgeable such as teucher can answer this question?


I imagine the answer already lives in the first few pages of this forum!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

It's a slow day at work so I went back to the very first post on this thread which links to this page Loughborough junction - what you need to know | Lambeth Council

I love going back to things with hindsight, you spot so many new things. For instance....

*"How will the road closures affect crime in the area?
Inspector Dan Rutland from the Met’s central cluster, which covers seven areas including Brixton and Clapham, has committed to putting extra police officers on the beat for the first three weeks of introducing the trail."*
I didn't spend lots of time hanging out round the junction during the first few days when the pedestrian zones were introduced but did anyone notice an increased police presence?

*"Leaflets advertising the consultation and how people could find out more were distributed to 10,991 addresses."*
Hasn't this number since been discredited?

*"632 people completed the questionnaire: 68% of residents supported a six month experimental closure on Loughborough Road. 29% did not. 66% supported six month experimental closures on Barrington Road, Lilford Road, Gordon Grove, Calais Street and Padfield Road. 29% did not"*

Going off these numbers, that means only 5.75% of the people leafleted responded and only 3.9% of those leafleted were in favour of the closure, no wonder there are angry people now.

Extra edit, spotted this at the end

"Road changes such as these experimental closures always take time to ‘bed in’ and settle down – true reflections of their impact would take at least three weeks after the closures begin. Therefore we would encourage respondents to wait until further into the study to make representations"

We're now almost 6 weeks in, does that mean we're now seeing what it'll be like?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

All top observations.

One thing:

When they say "68% of residents" supported the trialled closures that's not accurate.
68% of the people who filled in that questionnaire did.

If you look here, you can see (if I'm reading it right?) that less than half of those people (the yes saying ones) actually live in LJ.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> All top observations.
> 
> One thing:
> 
> ...



That's right. No prizes for guessing who the others are ...


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> All top observations.
> 
> One thing:
> 
> ...


Yep that's what is says, no denying their own numbers. Do councillors who vote on these things read the documentation that accompany proposals like this, if I was a councillor, not that I would want to be, I would have been asking a) why so few people had responded b) why such low engagement in the area and c) why such high engagement out of the area and I certainly wouldn't have voted for it to go ahead without further research. Can't believe they won some sort of award for this nonsense!


----------



## irf520 (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> In actual fact 2 out of his 3 most recent posts have just been ad hominem remarks about me, rather than addressing the points I've made. Not highly constructive.
> 
> Behind all his comments is the fiction that "the cyclists" are trying to force things on others. That they are trying to say people are "evil" and need to be "punished". That they are trying to stop people doing things that don't cause any problems for anyone else. As if there is some homogenous mass of "cyclists" that are forcing these schemes through in their own interests only. This of course is all rubbish. But it's also the kind of divisiveness you say you don't want.



You say disincentive; I say punishment. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the difference?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

So a grand total of 181 people who live here said yes they would like the roads closed.

And so then they closed the roads. And there was a surprising amount of negative reaction to this. . .


----------



## irf520 (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> So a grand total of 181 people who live here said yes they would like the roads closed.
> 
> And so then they closed the roads. And there was a surprising amount of negative responses to this. .



Who would have thought it?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

LadyV said:


> We're now almost 6 weeks in, does that mean we're now seeing what it'll be like?



No, because for the first month or so they weren't enforced. We've had less than two weeks so far, with people actually observing the closures.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

irf520 said:


> You say disincentive; I say punishment. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the difference?


Look in your dictionary.

Punishment:
_the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense._

Disincentive:
_something that causes or that could cause a person to decide not to do something_

It's not difficult to see the difference is it?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> So a grand total of 181 people who live here said yes they would like the roads closed.
> 
> And so then they closed the roads. And there was a surprising amount of negative reaction to this. . .



And 112 people who live here said they didn't want the roads closed.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> No, because for the first month or so they weren't enforced. We've had less than two weeks so far, with people actually observing the closures.


True so by next weekend then?  Although by then hopefully we might have some proper signage which will also help


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

Yes Mr T you are correct.
As I think I may have mentioned before, my problem with the road closures is that the consultation was a complete and utter failure, a joke, a farce etc.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

Some educational reading by the way

The secret history of jaywalking: The disturbing reason it was outlawed — and why we should lift the ban


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> And 112 people who live here said they didn't want the roads closed.


For me, it's not so much about the exact number, it's about the lack of numbers, the council should have thrown it out on the basis of not enough data, go get more, whether it be positive or negative, it was lazy. But we all know that, in fact that the consultation was crap seems to be about the only thing we all have agreement on!


----------



## ricbake (Oct 8, 2015)

The signage has always been "proper" just insufficient to break the habits of people who aren't paying any attention. ...


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes Mr T you are correct.
> As I think I may have mentioned before, my problem with the road closures is that the consultation was a complete joke.


Which means your post 1256 was entirely superfluous.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

LadyV said:


> For me, it's not so much about the exact number, it's about the lack of numbers, the council should have thrown it out on the basis of not enough data,


Yes. Or simply say, we are doing this because it fits in with broader transport policy accross the borough, instead of pinning it on a shoddy consultation.

Either way, it's happening now.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

"either way it's happening now?" 
Yes, it's going really well.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which means your post 1256 was entirely superfluous.



Do you mean the one where I finally figured out that t*he grand total number of people who live in Loughborough Junction who said they want the roads closed was ... 181 ? *

No, it wasn't superfluous, I enjoyed it a lot. 
And I think it's good to know your numbers, to avoid being too wishy washy about things.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Some educational reading by the way
> 
> The secret history of jaywalking: The disturbing reason it was outlawed — and why we should lift the ban



Interesting article, once you get past the terrible pushing of adverts, I especially like this line

"In 1923, Cincinnati residents pursued an ordinance that would require motorists to outfit their cars with mechanical devices called governors. The governors would switch off car engines if vehicles exceeded speeds of 25 miles per hour." I'm surprised that in this day and age of technology and big brother, cars speed can't be auto capped when you enter an area, for instance a 20 mph area, that would be very cool


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Interesting article, once you get past the terrible pushing of adverts, I especially like this line
> 
> "In 1923, Cincinnati residents pursued an ordinance that would require motorists to outfit their cars with mechanical devices called governors. The governors would switch off car engines if vehicles exceeded speeds of 25 miles per hour." I'm surprised that in this day and age of technology and big brother, cars speed can't be auto capped when you enter an area, for instance a 20 mph area, that would be very cool


Roll on driverless cars. A lot of problems will be solved once we take human drivers out of the equation.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

ricbake said:


> The signage has always been "proper" just insufficient to break the habits of people who aren't paying any attention. ...


Very true, by proper I meant fixed, harder to vandalise and harder to kick over. I also meant a no entry sign, it's a universal sign that everyone wherever they're from knows the meaning of, the sign they put up saying only buses and bicycles allowed is quite confusing when you're driving past, even walking past I had to pause for a minute to read it.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> So a grand total of 181 people who live here said yes they would like the roads closed.
> 
> And so then they closed the roads. And there was a surprising amount of negative reaction to this. . .


Do not be surprised as to those here who are keen on these closures do not respond to the facts you have stated.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> And 112 people who live here said they didn't want the roads closed.


More like over 700+ said NO have you read any of the facts.... Or are you just ignoring them?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Do not be surprised as to those here who are keen on these closures do not respond to the facts you have stated.



I did wonder why some people were suddenly talking about jaywalking in Cincinnati ...


----------



## LadyV (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> No, I'm not really surprised that people are suddenly talking about jaywalking in Cincinnati ...


Well it makes a changes from the cyclists vs drivers argument! Plus we can't talk, we tangented with bimbling, pootling and mooching!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

critical1 said:


> More like over 700+ said NO have you read any of the facts.... Or are you just ignoring them?


Yes, I'm well aware of the petitions, etc, thanks.

That there are a lot of people who don't like the closures has not escaped my attention.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 8, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Very true, by proper I meant fixed, harder to vandalise and harder to kick over. I also meant a no entry sign, it's a universal sign that everyone wherever they're from knows the meaning of, the sign they put up saying only buses and bicycles allowed is quite confusing when you're driving past, even walking past I had to pause for a minute to read it.



But recognising that sign is part of the Highway Code? 

If it was a No Entry - that would mean that buses, ambulances or bicycles wouldn't be allowed to pass. [I seem to have this discussion once a week in Stockwell with a car driver!].


----------



## irf520 (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Look in your dictionary.
> 
> Punishment:
> _the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense._
> ...



If you want to split hairs, yes. But in this case the disincentive takes the form of a punishment, albeit one which occurs concurrently with the "offence".


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

To be clear, I completely agree that the consultation results can not be taken as representative of all locals.

But those who are bringing up the 700+ signature petition - are you claiming that they are a representative sample? What was the methodology? Did they knock on everyone's doors? Did they attempt to take a tally of people who didn't want to sign?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

irf520 said:


> If you want to split hairs, yes. But in this case the disincentive takes the form of a punishment, albeit one which occurs concurrently with the "offence".


What offence are you talking about?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Yes, I'm well aware of the petitions, etc, thanks.
> 
> That there are a lot of people who don't like the closures has not escaped my attention.


You stated only 181 votes NO in fact it is over 700+ including the petition which was handed in on time to be included into the official representation, why are you and Lambeth and LJAG ignoring the petition as something that didn't really happen, or is it just more convenient to ignore it and be dismissive?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> those who are bringing up the 700+ signature petition - are you claiming that they are a representative sample? What was the methodology? Did they knock on everyone's doors? Did they attempt to take a tally of people who didn't want to sign?



Again: It is not the job of any organisation / group of volunteers to represent everybody in LJ.
That doesn't work. See for instance ... LJAG.
That's what the council are supposed to attempt to do and what they have abjectly failed at here.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

critical1 said:


> You stated only 181 votes NO in fact it is over 700+ including the petition which was handed in on time to be included into the official representation, why are you and Lambeth and LJAG ignoring the petition as something that didn't really happen, or is it just more convenient to ignore it and be dismissive?


I am not ignoring it. However I would consider it even less representative than the consultation.
I can't speak for Lambeth or LJAG as I am not Lambeth or LJAG.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> Again: It is not the job of any organisation / group of volunteers to try to represent everybody in LJ.
> That would be an impossible task. See for instance ... LJAG.


 Do you think I am arguing otherwise?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Do you think I am arguing otherwise?



It looked like it, when you said ...
"Those who are bringing up the 700+ signature petition - are you claiming that they are a representative sample? What was the methodology? Did they knock on everyone's doors? Did they attempt to take a tally of people who didn't want to sign?"

Obviously the petition to re-open the roads was not a big well funded area-wide thorough systematic and unbiased research project, like lambeth's should have been, so why ask them if they knocked on every door in the area and collected the figures for people who loved your closures too?


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

And there is really no need to keep slapping your forehead at me, it's just rude is what it is.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> It looked like it, when you said ...
> "Those who are bringing up the 700+ signature petition - are you claiming that they are a representative sample? What was the methodology? Did they knock on everyone's doors? Did they attempt to take a tally of people who didn't want to sign?"
> 
> Obviously the petition to re-open the roads was not a big well funded area-wide thorough systematic and unbiased research project, like lambeth's should have been, so why ask them if they knocked on every door in the area and collected the figures for people who loved your closures too?


Because critical1 is complaining that I am not taking enough notice of the petition figures. My questions were rhetorical as should be fairly obvious.

I am glad we can agree that the petition figures do not give much of an objective idea of the size of opposition.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

More sarcastic / facetious than rhetorical I think, your 'questions' but why split hairs. 
You are funny. I think the weight of the opposition is fairly clear, if not the exact numbers.


----------



## prunus (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> No, because for the first month or so they weren't enforced. We've had less than two weeks so far, with people actually observing the closures.



And during that time the traffic signals at chl/hhr have been buggered... Not really ideal timing there... basically means that (in terms of traffic effect south of the closure) we still have no idea what the actual effects are.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think the weight of the opposition is fairly clear, if not the exact numbers.


What are the approximate numbers?


----------



## ricbake (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> More sarcastic / facetious than rhetorical I think, your 'questions' but why split hairs.
> You are funny. I think the weight of the opposition is fairly clear, if not the exact numbers.


There is opposition but but its weight is vociferous and there is nothing here to suggest the opposition  is representative. Over 75% of people  living in Vassall don't drive. A huge proportion have no interest until asked a question like do you prefer the streets to be calmer. Yes. Do you want the Council to make driving here a little more complicated  No.

The band wagons are just band wagons whether pedal powered or engine powered.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What are the approximate numbers?



Tough rhetorical / facetious question.
I don't know.

In the morning (if I spend another day doing this instead of my job)  I'll try to add the recorded documented opponents to the road closure scheme up for you, and put that number down next to the 181 recorded in favour.

I do wish we could move beyond this failed road closure thing though and talk about the "public realm improvements".


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think the weight of the opposition is fairly clear





teuchter said:


> What are the approximate numbers?





bimble said:


> I don't know.



Top work


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Top work


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

Dear teuchter, is there a button on here that would enable us to block each other's posts? It might save everyone else some time not having to read this crap, and help the discussion about Loughborough junction public realm improvements. 
( not rhetorical real question)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

Click on my username to the left of my posts, and when the grey box comes up, click on "ignore".


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

I've found the ignore button! I'm sure we'll meet again someday but seems best for now.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 8, 2015)

What a gentlemanly end to this saga


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2015)

Hope you've had fun using the "show ignored content" feature already bimble. It will become second nature to you.


----------



## bimble (Oct 8, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> What a gentlemanly end to this saga


Most noble I agree, if a bit one sidedly


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

Just went to see if maybe LJAG have any news to share on what's going on with the closures, the review that's been brought forward and all.

They've republished Lambeth's review brought forward statement on their website but the only other mention they've put up of the whole road closure debacle seems to be on their facebook page - and it's the single piece of vital news that some dodgy motorist-campaigner whoever he is was apparently present at the meeting of a few hundred local people last week, and that's it. Apart from triple exclamation marks.

The next post down is about a Haiku poetry workshop at the farm.

I know they might not be great at social media but I think this is shocking, for a group who claims to be responsive inclusive & to want to "encourage a sense of community" etc.
They have made no attempt at all to respond to what's been going on or even to pretend to be listening to 'the other side'.
They could have at least tried a to mitigate the damage this has done to them, what a shame.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Just went to see if maybe LJAG have any news to share on what's going on with the closures, the review that's been brought forward and all.
> 
> They've republished Lambeth's review brought forward statement on their website but the only other mention they've put up of the whole road closure debacle seems to be on their facebook page - and it's the single piece of vital news about some dodgy motorist-campaigner whoever he is having apparently showed up at the meeting of a few hundred local people last week, and that's it.
> 
> ...



I never realised that Loughborough Junction was a hotbed of Haiku poetry. You learn something new every day ...


----------



## prunus (Oct 9, 2015)

The temporary traffic lights have been turned away from the road at Herne hill road/chl so drivers can't see them and just have to negotiate the junction. While this is dangerous for pedestrians is it at least demonstrating that without them the traffic is flowing freely, no jams at all, suggesting that it was the lights not the road closures buggering up chl, as suspected.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

Just received this. _These meetings are open to everybody: _


----------



## prunus (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Just received this. _These meetings are open to everybody: _
> 
> 
> View attachment 77856



Can you post the pff agenda please?  Ta.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

prunus said:


> Can you post the pff agenda please?  Ta.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

See item 6: Stockwell Partnership are the ones presenting. To my knowledge they have not done a single thing as yet, in their job as the appointed qualitative evaluation people. But they are old friend's of George's so that's ok.


----------



## prunus (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 77857



Thanks 

Tom Rumble - isn't he from The Hobbit?


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

Tom Rumble seems to be the 'senior urban designer' at Enfield Council. Enfield?


----------



## Winot (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Tom Rumble seems to be the 'senior urban designer' at Enfield Council. Enfield?



Enfield bid for and obtained a wodge of cash from the GLA for putting in a 'mini-Holland'.  It is currently being vociferously opposed by some local traders who believe that the prioritisation of bicycles/pedestrians over cars in some places will harm their trade.  I think an article about it was posted upthread.

Andrew Gilligan has said - fine, if local people don't want the money we will give it to someone else.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Tom Rumble seems to be the 'senior urban designer' at Enfield Council. Enfield?


Some of the Lambeth Planners are like that. Self employed "floaters". Then they go off and work for developers like Barratts getting their schemes through (this actually happened at the former Brixton Square/now Carney Place next to Brixton Village).


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

oh yes, that was it. Thought it rang a bell.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 9, 2015)

Winot said:


> Andrew Gilligan has said - fine, if local people don't want the money we will give it to someone else.


Be nice if they got him to come - as cycling commissioner - no doubt he could articulate the case for a traffic scheme as good as anyone. He woiuldalso have a chance to see whether what we currently have comes anywhere near satisfactory.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

I've emailed Stockwell Partnership asking (not in a hostile way) what sort of data they'll present for 45 minutes, given that they weren't planning to start work on this for another couple of months. Maybe they're out and about now with clipboards, furiously evaluating.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 9, 2015)

prunus said:


> Thanks
> 
> Tom Rumble - isn't he from The Hobbit?



Are you thinking of Tom Bombadil?

I only remember one thing from the books and that is how much of a dick that character was. Not surprising they cut him from the films.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

The road closures will stay 'until early November at the earliest' according to this
Loughborough closures in place until November


----------



## prunus (Oct 9, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Are you thinking of Tom Bombadil?
> 
> I only remember one thing from the books and that is how much of a dick that character was. Not surprising they cut him from the films.



Well, yes, I did know there wasn't *actually* a Tom Rumble in the hobbit   Was just some lighthearted banter as befits the general tone of the thread 

And really he wasn't such a dick - possibly the most powerful being they encounter - force of nature type of thing - was before everything and will be after all is gone. 

/nerdmode


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

When did those tags appear up there above us, the cycle nazis & middle class entitlement ones? 
Thanks for helping add to the pointless hatred that Lambeth's crap consultation did so much to stoke up here.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

oh, that was quick! thanks


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 9, 2015)

He ruined the book

[EDIT] For me anyway


----------



## critical1 (Oct 9, 2015)

Another crazy post from facebooks LJ Road Madness Facebook - Log In or Sign Up


----------



## critical1 (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Just went to see if maybe LJAG have any news to share on what's going on with the closures, the review that's been brought forward and all.
> 
> They've republished Lambeth's review brought forward statement on their website but the only other mention they've put up of the whole road closure debacle seems to be on their facebook page - and it's the single piece of vital news that some dodgy motorist-campaigner whoever he is was apparently present at the meeting of a few hundred local people last week, and that's it. Apart from triple exclamation marks.
> 
> ...



That "dodgy motorist-campaigner" was at a traffic calming meeting not our ROAD CLOSURE MEETING.. not sure what meeting he's at probably a Lambeth one...


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

So the one single mention by LJAG on the whole road closure issue is not even true ?
I was really shocked when I saw how they have made not the slightest attempt to even pretend to be listening or aware of what has been going on in the area, just carrying on with the poetry workshops and tea parties.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 9, 2015)

Anecdata: 45 bus sped along chl eastbound this morning. No queues at all.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> So the one single mention by LJAG on the whole road closure issue is not even true ?
> I was really shocked when I saw how they have made not the slightest attempt to even pretend to be listening or aware of what has been going on in the area, just carrying on with the poetry workshops and tea parties.


LJAG are standing on the shoulders of giants, such as Leader of Lambeth Lib Peck have you heard anything from her?


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

Is Lib Peck a bit like the wizard of Oz?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Is Lib Peck a bit like the wizard of Oz?


LOL more like the wizard of ZARDOZ


----------



## yes (Oct 9, 2015)

Some interesting reflections here:
Kennington People on Bikes: Making sense of the Loughborough Junction trial


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

yes said:


> Some interesting reflections here:
> Kennington People on Bikes: Making sense of the Loughborough Junction trial



Interesting.
That bit at the end where they put this in though.. really, must be some serious helmet the author is wearing.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 9, 2015)

LJ Road Madness is the one to watch.. getting very lively there.Hot off the press....

More LJ Madness taken directly from LJAG it's Damning.
This is the first time any road closure has been discussed by this group.
Note it states ONE WEEK car free in September.
Note "Important that LJAG show support"
Note no discussion whatsoever surrounding such a scheme even for closing a road like Loughborough Road for even one week!


----------



## Complain! (Oct 9, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Currently sat outside the lovely Stockwell town Centre created by George Wright observing the  Pleasant view of buses passing by the tube station.
> The pigeons were of great significance as they didn't seem to mind me being sat with them.
> 
> View attachment 77645




What about the drunks!  George Wright seems to be on crusade to bring lambeth to a standstill - do you know about the closure of the left hand turn from Clapham Road to Stockwell Road...and have a look at an extract of a LJAG Minutes of Meeting 16th sept....on the LJ Road Madness facebook page.

"GW (George Wright) said emergency services have been told about the road closures and if they need to access road they need to pull out the road blocks.
-Barrington Road may be a better pedestrianised area;
-Should close Herne Hill Road, Hinton Road and/orMilkwood Road.
GW said these options may be considered as a next stage.
-Make another superhub where the wealthy meet;
-Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite and Stockwell Partnership who are monitoring the scheme should be at the next meeting."

'Make another suberhub where the wealthy meet'!!!!  Why don't we just make Lambeth an independent country and declare George the King!  This man needs to be stopped before he does any more damage.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 9, 2015)

I'm not really good at math so how many people are in an ambulance crew? 
How many does it take to move a concrete block/Barrier?
Who looks after the patient in the back?
How many Union members does it take to complain?
How many wealthy people meet at Loughborough Junction?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 9, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I'm not really good at math so how many people are in an ambulance crew?
> How many does it take to move a concrete block/Barrier?
> Who looks after the patient in the back?
> How many Union members does it take to complain?
> How many wealthy people meet at Loughborough Junction?



There's usually two people in a standard ambulance crew, but maybe only one if it's a rapid response vehicle.
So the driver would have to get out and move the blocks while the other paramedic looks after the patient.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 9, 2015)

Complain! said:


> What about the drunks!  George Wright seems to be on crusade to bring lambeth to a standstill - do you know about the closure of the left hand turn from Clapham Road to Stockwell Road...and have a look at an extract of a LJAG Minutes of Meeting 16th sept....on the LJ Road Madness facebook page.
> 
> "GW (George Wright) said emergency services have been told about the road closures and if they need to access road they need to pull out the road blocks.
> -Barrington Road may be a better pedestrianised area;
> ...



Yes, but how can you stop him?

The council don't care because they know very well they will be re-elected every time. The old saying about a red rosette on a monkey applies. That's not to say any of the others would be any better. At the last mayoral election we had a choice between Ken and Boris. I don't think either of them are much cop.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 9, 2015)

irf520 said:


> The old saying about a red rosette on a monkey applies


My mum always used to say you could pin a rad rag on a donkey and people in certain areas would still vote for it. Guess in other areas a blue rag on a donkey would also work!


----------



## Complain! (Oct 9, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Yes, but how can you stop him?
> 
> The council don't care because they know very well they will be re-elected every time. The old saying about a red rosette on a monkey applies. That's not to say any of the others would be any better. At the last mayoral election we had a choice between Ken and Boris. I don't think either of them are much cop.


But George isn't elected, he's employed isn't he?  He must be accountable to someone...surely someone must care he's saying this sort of thing in Lambeth's name?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 9, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> But recognising that sign is part of the Highway Code?
> 
> If it was a No Entry - that would mean that buses, ambulances or bicycles wouldn't be allowed to pass. [I seem to have this discussion once a week in Stockwell with a car driver!].



Yes it is part of the highway code but not everyone who drives in this country took a test here and studied our highway code. A no entry sign is very similar around the world.

You could do what they've done at Barrington Road and put an exception on it, that way those who needed to go through could do


----------



## irf520 (Oct 9, 2015)

Complain! said:


> But George isn't elected, he's employed isn't he?  He must be accountable to someone...surely someone must care he's saying this sort of thing in Lambeth's name?



Only if they don't agree with what he's saying.


----------



## Complain! (Oct 9, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Only if they don't agree with what he's saying.


Ha ha yes they probably want 'a superhub where the wealthy meet' too!!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 9, 2015)

Complain! said:


> But George isn't elected, he's employed isn't he?  He must be accountable to someone...surely someone must care he's saying this sort of thing in Lambeth's name?



Ah but councils all over the country are full of incompetent employees with no form of performance management, it's one of the best things about working for the council/civil service etc etc, you have to really really cock up before anything would happen to you, add that to quite generous protected pensions, automatic albeit very small pay rises, generous holiday allowances and the fact you have a job for life if you want it and you see why no one ever leaves!


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 9, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Ah but councils all over the country are full of incompetent employees with no form of performance management, it's one of the best things about working for the council/civil service etc etc, you have to really really cock up before anything would happen to you, add that to quite generous protected pensions, automatic albeit very small pay rises, generous holiday allowances and the fact you have a job for life if you want it and you see why no one ever leaves!



That might be true of local authorities but it isn't true of all civil servants


----------



## irf520 (Oct 9, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Yes it is part of the highway code but not everyone who drives in this country took a test here and studied our highway code. A no entry sign is very similar around the world.
> 
> You could do what they've done at Barrington Road and put an exception on it, that way those who needed to go through could do



The sign with the "stunt motorbike" symbol is a valid sign in the highway code. It means "no motor vehicles" - i.e. pushbikes are OK.
Emergency vehicles aren't allowed to go through NO ENTRY signs or (as far as I know) NO MOTOR VEHICLES signs:

While using blue lights, drivers are exempt from a number of motoring regulations, including


treating a red traffic light as a give way sign
passing to the wrong side of a keep left bollard
driving on a motorway hard shoulder (even against the direction of traffic)
disobeying the speed limit (police, fire and ambulance services only)
However, they are not allowed to


ignore a ‘no entry’ sign
ignore a ‘stop’ or ‘give way’ sign
drive the wrong way down a one-way street
ignore flashing signs at level crossings or fire stations
cross a solid white line down the middle of the road
(taken from Blue Light Use | UK Emergency Vehicles )


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 9, 2015)

So basically all inside these closed roads   NO ENTRY closed roads are  F***** !!!

According to George Wright Emergency Services CAN go through the closed roads!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 9, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Ah but councils all over the country are full of incompetent employees with no form of performance management, it's one of the best things about working for the council/civil service etc etc, you have to really really cock up before anything would happen to you, add that to quite generous protected pensions, automatic albeit very small pay rises, generous holiday allowances and the fact you have a job for life if you want it and you see why no one ever leaves!



Don't know when your experience of the Civil Service was, but performance management has been shit-hot for at least the last 25 years, and I've known people dismissed for minor issues like unavoidable absences due to ongoing health problems requiring hospital admission. When I was CPSU rep, I represented a woman who was being disciplined for time off for dialysis, even though she had pretty much sacrificed her holiday entitlement in order to cover the three afternoons per week she needed off.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

Thanks all for giving me something to read whilst I sit here at a standstill in the 345 on Chl.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't know when your experience of the Civil Service was, but performance management has been shit-hot for at least the last 25 years, and I've known people dismissed for minor issues like unavoidable absences due to ongoing health problems requiring hospital admission. When I was CPSU rep, I represented a woman who was being disciplined for time off for dialysis, even though she had pretty much sacrificed her holiday entitlement in order to cover the three afternoons per week she needed off.



Maybe it depends where you are, location and department etc, my experience was 20 years ago (I worked for a council and it was definitely like that) but my sister still works for the civil service up north and there's very little that she sees. Ditto a good friend who works for gov.uk, part of the cabinet office, here in London. Sounds like wherever you are are a heck of lot tougher, the dialysis one is especially bad, didn't think they could legally do that these days but I'm not an expert so don't quote me


----------



## LadyV (Oct 9, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> That might be true of local authorities but it isn't true of all civil servants


Accepted. Unfair of me to tar everyone with the same brush


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

Complain! said:


> Ha ha yes they probably want 'a superhub where the wealthy meet' too!!



That has got to be a typing error surely, that bit of the minutes  .. what can it mean?


----------



## Complain! (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> That has got to be a typing error surely, that bit of the minutes  .. what can it mean?


Look at the LJ Road Madness facebook page for full extract...


----------



## LadyV (Oct 9, 2015)

irf520 said:


> The sign with the "stunt motorbike" symbol is a valid sign in the highway code. It means "no motor vehicles" - i.e. pushbikes are OK.
> Emergency vehicles aren't allowed to go through NO ENTRY signs or (as far as I know) NO MOTOR VEHICLES signs:
> 
> While using blue lights, drivers are exempt from a number of motoring regulations, including
> ...



I didn't say the no cars and motorbikes sign wasn't a valid sign in the highway code, I said it was in our highway code, each country has it's own variations and we do not require people to take a UK test to drive on our roads so it's possible that some people who passed their test elsewhere drive through it without understanding what it is. Hence why I suggested a No Entry sign as these are the same around the world.

Working in central London, I've seen emergency services do all those things they're not supposed to, especially the one way street thing, I work on a one way street and as it's a quiet one, that happens all the time. Sounds like someone in Lambeth traffic management team needs to go back to highway code school to fix Barrington Road


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

critical1 said:


> "Important that LJAG show support"
> Note no discussion whatsoever surrounding such a scheme even for closing a road like Loughborough Road for even one week!
> View attachment 77864



That is ... revealing.
So when this idea was first brought up the minutes say "Important that LJAG show support because road closures are often resisted".

Was that a unanimous decision on the part of all LJAGers?  Was it the council telling them that it was important  ? We don't know.

Obviously LJAG is given lots of council funding but that clear declaration that they are not going to question the closures at all, whatever the majority of residents might think, is a bit damning.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

(my Ljagging friend is away else I'd ask her about that)


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

Complain! said:


> Look at the LJ Road Madness facebook page for full extract...



Yep, there it is.





But I still think it must be some mistake.
I mean a mistake by the minute taker or something.
Because.. what??


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

I've emailed Ms Masey, to ask her if it was perhaps a typing error. let's see.


----------



## Angellic (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> I've emailed Ms Masey, to ask her if it was perhaps a typing error. let's see.



Or email George?


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Or email George?


forwarded to him, good idea.


----------



## Angellic (Oct 9, 2015)

Vassall View: everything about Vassall Ward in Lambeth: Street tidy event on Loughborough Road this weekend


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

Minutes from a phonecall: 
I just called Stockwell Partnership to see how they are doing, how it's going with the prep for the meeting on 15th where it's their job to present their findings so far as the appointed evaluators of the road closures, but they have no findings, because they haven't started their job yet. 

She (Aga, the lead on this project) was very nice and completely clueless about what to do - they have not started work yet, at all, and have 3 days to prepare. She was aware of the strength of feeling involved and seemed a well intentioned person in a really shit position.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 9, 2015)

I am against the road closure scheme. Although I  agree with the laudable aims of create a better sociable and cohesive community environment in LJ, reduce pollution etc - all  which I doubt any local people would disagree with - closing the road has the unintended consequence of doing precisely the opposite. I live in SE24, quite near but south of LJ (about 1 min away by cycle). I commute by cycle along Loughborough Rd into the city to work during the week but use the car to go north either into town or beyond - from where I live there is no practical alternative if I need to travel north and out to the west because camberwell is already heavily congested. Likewise to get home late at night by minicab or taxi, if I don't have my bike or cannot cycle for a variety of reasons it makes sense to go directly through LR, and no sense at all to make a massive detour.  Before the closure the vehicular traffic was typical of what can be expected from a functioning main arterial  B road heading north, a road which was obviously designed for traffic: it was reasonably free-running albeit busy during rushhour but otherwise quiet at other times. Near the school there is a lollipop man and a pedestrian crossing so there was no particular danger to children from existing road users.  

The closure of LR and surrounding roads has the following consequences
1. It has created a north/south divide between those who live on the estates on LJ and those who live to the south, including towards HH. It has effectively ghettoised those living in social housing. I believe this is likely cause community tension, hemming in those who live on LR and Myatts to the north. I understand it is said (but I do not know) that those residents are not happy with the change and that it is not intended to benefit them but is aimed at creating a hub for the 'wealthy to meet': indeed it appears from a recent 16 Sep meeting of LJAG that this may be its true aim: gentrification ( genteel and nice for people like me but obviously at the expense of those who live on the estates and will feel excluded).  By closing the road it is saying to those residents they can never enjoy the advantages from vehicular traffic that those in better off areas can enjoy. And to be clear, the traffic is not just commuters, but local traffic and essential delivery, maintenance and emergency services - none of which will be available to them. Lambeth is wrong to say emergency services can pass through because they are never allowed to travel beyond no entry signs: the signs only permit passage to buses and cycles. How can LR residents access the hospital in an emergency?   And how exactly will the bus route work when the bus can't arrive because of traffic congestion?  
2. It has created and will continue to create traffic chaos not just at LJ but in the surrounding areas of Lambeth/Southwark. LJ is, as the name suggests a junction, a cross-road. Closing the cross-road without a properly designed alternative traffic system forces either to turn right or left onto CHL into already congested Brixton and Camberwell Green. That creates gridlock along CHL which cannot be eradicated, certainly not without an alternatively designed route. I find it hard to believe, but it's true, that the scheme has not properly considered or designed an alternative  traffic system - it is a vast understatement to say 'some journeys may be longer' when it means  permanent extensive prolonged detours (and longer journey times) for those who live in or around the area .
3 Some vehicles will detour through residential streets in an attempt to avoid CHL. Anyone wanting to go north from HH from Milkwood may now decide to speed through residential streets to meet up with Ferndene Rd and Ruskin park to race down to Camberwell Green.  This will be dangerous during the school run when many young children are walking to schools in the area, or at other times, when they are playing in the street where they live.  It will not be long before there are casualties.
4.  The idea that there will be a reduction in pollution is misconceived. The pollution in the area is likely to remain either constant or possibly worse.The closure creates gridlock congestion on CHL meaning that far from reducing pollution it builds up dangerous pollution right next to the proposed 'pedestrianised' area thus removing the desirability of anyone wanting to spend time there. At best it displaces some of the pollution from the top end of LR at the expense of dumping all over the surrounding areas. I understand no proper scientific pollution testing has been carried out. The idea of comparing LR with CHL as the control for assessing pollution of LR is obviously unscientific and comparing apples with oranges. 
5 The idea that the area is a pedestrianised area is flawed because it is not: it is still a highway for buses and cyclists. It is dangerous to call it pedestrianised in those circumstances. Fast moving silent cyclists will traverse across the area creating danger for cyclist and pedestrian alike. It will not be long before a serious accident causing personal injury occurs.  The traffic congestion along CHL also makes it very dangerous in the 'pedestrianised' area because there is no clear line of sight for pedestrians to see cycle/bus traffic entering LR. 

In making these observations I leave aside the procedural problems in the way Lambeth have gone about this, particularly the informal but limited consultation, and the current ongoing vandalism, civil disobedience from motorists and raised tempers on both sides of the debate.  When this experiment is reviewed I hope Lambeth will see sense that if they want to improve LJ closing the roads will not do it.  I foresee any decision to press ahead permanently is likely to give rise to a judicial review challenge on grounds of flawed process, irrationality, and wednesbury unreasonableness.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

AlexH said:


> wednesbury unreasonableness.



Love that. New word for me.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

In case I'm not the only one..
Wednesbury unreasonableness, when you take a public body to court over a decision its made, means you assert that:   



Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## irf520 (Oct 9, 2015)

It depends whose definition of "reasonable" you use.


----------



## bimble (Oct 9, 2015)

irf520 said:


> It depends whose definition of "reasonable" you use.


Reasonable is a key word in English law, it pops up everywhere, it's what lots of cases are to decide, whether or not something is 'reasonable'.


----------



## prunus (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Reasonable is a key word in English law, it pops up everywhere, it's what lots of cases are to decide, whether or not something is 'reasonable'.



It's basically: would a suitably qualified person, in possession of the relevant facts, consider it reasonable.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 9, 2015)

wednesbury unreasonableness
"So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it."

As for the minutes it is normal for a Chair to go through the minutes and edit before publication.
For such important decisions and so few deciding for so many it seems so little is noted.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 9, 2015)

Complain! said:


> do you know about the closure of the left hand turn from Clapham Road to Stockwell Road


Are you sure about this?
That would affect 2, 196, 345, 333 - in other words 4 major bus routes. I think if you are going to make an assertion about major routes you need to provide evidence.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 9, 2015)

critical1 said:


> LJ Road Madness is the one to watch.. getting very lively there.Hot off the press....
> 
> More LJ Madness taken directly from LJAG it's Damning.
> This is the first time any road closure has been discussed by this group.
> ...


Was there a car free week in 2014? I  don't remember it.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 9, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Are you sure about this?
> That would affect 2, 196, 345, 333 - in other words 4 major bus routes. I think if you are going to make an assertion about major routes you need to provide evidence.



I think it's the left turn from South Lambeth Road to Clapham Road that will be prohibited.
Map here:

Citizen Space -	 						Have your say on changes to Stockwell Cross


----------



## Manter (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Most noble I agree, if a bit one sidedly


Looks from here like teuchter has handed you your arse on a plate, more than once, so you've decided to ignore him. Not just a nimby, a scaredy-nimby.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> That is ... revealing.
> Obviously LJAG is given lots of council funding but that clear declaration that they are not going to question the closures at all, whatever the majority of residents might think, is a bit damning.


1. I don't think LJAG do get "lots of council funding". They get the use of meeting rooms in various council locations apparently free. Other than that I think they actively pursue project funding from wherever it is available - which includes SLAM (gardening for health sort of thing) and London Community Foundation spring to mind. Ironically I think LCF is ultimately funded by JP Morgan - so if you are a Russia Today/Max Keiser fan this will no doubt inflame your passion.
2. I have said several times - LJAG see themselves as a campaigning pressure group to improve Loughborough Junction. No doubt when this meeting occurred in 2014 they were desperate to get the issue seriously considered.

I guess their activism has now come home to roost - and the scheme will have to be justified - or scrapped.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 9, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Was there a car free week in 2014? I  don't remember it.


No there was one day  21st September the day the consultation began.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

AlexH said:


> I am against the road closure scheme. Although I  agree with the laudable aims of create a better sociable and cohesive community environment in LJ, reduce pollution etc - all  which I doubt any local people would disagree with - closing the road has the unintended consequence of doing precisely the opposite.



Read your post with interest.

Several posters have said they support aims but not this scheme. 

So whats your alternative?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

Having read past past posts I take it a lot of posters want the scheme scrapped now and no restrictions on motorized traffic through LJ?


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Having read past past posts I take it a lot of posters want the scheme scrapped now and no restrictions on motorized traffic through LJ?



People do have alternative suggestions, and there were other ideas in the Loughborough Junction Plan, traffic calming measures and ways to increase public space for pedestrians, before just closing the main road to see what happens appeared from somewhere as the solution.
Here's one from the other day, for example:



LadyV said:


> Unlike CH1, I would say we should cobble the street, I think we should also do the same to Coldharbour Lane/CHL by the junction, it might provide the safer, nicer town centre feel we've been promised. .
> 
> Here's an idea, reopen Loughborough Road but have a zebra crossing where the pedestrian zone is, a big one, that no one can miss; cobble CHL from Tesco to Co-Op, LR from junction to the end of Wyck Gardens and then some on Hinton Road and Herne Hill Road; have dedicated cycle lanes along all routes; introduce and enforce the 20mph speed limit; think about how to make the road unpalatable for drivers, speed cameras, bumps, whatever is shown to work but still keeping things moving; make it harder for drivers to park in obvious bottlenecks, ie outside Tescos, but have some areas they can stop too so that businesses can have passing traffic; consider a bit of a CPZ on LR and some other areas that are taken advantage of.
> 
> These things should keep people moving whatever they're using, feet, bike, car, bus. Just an idea though.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

Manter said:


> Looks from here like teuchter has handed you your arse on a plate, more than once, so you've decided to ignore him. Not just a nimby, a scaredy-nimby.




Those tags up there on top of the page seem a bit of an OTT place to shout at me. maybe you'll reconsider when you sober up?


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

I've heard back about the "superhub for the wealthy" .

Apparently it's something that was voiced by someone at the meeting as a concern, that this is what could happen, and the minute writer put it down so it looks like making a superhub for the wealthy is GW's intention, instead of showing that it's what someone spoke up to say they did not want to happen. So it wasn't a mispelling of super pub for the elfin or supperclub for the healthy, sadly..


----------



## Manter (Oct 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> Those tags up there on top of the page seem a bit of an OTT place to shout at me. maybe you'll reconsider when you sober up?


God, you really are sanctimonious as well as petulant. I was completely sober. Just sick of your single issue nimby bullshit. 

You refuse to consider alternative points of view, you have not admitted you are talking utter bullshit even when it has been politely pointed out to you. You refuse to engage with any of the bigger issues around pollution, clean air, mass transit..... Just obsessively hunt for bits of information that you can use to infer that the road closure is a conspiracy of some sort. And people that disagree with you get sneered at or put on ignore. 

Many of us on here are single issue obsessives, but to be a single issue obsessive with overtones of paranoia about a road closure? You look round the whole state of the world and the thing that gets you all hot under the collar is a *road closure*?!! Seriously, take a long hard look at how you spend your time.


----------



## Manter (Oct 10, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Having read past past posts I take it a lot of posters want the scheme scrapped now and no restrictions on motorized traffic through LJ?


A lot of posters who have never posted about anything else and have now signed up to bleat. This thread reads like fucking Top Gear


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

Manter, this is not about pollution, or cars versus bikes. It's really not, if you read back a bit you'll see why that's self evident. This thread is about Public Space improvements in Loughborough Junction, not  "the whole state of the world" so if you're not interested in that 'single issue' I'm not sure why you come here.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Having read past past posts I take it a lot of posters want the scheme scrapped now and no restrictions on motorized traffic through LJ?


Just to recap - I did suggest almost a year ago and several times since (including to LJAG direct) that the more minimalist approach of closing Hinton Road makes more sense to me.

Just one small closure to slow up and deter through traffic from outside the area - and none of these intrusive local controls that are winding (some) local residents up.


----------



## Manter (Oct 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> Manter, this is not about pollution, or cars versus bikes. It's really not, if you read back a bit you'll see why that's self evident. It's not about the state of the planet at large. this thread is about public space improvements in Loughborough Junction. If you're not interested in that 'single issue' then I'm not sure why you're here.


Maybe because I live down the road. And am interested int he volume of traffic and pollution and the delays in the area. 

There are posts on just the last few pages about potential pollution increases on coldharbour lane, comparisons to schemes in other parts of London and car use/air quality/displacement of pollution. There is discussion about how air quality is going to be measured. And restrictions on car use, and encouraging mass transit and use of alternative modes of transport *is* about the state of the planet. So what is self evident is that you are claiming its about whatever you want it to be about to meet your slightly bizarre 'no restrictions on car use' agenda.

I'd like the scheme extended further. I'd like the whole area round Brixton road/Loughborough road looked at. More roads closed off. Make all the rat runs as difficult to use as possible.... Dig up some roads and put in skate parks, or something like the skyline in New York. 

You are Jeremy Clarkson and I claim my £5


----------



## CH1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Manter said:


> God, you really are sanctimonious as well as petulant. I was completely sober. Just sick of your single issue nimby bullshit.
> 
> You refuse to consider alternative points of view, you have not admitted you are talking utter bullshit even when it has been politely pointed out to you. You refuse to engage with any of the bigger issues around pollution, clean air, mass transit..... Just obsessively hunt for bits of information that you can use to infer that the road closure is a conspiracy of some sort. And people that disagree with you get sneered at or put on ignore.
> 
> Many of us on here are single issue obsessives, but to be a single issue obsessive with overtones of paranoia about a road closure? You look round the whole state of the world and the thing that gets you all hot under the collar is a *road closure*?!! Seriously, take a long hard look at how you spend your time.


I'm all for cutting pollution - but lately pollution where I live on Coldharbour Lane seems to have got much worse.

I am posting because I have views on managing local road space near where I live.

I have been posting here for some years on a variety of topics. I may be obsessive but I try to be harmless.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

Manter said:


> You are Jeremy Clarkson and I claim my £5



As I've had to repeat a few times when people get all personal, I've never had a driving license, I've never had a car, I don't like cars, or pollution, I'd love more clean air etc ..  I think you owe me a drink.


----------



## Manter (Oct 10, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I'm all for cutting pollution - but lately pollution where I live on Coldharbour Lane seems to have got much worse.
> 
> I am posting because I have views on managing local road space near where I live.
> 
> I have been posting here for some years on a variety of topics. I may be obsessive but I try to be harmless.


I know who you are  we have mutual friends I believe. 

There are about seven new posters who have joined to bleat about road closures, invent outrage about mythical bus journeys that take two hours to do what a car does in 5, make baseless claims of class war and generally promulgate a selfish, nimby agenda. They are who I am irritated and bored by. 

Traffic in and around Brixton is dire. Pollution is appalling. Brixton road particularly is a clusterfuck. So let's discuss that- how do we get people out of their cars.


----------



## Manter (Oct 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> As I've had to repeat a few times when people get all personal, I've never had a driving license, I've never had a car, I don't like cars, or pollution, I'd love more clean air etc ..  I think you owe me a drink.


In one of those pubs you so approve of that bar people because they don't have the 'right' views? Sounds ghastly.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

Manter said:


> In one of those pubs you so approve of that bar people because they don't have the 'right' views? Sounds ghastly.


You can't really have misunderstood that badly, surely? My whole problem here, why I'm so obsessed with it, is that this bungled scheme with its shit consultation has done more to divide the area cause friction and polarise people than anything else I can imagine.
That post I put up about LJAG volunteers being barred from the only pub in central LJ because of the road closures, if you got the impression I was happy about that you totally wrong ended the stick.


----------



## Manter (Oct 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> You can't really have misunderstood that badly, surely? My whole problem here, why I'm so obsessed with it, is that this bungled scheme with its shit consultation has done more to divide the area cause friction and polarise people than anything else I can imagine.


More than eviction of the short life tenants? Redevelopment of council housing into private flats? Closure of libraries and other public services? The threat to the Rec? The influx of new restaurants and shops? Network rail's plans for the arches? The closure of small businesses due to rent hikes and developments like Higgs Road? Threats to cressingham gardens? 

And here we have the crux of the matter- in your nimby road-obsession you have completely failed to even notice let alone appreciate what is changing the fabric of local society and threatening community cohesion.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

Manter said:


> More than eviction of the short life tenants? Redevelopment of council housing into private flats? Closure of libraries and other public services? The threat to the Rec? The influx of new restaurants and shops? Network rail's plans for the arches? The closure of small businesses due to rent hikes and developments like Higgs Road? Threats to cressingham gardens?
> 
> And here we have the crux of the matter- in your nimby road-obsession you have completely failed to even notice let alone appreciate what is changing the fabric of local society and threatening community cohesion.


I totally agree with all of what you say. It's just that it seems to me this act, of closing the road without involving residents, apart from the 181 of them who joined in the consultation to say they approved of the plan, has been so drastic in its impact and got people so furious with mass meetings and stuff, that this right now is where the sharp end is, here in LJ. 
And there are other places where people talk about the valid and important points you raise. I think the National rail thing is urgent here too but the other bits aren't really part of the Loughborough junction public space improvements conversation .


----------



## critical1 (Oct 10, 2015)

TROLL

As never read or care about consultation, the democratic process, the cooperative values, the inclusion in decision making process, the legal obligations, the exclusion of residents, the death of local bizz, the return to worklessness, the destruction of local communities.. all decided by a table of 6 people...


----------



## Manter (Oct 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> I totally agree with all of what you say. It's just that it seems to me this act, of closing the road without involving residents, apart from the 181 of them who joined in the consultation to say they approved of the plan, has been so drastic in its impact and got people so furious with mass meetings and stuff, that this right now is where the sharp end is, here in LJ.


And this is precisely my issue with your arguments. The sharp end? A short stretch of road in LJ? Not even slightly. Not if you went to the Rec consultation, or speak to people at cressingham, or were at the protests outside some of the short life buildings. Or, or, or. Stop being so parochial. Look up.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

Manter said:


> Not if you went to the Rec consultation, or speak to people at cressingham, or were at the protests outside some of the short life buildings. Or, or, or. Stop being so parochial. Look up.


ok. Yes.. Just this isn't the place where those things are discussed. i admit I'm obsessive, even though I deny being Jeremy Clarkson.Can we stop fighting please.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2015)

The Loughborough Junction "improvements" are, as critical1 says, part of a culture of poor consultation and of poor service at Lambeth Council. A little forethought, and plans designed around robust consultation of the local population, might have offered insights beyond the polarised views that have emerged. IIRC, when Putney did a similar scheme way back in the 80s, they deliberately staggered closures so that they could study the displacement effects before proceeding with the next phase. Lambeth COULD have done similar, but chose to go for the tactics they've used instead. As a result, a possibly beneficial scheme is likely to get flushed down the toilet.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 10, 2015)

I gently suggest Manter get's off here and goes and learns more about the world that has issues far greater for your concern. What you are displaying on here is not exactly friendly but in the area of bullying. Just because someone chooses to have opinions about where they live and the effects of radical changes NOT agreed or supported by the majority of the community doesn't mean you get on their case. I await a barrage of abuse  lol


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> Instead of letting these road closures split us along imaginary green / motorist  or class war type lines, and getting stuck in a false distracting argument, it would be great if we could try to talk instead about what sort of LJ we actually want to see, what changes would work here & how we might try to move forward with the widest possible public engagement to reflect the diverse place this is - because there's no question that change is coming and very fast like it or not.



These splits at not imaginary. 

One of the better things about this thread is the debate about green issues and class. 

Secondly who is the "we"?

What I see is different visions for LJ and conflicting views. 

How and who has the right to decide on the future of LJ is the question.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> I gently suggest Manter get's off here and goes and learns more about the world that has issues far greater for your concern. What you are displaying on here is not exactly friendly but in the area of bullying. Just because someone chooses to have opinions about where they live and the effects of radical changes NOT agreed or supported by the majority of the community doesn't mean you get on their case. I await a barrage of abuse  lol



Therefore the question that needs to be asked first is how changes are decided.

So far except for people saying they are in majority I see no plan of how democratic decisions are made on local changes.

Who gets a say, how its evaluated and what methodology is used.

For example a referendum of people living in a defined area on plans that will alter streetscape.

Until an agreed way of consultation and local decision making is agreed there are always going to be arguments.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> And there are other places where people talk about the valid and important points you raise. I think the National rail thing is urgent here too but the other bits aren't really part of the Loughborough junction public space improvements conversation .



The other issues are part of the conversation. If only as when I have talked to people thats how they talk about it. They see , as a poster some time back pointed out (cuppa tee ), that these improvements are part of the Council wanting to "regenerate" the area leading to the less well off getting pushed out.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Just to recap - I did suggest almost a year ago and several times since (including to LJAG direct) that the more minimalist approach of closing Hinton Road makes more sense to me.
> 
> Just one small closure to slow up and deter through traffic from outside the area - and none of these intrusive local controls that are winding (some) local residents up.



At the last LJ Neighbourhood planning meeting Hinton road closure got support from all sides. (I think. Correct me if I am wrong)

So I think its worth pursuing that option.

This would still be intended to reduce through traffic. So its still going to be objected to by some local business. It will also mean some traffic will have to use other routes.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 10, 2015)

http://loughboroughjunction.us2.lis...a8fc275dc2daf27f88&id=a7e666ff4d&e=e96985970d
IF the bid is successful:
Shipping containers, timber frame buildings and self build. Amphitheatre and the Loughborough Farm on the roof!
Begins IF successful  April 2016 Complete 2036 = 20 years! 
Regeneration	
Pop Loughborough in the making?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

Manter said:


> Maybe because I live down the road. And am interested int he volume of traffic and pollution and the delays in the area.
> 
> There are posts on just the last few pages about potential pollution increases on coldharbour lane, comparisons to schemes in other parts of London and car use/air quality/displacement of pollution. There is discussion about how air quality is going to be measured. And restrictions on car use, and encouraging mass transit and use of alternative modes of transport *is* about the state of the planet. So what is self evident is that you are claiming its about whatever you want it to be about to meet your slightly bizarre 'no restrictions on car use' agenda.



My criticism of some recent posts here is that are of the variety that the all reasonable people agree that car use needs to be reduced but not in my area.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> http://loughboroughjunction.us2.lis...a8fc275dc2daf27f88&id=a7e666ff4d&e=e96985970d
> IF the bid is successful:
> Shipping containers, timber frame buildings and self build. Amphitheatre and the Loughborough Farm on the roof!
> Begins IF successful  April 2016 Complete 2036 = 20 years!
> ...



Having read some of the pdf does sound like Pop for Loughborough. 

Cocktails in a Container surrounded by plants. Nice. Write ups in Time Out. LJ makes it to the big time.

If your lucky Brixton Green might offer business advice.Cllr Jacko Hopkins might take a personal interest in this.

Told them at last LJ Neighbourhood planning meeting not to go ahead with this without full consultation of local community.

This is the whole problem with things up in LJ. Projects are started then people are told its good for them.

How not to deliver "regeneration".


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> How and who has the right to decide on the future of LJ is the question.


Agree completely. That's why so upset about the current situation, pushed through by (it seems to me) a tiny minority who were able to get heard in the failed consultation process.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> I gently suggest Manter get's off here and goes and learns more about the world that has issues far greater for your concern. What you are displaying on here is not exactly friendly but in the area of bullying. Just because someone chooses to have opinions about where they live and the effects of radical changes NOT agreed or supported by the majority of the community doesn't mean you get on their case. I await a barrage of abuse  lol



The rules of this site permit "robust discussion". Frankly it makes for better interaction AND explanation of issues than pussy-footing and pretending to be nice. Some posters see " robust discussion" as bullying. Others welcome it as indicative of transcending the "special snowflake syndrome" that some posters appear to suffer from.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 10, 2015)

Can someone summarise the class argument for me? Ive seen it raised a few times but can't now find the bit that explains how class is relevant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Therefore the question that needs to be asked first is how changes are decided.
> 
> So far except for saying they are in majority I see no plan of how democratic decisions are made on local changes.
> 
> ...



A cynic might arrive at the conclusion that the method of "consultation" used was chosen deliberately, to engineer changes that officers of the council had already decided on.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Another anecdote from Peckham


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Having read some of the pdf does sound like Pop for Loughborough.
> 
> Cocktails in a Container surrounded by plants. Nice. Write ups in Time Out. LJ makes it to the big time.
> 
> ...



Well quite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> Agree completely. That's why so upset about the current situation, pushed through by (it seems to me) a tiny minority who were able to get heard in the failed consultation process.



"Consultation", despite local authority " best practice" rules, appears to be a moveable feast for many council officers. Here at Cressingham Gardens, one of our residents was granted a Judicial Review of the legality of Lambeth's consultation on the future of the estate - at best we're talking "stage-management", at worst, deliberate manipulation of process to produce a desired result.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Exactly that at Loughborough they knew if they truly consulted residents and businesses the answer would have been a resounding NO to closures.
Nothing says people do not want to look at alternatives.

When a leading LJAG individual asks estate residents do they really want rich people driving down their road (Loughborough Road) tell us please who is talking about class here and supporting a divide? 
Certainly not the residents!


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2015)

The traffic congestion along the western end of Coldharbour Lane is getting worse. I left at 1pm and the queue stretched as far as the eye could see, and it was the same story at 6.30pm when I returned. I'd hate to be living in those flats further down that have their front windows right up against the road as all that idling traffic must be pumping out pollution galore.


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2015)

Here's how it looked a couple of hours ago. As Cilla might say, that's a lorra lorra traffic. And fumes.


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

But the pollution levels on coldharbour lane will not be taken into account at all when Lambeth conducts the whole 2 hours of its assessment of this scheme, air quality wise.

They will just measure Loughborough road, before closure and after.

Coldharbour lane any changes to air quality there will be deemed coincidental & unconnected to the road closures.

What is the emoticon for this ?


----------



## bimble (Oct 10, 2015)

these are from the top of the 345 yesterday. Note CCTV car just behind the brand new £130 fine sign. So far I'm not feeling so much public space improvement


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 10, 2015)

9 minute stand off st jamess crescent today  look   3 parts   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3HsJLaCWfo 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z43eFDXMows


----------



## Crispy (Oct 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> http://loughboroughjunction.us2.lis...a8fc275dc2daf27f88&id=a7e666ff4d&e=e96985970d
> IF the bid is successful:
> Shipping containers, timber frame buildings and self build. Amphitheatre and the Loughborough Farm on the roof!
> Begins IF successful  April 2016 Complete 2036 = 20 years!
> ...


Thread here: Loughborough Junction regeneration project, inc. Farm site



Gramsci said:


> Having read some of the pdf does sound like Pop for Loughborough.



The land is KIBA (Key Industrial Business Area) designated which means no retail, food or drink. It'll be workshops, studios and other sorts of workspace. Similar construction method; different contents.

Disappointed to see no mention of LETRA.

I also see they've taken Makerspace's general support and turned it into a specific proposal to run the shared workspace. Not something I signed up to!


----------



## CH1 (Oct 10, 2015)

editor said:


> The traffic congestion along the western end of Coldharbour Lane is getting worse. I left at 1pm and the queue stretched as far as the eye could see, and it was the same story at 6.30pm when I returned. I'd hate to be living in those flats further down that have their front windows right up against the road as all that idling traffic must be pumping out pollution galore.


I never open my road-facing windows unless it's more than 30°C. The diesel fumes coat everything facing the road with soot in short order.

My former next-door neighbour was proud that one of his illicit tenants had been a fireman in his former life in South America and used get him to hose down the windows regularly so they sparkled - unlike everyone else in our stretch.

And yes it has been particularly bad today traffic wise.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> http://loughboroughjunction.us2.lis...a8fc275dc2daf27f88&id=a7e666ff4d&e=e96985970d
> IF the bid is successful:
> Shipping containers, timber frame buildings and self build. Amphitheatre and the Loughborough Farm on the roof!
> Begins IF successful  April 2016 Complete 2036 = 20 years!
> ...


At least it is publicly available. That said I note that these applications for projects round here (i.e. Coldharbour Ward) generally have a preamble about how deprived we all are - and then proposes to use the grant to achieve what look to be trendy or middle class objectives.

I suppose this is not exactly class war - more a form of Darwinian social struggle where the well connected and well educated scoop the prize.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Thread here: Loughborough Junction regeneration project, inc. Farm site
> 
> 
> The land is KIBA (Key Industrial Business Area) designated which means no retail, food or drink. It'll be workshops, studios and other sorts of workspace. Similar construction method; different contents.
> ...



And the specific proposal related to Makerspace is more commercially orientated. So they ( and I am not clear who wrote it. LJAG ? Council officers? Or both together?) wrote this and put application in without properly consulting those named in application. This is not good start. 

The whole Farm site is tainted with ongoing longstanding issues about LJAG. 

If I was you I would keep Makerspace out of this.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> Agree completely. That's why so upset about the current situation, pushed through by (it seems to me) a tiny minority who were able to get heard in the failed consultation process.



I was trying to get away from the more personalised dislike of LJAG. Or the assumption that people would have opposed this if they had been consulted "properly". If they had been consulted properly they might have been willing to give it a go- as teuchter pointed out. If it had been brought in gradually as ViolentPanda posted it might not have been resented so much.

The long standing dislike of LJAG has reduced any possibility that a scheme like this might be given a chance.

Posters here have been complaining about consultation.

The question I am putting is how consultation will work in future and how. So far no one has come up with concrete proposals.

LJAG have there views on how LJ should develop. Lambeth Cyclists have there views on road use. Car drivers who come up from outside LJ have complained about having to make a detour.

Loughborough Estate Management Board dislike what they see as LJAG taking over land that came under them. 

My point being as the Council application for the Farm site says LJ is "diverse" area. "Proper" consultation is going to show that there are opposing views on LJ.

The Council as elected body have final say. If people dont like it they can vote Cllrs out ( in theory). As the overall body for Lambeth the Council have the right to look at improvements to LJ in the wider context. That is policies like ones previously quoted about transport and road use. Which means prioritising pedestrians and cycling in improvements to public realm and road use. If people dont like that they can tell Labour Cllrs to change there policy to one of accepting the status quo. Which is imo what a lot of the anti road closure posters want.


From what I see LJ like most of London is made up of different groups. Any local consultation plan should include all of them- including LJAG.

Whilst I think LJAG are rather a middle class lot that does not mean that everything they do is to rubbished. 

As
CH1 correctly implies in his posts here its middle class who have the social capital, as it put, to participate and have effect on local government. In a way that deprived areas like on the Loughborough Estate residents do not. IMO a job of a Labour Council should be to support the residents of Council estates to have an equal influence. Which is why I posted pages back that the remit for the consultation on this scheme should be expanded to look at the underlying tensions in the LJ area. Also what the Estate residents want out of "improvements" to LJ. ie for example the adventure playground refurbished and re opened.

Im also afraid that all green type initiatives are now likely to be labelled as middle class. Why I told Makerspace to keep out of this. Cycling , urban food growing etc are now all seen as middle class.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> 9 minute stand off st jamess crescent today  look   3 parts
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3HsJLaCWfo
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z43eFDXMows



This is totally unacceptable. I used to walk to and from work twice a day for 20 years along St James's Crescent/Fyfield Road/Villa Road (cheaper to go home for lunch and listen to The World at One).

I have never ever seen traffic like that in this residential area. If it was in Dulwich it wouldn't be tolerated. Ask Helen Hayes!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 77912 View attachment 77914 View attachment 77917
> these are from the top of the 345 yesterday. Note CCTV car just behind the brand new £130 fine sign. So far I'm not feeling so much public space improvement



That my bit of CHL. 

I walked up to Coop shop when it was all packed out with traffic. Half the cars had one person in them.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Half the cars had one person in them.


That's usually the case. I bet in the Loughborough Estate traffic jam above it was exactly so.

People could be encouraged to buy smaller electric cars - to cut down on space requirement, congestion and pollution. Problem is this is very costly for the car owner, and could only be a long term solution (many years into the future).

I'm wondering whether the government might consider something like the "boiler scrappage scheme" introduced by John Prescott and implemented from 2010 - 2013, whereby it became illegal to install non-condensing central heating boilers - and cash incentives were provided to induce people to change to condensing boilers. Such a system could be imposed on motor vehicles - to force a changeover to electrical rather than diesel or petrol powered vehicles. Actually even LPG powered vehicles would be less polluting.

Can't see the present government going for this though. And anyway this is a national question - whereas we are really dealing with Loughborough Road.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 77912 View attachment 77914 View attachment 77917
> these are from the top of the 345 yesterday. Note CCTV car just behind the brand new £130 fine sign. So far I'm not feeling so much public space improvement



I wonder how much council tax money has been spent on that fancy new digital sign?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> This is totally unacceptable. I used to walk to and from work twice a day for 20 years along St James's Crescent/Fyfield Road/Villa Road (cheaper to go home for lunch and listen to The World at One).
> 
> I have never ever seen traffic like that in this residential area. If it was in Dulwich it wouldn't be tolerated. Ask Helen Hayes!



Problem is, that's pretty much the only way through now from Coldharbour Lane into the estate. Only other ways are Gresham Rd, Wiltshire Rd, Angell Rd or all the way along to Denmark Rd. So it should have been easily predictable.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> That's usually the case. I bet in the Loughborough Estate traffic jam above it was exactly so.
> 
> People could be encouraged to buy smaller electric cars - to cut down on space requirement, congestion and pollution. Problem is this is very costly for the car owner, and could only be a long term solution (many years into the future).
> 
> ...



Last time they had a scrappage scheme, the effect would have been to add even more diesel cars, which generate more pollution. The active pushing of car buyers towards diesel (driven by carbon dioxide mania) will have contributed to increasing pollution.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> That's usually the case. I bet in the Loughborough Estate traffic jam above it was exactly so.
> 
> People could be encouraged to buy smaller electric cars - to cut down on space requirement, congestion and pollution. Problem is this is very costly for the car owner, and could only be a long term solution (many years into the future).
> 
> ...



The effect of the ultra low emission zone will have effect of making more use of electric vehicles. This , as I have said before , as had a lot of opposition. My van driver acquaintance was bitterly complaining about it to me yesterday. Same complaint as have been voiced here. He was all for less pollution but ....Another example is 520 post above. Whatever is done it will never work. Its all about keeping the status quo.

What you highlight is this. Everyone agrees something must be done. But any proposal is supposedly so difficult it will be pushed to "many years in the future". ie never. There was a documentary a few years ago about the electric car. How people were working on it years ago and car companies saw it as threat to them and stopped it. The technology is there to do all this. It takes political will to do it. There is however a whole lot of opposition to any change. 

National and local issues go together. Whats being trialled ( badly) at LJ is not so exceptional. Traffic reduction in favour of pedestrians and cyclists away from cars is and has been done elsewhere in London. Or as posters have said being planned and opposed in other parts of London.

LJ is a case study in how not to do it at this time.

However was thinking of other parts of London were this was attempted and got a lot of opposition. Soho/ Covent Garden- Council tried to do this. Good idea but most of it was scrapped after heated opposition. Though recently some of it was brought back around Seven Dials (Earlham st) ,Chinatown ( Lisle st/ Wardour st) and Soho ( Kingly st).

This road closure experiment should be seen as that. If its does not work then alter it. But don’t just ditch the idea.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Last time they had a scrappage scheme, the effect would have been to add even more diesel cars, which generate more pollution. The active pushing of car buyers towards diesel (driven by carbon dioxide mania) will have contributed to increasing pollution.



How about banning outright diesel and petrol engines in cars? Technically possible. Simple solution.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 11, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> How about banning outright diesel and petrol engines in cars? Technically possible. Simple solution.



Simple solution if you don't have a car, yes. If you do have a car and find that it is suddenly banned, not so simple. You either have to come up with £20K+ that you probably don't have, or do without a car, which is a problem if you work a long way away and getting there by public transport isn't really a viable option. Or if you need a car for any other reason.
Another problem with electric cars is the limited range, which would also cause problems in the case I described above.

If you allowed hybrids rather than just pure electric and allowed a reasonable sunset period for people to change over (several years) then it might be possible.
If I remember correctly, taxis will all be hybrids when the new ULEZ comes in (at least after a while).
You would still have the pollution generated by vans and lorries.

I suspect though that such a draconian move would be a vote loser for any party which proposed it.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 11, 2015)

editor said:


> Here's how it looked a couple of hours ago. As Cilla might say, that's a lorra lorra traffic. And fumes.
> 
> View attachment 77910


yep it stretched all the way down Shakespeare Road...into Herne Hill..


----------



## critical1 (Oct 11, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Thread here: Loughborough Junction regeneration project, inc. Farm site
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ever heard of "Change of use"


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

This is interesting,even though its about New York, and not about roads. It's someone's study of how "there are deviant cases where the relentless nature of the gentrification process is challenged by pockets of tenant association led resistance".
http://fordham.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=urban_studies_masters


----------



## Manter (Oct 11, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> I gently suggest Manter get's off here and goes and learns more about the world that has issues far greater for your concern. What you are displaying on here is not exactly friendly but in the area of bullying. Just because someone chooses to have opinions about where they live and the effects of radical changes NOT agreed or supported by the majority of the community doesn't mean you get on their case. I await a barrage of abuse  lol


What?! I disagree with you so I should leave the thread and find out more about it till I do agree with you? What on earth?!

And as for the barrage of abuse.... This rather proves my point that there a cohort of newbies who have signed up to whine about a nimby agenda. Actually try reading some of the rest of the board and then come back and tell me if you really think it's a place for such a delicate little flower.

Edit- and you accusing me of bullying for pointing out that I think the arguments against this are hysterical, poorly argued, unconvincing and pretty transparently nimby is pathetic. But also irritating as the use of 'bully' for 'anyone or anything I don't like' is the behaviour of a petulant child, not a thoughtful adult.


----------



## Manter (Oct 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> A cynic might arrive at the conclusion that the method of "consultation" used was chosen deliberately, to engineer changes that officers of the council had already decided on.


You know my views on Lambeth


----------



## Manter (Oct 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I never open my road-facing windows unless it's more than 30°C. The diesel fumes coat everything facing the road with soot in short order.
> 
> My former next-door neighbour was proud that one of his illicit tenants had been a fireman in his former life in South America and used get him to hose down the windows regularly so they sparkled - unlike everyone else in our stretch.
> 
> And yes it has been particularly bad today traffic wise.


That suggests to me that traffic has always been a pollution problem down that stretch. 

Also, do we know the traffic increase is down to the road closures? Brixton has changed a lot, maybe more people have cars? What about the roadworks at the top by oval- maybe people are avoiding the Kennington route in and are redirecting via camberwell? 

The issue as I see it is discouraging car use, and/or redirecting the main traffic funnels in and around London- Brixton Road, Loughborough road, Coldharbour Lane


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

Manter said:


> do we know the traffic increase is down to the road closures?



Can't prove it either way.
All we have is anecdotal observations that congestion & fumes on CHL seem to have increased a lot since the closure of the adjoining main road.

The convenor of Abellio buses has offered to collect some data on the average journey times between stops on routes 35 45 and 345 before and since the closures, which may clarify things a bit, even though I know there have been other problems elsewhere too which may have added to the mess.

The fact that CHL is being used as the 'control' in the planned 2 hour air quality assessment, does that seem to you like a good method if these closures are all about improving air quality and reducing pollution?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 11, 2015)

Manter said:


> That suggests to me that traffic has always been a pollution problem down that stretch.
> 
> Also, do we know the traffic increase is down to the road closures? Brixton has changed a lot, maybe more people have cars? What about the roadworks at the top by oval- maybe people are avoiding the Kennington route in and are redirecting via camberwell?
> 
> The issue as I see it is discouraging car use, and/or redirecting the main traffic funnels in and around London- Brixton Road, Loughborough road, Coldharbour Lane


I've lived here since 1986 and pollution has always been a  problem. It wasn't until I got double glazing that I could appreciate a normal life without constant intrusion by traffic noise.

Whatever the reason the last few weeks there have been constant traffic jams down here. I think it is even affecting bus services - they are turning the 345 at Battersea Bridge sometimes at the moment - suggesting the service is having problems completing the route in the allotted time.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think it is even affecting bus services - they are turning the 345 at Battersea Bridge sometimes at the moment - suggesting the service is having problems completing the route in the allotted time.



At the bus depot, there was strong consensus that since the closures they have not been able to keep to the times allotted for journeys on CHL /between Brixton & Camberwell, that those journey times have increased a lot. But even with proper figures from their records to prove this some people will surely dismiss the data & argue that it's not connected with the closures but with other factors further afield.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 11, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Ever heard of "Change of use"


It would require a change of policy, not just a planning application. No, it's not watertight, but it can't be pop-ified overnight.

(for example, the KIBA policy was a major reason in turning down the application to turn Piano House into part residential, on the grounds that it was designated for employment)


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> 9 minute stand off st jamess crescent today  look   3 parts
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3HsJLaCWfo
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z43eFDXMows




Nice description here of the atmosphere round the junction lately


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 11, 2015)

Regeneration Document, once again  limited consultation which amounted to about 50 people if that and at the recent Loughborough Junction Neighbourhood Planning Forum out of 20 in the room many said it was too fast, no proper consultation, they should take their time but because they had to submit the bid by the 2nd October there was no real time! They had been drawing up the plans for 2 weeks and then they had 2 weeks to discuss it with the community!

As for no food it says in the bid:
"A third offer is being explored, providing shared food production space."  (sounds like places to eat food, not just cook it, Ramen noodles anyone? )
The bid further states:
"We are currently receiving expresions of interest for partners to run the food production space." (clearly spell check not used in the rushed bid)

And here we have it:
"The milestones and funding schedule is based on the assumption that detailed design, planning and construction should take one year. This is based on similar experiences with other projects, such as Pop Brixton."

The document reads quite offensively actually as it seems to USE the estate residents as a way to win the bid by using poverty and low education, BMI, number of youth, but lots of people know it is clearly not being created for them.
Do you think anyone has spoken to the residents on Styles Gardens about looking directly out of their front room windows onto shipping containers and a farm on the top of the containers?


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

Anyone know what is happening with that bit on the corner of the junction where there's currently a wall of black painted chipboard with ancient billboard ads behind ? Council property ?


----------



## prunus (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> Anyone know what is happening with that bit on the corner of the junction where there's currently a wall of black painted chipboard with ancient billboard ads behind ? Council property ?



Big development going up behind there and round the old bank as well - sort of L-shaped. There's a thread on it somewhere - or comments in anothe thread - with some details. Will try to find it for you...


----------



## prunus (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> Anyone know what is happening with that bit on the corner of the junction where there's currently a wall of black painted chipboard with ancient billboard ads behind ? Council property ?



See Buzz here: Scented community garden in Loughborough Junction is in full bloom – but the axe is looming

And this thread from here: Loughborough Junction chitter-chatter

for a bit more info.

(Ok, not really L-shaped, that's my poor memory.  Odd-shaped though  )

Note (cheekily) praise being given to LJAG for "wonderful" scented garden.  Can everyone get back to being on the same side...?


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

prunus said:


> See Buzz here: Scented community garden in Loughborough Junction is in full bloom – but the axe is looming
> 
> And this thread from here: Loughborough Junction chitter-chatter
> 
> ...



I see. Thanks. Lovely orange balconies for the new residents to enjoy, overlooking the junction at coldharbour lane. .


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)




----------



## prunus (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 77934



?


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

(I was just a bit surprised that there's no sign of the ongoing consultation process that's underway here, or indeed of any other current consultation process going on on any subject at all anywhere in Lambeth)


----------



## prunus (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> (I was just a bit surprised that there's no sign of the ongoing consultation process that's underway here, or indeed of any other current consultation process going on on any subject at all anywhere in Lambeth)



There aren't any ongoing at the moment it seems.  The last one closed a week ago apparently.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

Hmm. and then again, if you find a website called Vassal View, that's where it says things like this (about the road closures) :



and ...


----------



## prunus (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> Hmm. and then again, if you find a website called Vassal View, that's where it says things like this (about the road closures) :
> 
> View attachment 77942



I guess as that's not a lambeth-direct consultation it doesn't get to go on the website.  Or whoever is responsible for connecting them together hasn't yet. Lambeth, and all organisations, are just people, and people are fallible. Just because they might be in positions of authority doesn't make them any less so unfortunately.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

Of course that true, and I'm not shouting evil conspiracy.

Just not seeing any evidence at all to date of how Lambeth "would like to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of and involved in this project".

All we got (that I saw personally) were a few of those laminated planning type sheets of A4 stuck to relevant lamposts when they closed the roads, with a postal address for Barbara Poulter on. They've all been removed now and far as I know she's been away from the office for the last couple of months. Meanwhile, Stockwell Partnership have not yet done a thing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 11, 2015)

Manter said:


> That suggests to me that traffic has always been a pollution problem down that stretch.
> 
> Also, do we know the traffic increase is down to the road closures? Brixton has changed a lot, maybe more people have cars? What about the roadworks at the top by oval- maybe people are avoiding the Kennington route in and are redirecting via camberwell?
> 
> The issue as I see it is discouraging car use, and/or redirecting the main traffic funnels in and around London- Brixton Road, Loughborough road, Coldharbour Lane



IMO the larger part of the problem resides in the fact that vehicle use is so heavy throughout inner London that traffic calming/public space improvements/whatever displaces rather than lessens problems. As we know though, there's not really anywhere for that traffic to be displaced to.
IF people HAVE to drive, I'd like to see the sort of scheme used in German cities in place: Incentives to buy small-engined (800-1200cc) "city cars", hybrids and electrics, alongside THOROUGH cycling networks and punitive measures for lone drivers in larger-engined cars (cue whining from the " driving is freedom" lobby!).
So, ain't gonna happen!


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Incentives to buy small-engined (800-1200cc) "city cars", hybrids and electrics, alongside THOROUGH cycling networks and punitive measures for lone drivers in larger-engined cars


That sounds like an idea that would actually work, reducing pollution instead of just moving it around a bit. Would also make slightly nervous cyclists (like me) really happy.

Why do you think Germany can do that but it's impossible here?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> Anyone know what is happening with that bit on the corner of the junction where there's currently a wall of black painted chipboard with ancient billboard ads behind ? Council property ?


Private property with planning permission for flats with shops below as per before World War II streetscape - except the style will be bland like the Harriers or Brixton Square [when they get round to building it]


----------



## CH1 (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> I see. Thanks. Lovely orange balconies for the new residents to enjoy, overlooking the junction at coldharbour lane. .


Juliet balconies are de rigeur to ensure saleability/lettability is would appear.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

prunus said:


> Note (cheekily) praise being given to LJAG for "wonderful" scented garden.  Can everyone get back to being on the same side...?



Yes, Why can't we all just do as the latest advertising space Lambeth paid for (right at the junction in LJ)  say ?



Incidentally, somewhere on here languishes this thread, started ..3 years ago, but with only the one post in it so far.
(which is a shame because I know that LJAG volunteers do watch U75)


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 11, 2015)




----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> View attachment 77953


Put the link up, so people can sign if they want to.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

here it is, link to the  above petition to reverse the closures
 
 Lambeth Council: Reverse the Loughborough Junction Road Closures Now!


----------



## critical1 (Oct 11, 2015)

*Lambeth Council: Reverse the Loughborough Junction Road Closures Now!*
Please click below to sign the petition.
Lambeth Council: Reverse the Loughborough Junction Road Closures Now!

The closure of six roads in the Loughborough Junction and Myatt’s Fields neighbourhoods is causing anger, distress and danger.

Traffic is being pushed onto small side roads and causing massive congestion on the larger roads, Coldharbour Lane in particular. This is making roads more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, putting lives at risk, increasing journey times considerably and increasing pollution in the roads the traffic is being diverted to.

Please sign our petition and join the campaign:
Email: ljroadmadness@gmail.com
Tweet: @ljroadmadness
Facebook: LJ Road Madness


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

Manter said:


> the use of 'bully' for 'anyone or anything I don't like' is the behaviour of a petulant child, not a thoughtful adult.



Hi Manter,
Forum tags seem to be maxed out at 8, so we're there already:
"get a grip" & "disproportionate hysteria" are really helpful but.. would you maybe consider just choosing between "nimby" and "scaredy-nimby" please?
xxx


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 11, 2015)

Looks as if Rosendale Road closures might not go ahead from what some residents are saying


----------



## critical1 (Oct 11, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Looks as if Rosendale Road closures might not go ahead from what some residents are saying


Lambeth does not want to upset Rosendale Road residents as some of them are extremely wealthy & influential! figures really....


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Looks as if Rosendale Road closures might not go ahead from what some residents are saying


There are more closures as part of this plan ? Didn't know.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> That sounds like an idea that would actually work, reducing pollution instead of just moving it around a bit. Would also make slightly nervous cyclists (like me) really happy.
> 
> Why do you think Germany can do that but it's impossible here?



Its actually what is starting to be brought in to London. Mayor and TFL starting to push these ideas to reality. 

The new cycle highways for example. Supported by what some posters here call the "selfish middles class" cyclists.

The ultra emission zone will make it to expensive to use polluting vehicles for deliveries etc. Que outrage at destroying jobs.

Germany has a different political culture. Here its all about individual. Same goes for housing in Germany. Talking to a German recently and they do not understand obsession with house prices and ownership here. Same goes for transport. Here its all about perceived individual rights and reform of transport is considered attack on individual. Its the legacy of the Thatcher era. 

As my van driver friend said to me in London its all "me me me". He wants out of London completely now. 

Unless issues like housing and transport are sorted out to provide equitable and affordable way to live and go around London its going to become a nastier places than its now.


.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I
> Germany has a different political culture. Here its all about individual. Same goes for housing in Germany. Talking to a German recently and they do not understand obsession with house prices and ownership here.
> .


True must be connected to how most germans rent and most english own their castles.
Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent. Here’s why


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 11, 2015)

No nothing to do with this scheme.
But Lambeth seem to be very influenced by cyclists. But as critical 1 pointed out some residents there tend to be more affluential.


----------



## prunus (Oct 11, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Lambeth does not want to upset Rosendale Road residents as some of them are extremely wealthy & influential! figures really....



Lambeth does not want to upset anyone. Please try to keep a tight hold on this kind of paranoid and divisive thinking, it's not helpful. 

It is true that Lambeth (like any body with responsibility for groups of people) will tend to listen most to those that make the most noise - this may not be ideal, but limited time, resources and so make it inevitable in any circumstances. 

It is probably largely (although not always) true that the 'middle class' (for want of a better term) have more social capital in this regard - ie are more able to make the kind of noise that makes the council listen to them.  But it's not because they're wealthy per se. 

The answer to this is not to decry that ability and hunker down into a them-and-us mindset of 'figures really...', but to do the same - either (ideally) by *joining forces* (pretty much everybody in a neighbourhood wants the same things - safer, cleaner, less traffic, less pollution, more amenities), or that's not possible then by organising separate interest groups if necessary - this is what appears to be happening in response to the road closures, and this is to be applauded. Hopefully the engagement can be continued positively after this (ie not just negative 'we don't want this ' but positive 'this is what we want'). Then hopefully we'll see changes more evenly spread out across the desires of the various interest groups; which as I say I think are lately congruous anyway. 

Essay over


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

prunus said:


> Hopefully the engagement can be continued positively after this (ie not just negative 'we don't want this ' but positive 'this is what we want'). Then hopefully we'll see changes more evenly spread out across the desires of the various interest groups; which as I say I think are lately congruous anyway.
> Essay over




Yes! I know everyone is really busy & preoccupied with the immediate problem just now , which does take the form of "no we do not want that", but .. if you have time please look at this link here, potentially really interesting.

It's an offer of help and funding for anyone in coldharbour ward who has ideas for what they want to see happening & who might want guidance & funding to effectively influence the decisions that are being made.

They have given money to LJAG because LJAG applied to them for funding but they are 'non aligned' & they are looking for new people to fund & assist.

http://www.londoncf.org.uk/shared/building-communities-in-coldharbour.aspx

Their website says " *Our community development initiative in Coldharbour ward, Lambeth, focuses on encouraging residents in Loughborough Junction and the surrounding area to contribute their skills, ideas and time to improving the area for the whole community*. We are also working with donors to bring external investment to the area to provide services and facilities that help to tackle local issues identified by the community*.*  Using an Asset Based Community Development approach (ABCD) we are working with residents on the ground to turn their ideas into a reality, and *we will be piloting community-led commissioning, supporting residents to shape the services delivered in their area.*

*In other areas, large-scale building and regeneration efforts are rapidly changing the face of London, triggering huge community upheaval and increasing the gap between the wealthy and those living on the poverty line*. We are working with companies and local authorities to encourage philanthropy and t*o develop area-based funds that can support community action in the future.'*


----------



## prunus (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes! I know everyone is really busy & preoccupied with the immediate problem just now , which does take the form of "no we do not want that", but .. if you have time please look at this link here, potentially really interesting.
> 
> It's an offer of help and funding for anyone in coldharbour ward who has ideas for what they want to see happening & who might want guidance & funding to effectively influence the decisions that are being made.
> 
> ...



That's very interesting, and sounds like it should be used as much as possible if it's on offer. The more people/groups engaged with the area and its changes the better the outcome for all of us will be (I believe). That organisation looks like it's trying to facilitate just that - it should be used.  I wonder how widely known about it is?


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

prunus said:


> I think the link is broken (missing a terminal x)?  Should be The London Community Foundation
> 
> But yes that's very interesting, and sounds like it should be used as much as possible if it's on offer. The more people/groups engaged with the area and its changes the better the outcome for all of us will be (I believe). That organisation looks like it's trying to facilitate just that - it should be used.  I wonder how widely known about it is?



Technical issues.
Yes, it's them *(london community fndtn ).

The link prunus has put above takes you to a website where *there are people looking to fund and assist any group in coldharbour ward who might want guidance & funding to help them influence the decision making & planning process*, to more effectively express their ideas about what should happen next.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> No nothing to do with this scheme.
> But Lambeth seem to be very influenced by cyclists. But as critical 1 pointed out some residents there tend to be more affluential.



It has a lot to do with why this scheme is failing.

bimble asked a good question. What the difference between Germany and here. 

And I’m get irritated by your assumption that anyone who might disagree with you must be middle class/ affluent.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 11, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> It has a lot to do with why this scheme is failing.
> 
> bimble asked a good question. What the difference between Germany and here.
> 
> And I’m get irritated by your assumption that anyone who might disagree with you must be middle class/ affluent.



There are lots of differences between Germany and here. Their economy is in much better shape for one. A lot of their economy is based on real industry rather than a purposefully inflated housing bubble and lots of hinky finance deals.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

irf520 said:


> There are lots of differences between Germany and here. .  a purposefully inflated housing bubble. .


It's interesting : I don't know what a purposefully inflated bubble is but apparently 'aggregate home ownership rates' (?) are only 41% in Germany, but 71% over here in Uk..and those germans apparently have the balls to put real measures in place that effectively reduce pollution and encourage cycling, make life better for pedestrians etc. 
But here we are, in LJ, with the closure of the main road supported by exactly 181 local residents, who may or may not have read ' Selling Houses: How to Sell Your House as Quickly as You Can for as Much Money as You Can'.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> ...But here we are, in LJ, with the closure of the main road supported by exactly 181 local residents....



As everyone keeps saying the consultation was farcical, aren't the figures dismissable for both sides of the arguments? If not, only 112 were against the closure.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 11, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> As everyone keeps saying the consultation was farcical, aren't the figures dismissable for both sides of the arguments? If not, only 112 were against the closure.



Yes, that's true. However there was some evidence posted a while back that a large proportion (more than half) of the registered supporters were from outside the area compared to the opponents. This tallies with anecdotal evidence of an organised campaign among a certain section of the community to rally support for the closures from people outside the area.

But yes, the entire consultation was a shambles and so the results can't really be taken seriously.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> As everyone keeps saying the consultation was farcical, aren't the figures dismissable for both sides of the arguments? If not, only 112 were against the closure.



Mr Misery you're right. The figures from the official consultation are a sad sort of laugh.
Unless this, with over 1000 signatures counts (but not part of Lambeth's official consultation) so maybe not for you.
Lambeth Council: Reverse the Loughborough Junction Road Closures Now!

Do you ever feel like your name gets in the way of a sincere & meaningful discussion?


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 11, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Yes, that's true. However there was some evidence posted a while back that a large proportion (more than half) of the registered supporters were from outside the area compared to the opponents. This tallies with anecdotal evidence of an organised campaign among a certain section of the community to rally support for the closures from people outside the area.
> 
> But yes, the entire consultation was a shambles and so the results can't really be taken seriously.



Definitely. I only used the 112 "against" figure as a direct comparison to the 181 "for" figure.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 11, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> As everyone keeps saying the consultation was farcical, aren't the figures dismissable for both sides of the arguments? If not, only 112 were against the closure.



The 'lack of consultation' argument is often thrown up. It's rarely convincing.

Feedback is often scanty. Any you get may be contradictory and based on misunderstandings.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

leanderman said:


> The 'lack of consultation' argument is often thrown up.  Any you get may be contradictory and based on misunderstandings.


So that's ok then, that's what we have to work with, and the 1,000 plus objectors should be happy with the consultation process delivered, which resulted in the finding that "68% are in favour ", when the actual number of residents of LJ who said yes was... 181.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent. Here’s why


Somewhere in there it alleges that public housing is of lower quality and therefore less desirable, though the article keeps referring to the USA Ireland and Spain as the paragons of owner occupation.

In the UK a more traditional explanation might be in terms of English snobbishness - i.e. people preferred to own their own rather than live on an estate.
Obviously right-to-buy then was a massive incentive to buy (and sell on at a profit).


----------



## CH1 (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> It's interesting : I don't know what a purposefully inflated bubble is


That is when your economic model only revolves around using the tool of interest rates to regulate the economy.
And you hold interest rates down at 0.5% for 7 years (yes all varieties of government politically). And do QE - Funding for Lending &c.

Consider what might have happened if there had been a direct injection of government funding into building houses for rent - which has been needed for years anyway.

Why do QE, Abenomics and all this saving capitalist crap when you could spend money on something useful to "get the economy moving"?


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Somewhere in there it alleges that public housing is of lower quality and therefore less desirable, though the article keeps referring to the USA Ireland and Spain as the paragons of owner occupation.
> 
> In the UK a more traditional explanation might be in terms of English snobbishness - i.e. people preferred to own their own rather than live on an estate.
> Obviously right-to-buy then was a massive incentive to buy (and sell on at a profit).



In Switzerland, which i think is at the bottom of the list of home ownership places on the continent, there's a wealth tax in place. As in, you pay tax on the value of what you own. Probably relevant. Big macro stuff but I think yes relevant to why we get shit measures like this instead of potential real well considered solutions.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Why do Abenomics


googling hard. What a sunday.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> So that's ok then, that's what we have to work with, and the 1,000 plus objectors should be happy with the consultation process delivered, which resulted in the finding that "68% are in favour ", when the actual number of residents of LJ who said yes was... 181.



I imagine it would be very easy to whip up people's objections to a curtailment of their untrammelled right to drive.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I imagine it would be very easy to whip up people's objections to a curtailment of their untrammelled right to drive.


How many of the objectors to this are Jeremy Clarkson and how many are not?
How many of the 1,000 petition signers are selfish bastard dulwich garden centre people or tinted window dancehall motorists and how many are people who use their feet or a bike or the 345 ..   would be good to find out. Else we're apparently stuck with 'closed roads good pollution bad' despite all the evidence that that is not what this is about.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 11, 2015)

Does the fact that someone is a motorist necessarily invalidate their opinion on this matter? It indicates they may have a vested interest but you could say the same thing about cyclists.
I'm a motorist, but, unlike what some people here seem to think, I don't spend all day driving round and round Loughborough estate spewing out pollution just for shits and giggles.


----------



## bimble (Oct 11, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Does the fact that someone is a motorist necessarily invalidate their opinion on this matter? It indicates they may have a vested interest but you could say the same thing about cyclists.
> I'm a motorist, but, unlike what some people here seem to think, I don't spend all day driving round and round Loughborough estate spewing out pollution just for shits and giggles.



 Course not. Just I resent how the people who love the road closures idea here and refuse to acknowledge why this experiment is a failure want so hard to believe that all objections must be from Jeremy Clarkson or the Dulwich school run mum.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Oct 11, 2015)

Just to give a bit context here. I cycled across South London today (Sunday) from Tulse hill to Bermondsey and back.

The traffic was terrible; there was probably more traffic than during a week day. Is this due to the congestion charge? There were alot of jams everywhere. It was a beautiful sunny day. Only knows what it would have been like if it had been raining.

Is this what Londoners really want?

I'm in mixed minds about the LJ scheme but I think the problem of car driving needs to be addressed.


----------



## gdubz (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> In Switzerland, which i think is at the bottom of the list of home ownership places on the continent, there's a wealth tax in place. As in, you pay tax on the value of what you own. Probably relevant. Big macro stuff but I think yes relevant to why we get shit measures like this instead of potential real well considered solutions.


Not sure "real well considered solutions" is a phrase that should be applied to the Swiss tax regime. Quite a few places have wealth tax but also have low income tax etc., but the Swiss rules are particularly murky and vary between canton and tax inspector, to a great degree.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> In Switzerland, which i think is at the bottom of the list of home ownership places on the continent, there's a wealth tax in place. As in, you pay tax on the value of what you own. Probably relevant. Big macro stuff but I think yes relevant to why we get shit measures like this instead of potential real well considered solutions.


Just wanted to point out that the Swiss may be sensible about tax when it comes to housing, but they are a major culprit when it comes to corporate tax avoidance - note particularly Boots & Glencore Life on planet Zug - the town of 25k people, and 29k international


----------



## Aeryn (Oct 11, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Yes, that's true. However there was some evidence posted a while back that a large proportion (more than half) of the registered supporters were from outside the area compared to the opponents. This tallies with anecdotal evidence of an organised campaign among a certain section of the community to rally support for the closures from people outside the area.



Wasn't really "anecdotal" - just open any copy of the LCC magazine during 2014 and you will find multiple-page articles exhorting people to email Lambeth council lots about it. It was part of their very well publicised "Space for Cycling" campaign. No idea how they got involved, but they emailed all of their members (including the ones out of borough) with template emails to send to Lambeth during the consultation. They're very open about what a successful campaign they've run "in the face of lots of local opposition".

I'm a cyclist, LCC member, and in favour of reducing car use. I like the cycle superhighways. I'm middle class, and even occasionally eat cupcakes (I'm more of a fridge cake person really though). It is perfectly possible to be all of those things and to still think that this scheme has been really badly implemented, should have involved wider consultation with the community, and isn't likely to achieve its stated aims (although it may well achieve other, unstated aims).

I see this on a continuum with Higgs, Oval Quarter, Cressingham etc - it's Lambeth yet again ignoring local residents in favour of vocal minority pressure groups (be they LJAG or developers). The eviction of existing businesses from the railway arches in particular is very closely linked with the road closures - it's Lambeth/LJAG trying to create a pedestrianised zone with the LJ arches repurposed as bars and restaurants. Network Rail turn up to all the road closure meetings. They aren't there for fun.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> So that's ok then, that's what we have to work with, and the 1,000 plus objectors should be happy with the consultation process delivered, which resulted in the finding that "68% are in favour ", when the actual number of residents of LJ who said yes was... 181.



What % of the 1000 objectors live in LJ?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 11, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Behind all his comments is the *fiction* that "the cyclists" are trying to force things on others. That they are trying to say people are "evil" and need to be "punished". That they are trying to stop people doing things that don't cause any problems for anyone else. As if there is some homogenous mass of "cyclists" that are forcing these schemes through in their own interests only. This of course is all *rubbish*.





Aeryn said:


> Wasn't really "anecdotal" - just open any copy of the LCC magazine during 2014 and you will find multiple-page articles exhorting people to email Lambeth council lots about it. It was part of their very well publicised "Space for Cycling" campaign. No idea how they got involved, but they emailed all of their members (including the ones out of borough) with template emails to send to Lambeth during the consultation. They're very open about what a successful campaign they've run "in the face of lots of local opposition".



Well there you have it. Case closed, by their own admission.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2015)

for info the temporary lights at Herne Hill road/ CHL have been stuck on red. Traffic backing up on both roads today.


----------



## Aeryn (Oct 11, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Well there you have it. Case closed, by their own admission.



Not really - as I say, I'm a cyclist. We aren't a homogenous group. We don't all think that all drivers are evil or need to be punished - most cyclists are also drivers. LCC is a specific, members-only cycling pressure group, and even as a member I don't agree with all of their campaigns. But yes it would be silly to claim that this wasn't one of LCC's campaigns when they make no secret of it.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> Wasn't really "anecdotal" - just open any copy of the LCC magazine during 2014 and you will find multiple-page articles exhorting people to email Lambeth council lots about it. It was part of their very well publicised "Space for Cycling" campaign. No idea how they got involved, but they emailed all of their members (including the ones out of borough) with template emails to send to Lambeth during the consultation. They're very open about what a successful campaign they've run "in the face of lots of local opposition".
> 
> I'm a cyclist, LCC member, and in favour of reducing car use. I like the cycle superhighways. I'm middle class, and even occasionally eat cupcakes (I'm more of a fridge cake person really though). It is perfectly possible to be all of those things and to still think that this scheme has been really badly implemented, should have involved wider consultation with the community, and isn't likely to achieve its stated aims (although it may well achieve other, unstated aims).



LCC were also criticised for the highly organised way they campaigned for superhighways using same techniques in the face of a lot of opposition. 

So it this campaign you object to or LCC overall strategy?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 11, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> Not really - as I say, I'm a cyclist. We aren't a homogenous group. We don't all think that all drivers are evil or need to be punished - most cyclists are also drivers. LCC is a specific, members-only cycling pressure group, and even as a member I don't agree with all of their campaigns. But yes it would be silly to claim that this wasn't one of LCC's campaigns when they make no secret of it.



OK. It just seems a bit iffy to force this sort of thing through, which will cause lots of problems for local residents, when the know a lot of those residents are opposed to it. It's underhand at the very least.


----------



## Aeryn (Oct 11, 2015)

Personally, it's this particular scheme. I think that it's important that pressure groups exist in order for smaller groups to get their voices heard - after all the motor industry has plenty of paid political lobbyists (and I don't actually mind LCC campaigning in favour of this scheme even though I disagree with them - that is what they're there for). 

I think it is the council's job to listen to everyone though and look at the overall impact of the scheme on all users, and they clearly haven't in this case. Whether that is because they are crap at consulting local communities and have allowed themselves to be swayed by a single-issue group, or because this actually ties in very nicely with their gentrification plans and the intended redevelopment of the NR arches, I couldn't possibly say.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 12, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> No idea how they got involved, but they emailed all of their members (including the ones out of borough) with template emails to send to Lambeth during the consultation. They're very open about what a successful campaign they've run "in the face of lots of local opposition".



The local cycle campaigner, Clare Neely, was fairly open about using contact details provided by London Cycling Campaign of members and others who would likely support this scheme within the Space for Cycling campaign.

As a cyclist and LCC member myself I already had a view on the scheme (and had voted against it) when, just before consultations closed, came the emails from Clare asking for support and help to leaflet cycle commuters passing through LJ.
Back then I naively thought of it as a local issue and was disturbed at the way the LCC was trying to influence the vote.

Councillor Brathwaite heard all about this at a meeting she held in January but by then it seems she was already committed to the scheme and dependent on support from the cycling campaign.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 12, 2015)

I agree with the point made by Aeryn in his post #1496 above:
being a cyclist and member of LCC doesn't commit you to every one of their campaigns -- in a similar way that being a driver does not mean you have to be selfish or want to destroy the planet.

It seems a good number of people opposed to this scheme do both cycle and drive (as did I, until the car was scrapped). For over a year we have got by on bikes and public transport -- but that wouldn't suit everyone.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

gdubz said:


> Not sure "real well considered solutions" is a phrase that should be applied to the Swiss tax regime. Quite a few places have wealth tax but also have low income tax etc., but the Swiss rules are particularly murky and vary between canton and tax inspector, to a great degree.


Of course, dodgiest place in Europe, apart from maybe Liechtenstein? The solutions bit was only in ref to environmental issues: Very strict regime in Switzerland I think, eg some cantons charge people for every bag of rubbish they send to landfill, as a way of making everyone recycle.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> The eviction of existing businesses from the railway arches in particular is very closely linked with the road closures - it's Lambeth/LJAG trying to create a pedestrianised zone with the LJ arches repurposed as bars and restaurants. Network Rail turn up to all the road closure meetings. They aren't there for fun.



Agree with you - that's what the road closures are really all about.
This picture's unintentionally revealing, with the arches sanitised into blank white spaces.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Can someone summarise the class argument for me? Ive seen it raised a few times but can't now find the bit that explains how class is relevant.


maybe if you weren't wearing that hat.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 12, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Can someone summarise the class argument for me? Ive seen it raised a few times but can't now find the bit that explains how class is relevant.


It is roughly this: when not driving around the estate trying reach places they ought to be walking to, and polluting us all to death, Loughborough Estate residents watch Sky or ITV.

On the other hand LJAG apparatchiks, when they are not reading Architectural Abstracts, or writing newspaper articles about desirable locations in Windsor and Reading, spend their time watching documentaries on BBC4 comparing Brutalism and Betjeman's Metroland.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 12, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> What % of the 1000 objectors live in LJ?



Not sure, it would be interesting to know though, I'm sure the organisers of the petition could find out though as Change.org ask for a postcode to be able to sign the petition


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

After the 'superhub for the wealthy' thing was brought to their attention, it seems a new improved version of the minutes of September's neighbourhood planning forum has been written.
They just emailed it, am sticking up here just the road closure part.







just noticed that amongst the things edited out of this version is Clare Neely's insistence that it would only take a couple of minutes for ambulance crews to get out of their vehicle drag the roadblocks out of their way and then put them back before continuing.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> The 'lack of consultation' argument is often thrown up. It's rarely convincing.
> 
> Feedback is often scanty. Any you get may be contradictory and based on misunderstandings.



I think lack of consultation is an issue in this case and imo it is convincing. Lambeth claim that almost 11,000 residences and businesses were leafleted about this, yet only 632 people replied and only 299 replied from inside the consultation area, plus a possible extra 66 who didn't give an address. That is pitiful whatever way you look at it. But the council took all the non responders as positives and ploughed on regardless, they should have been made to go out and do proper research, maybe some door knocking, some telephoning, yes it all costs money but so does the debacle we've got now.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> just noticed that amongst the things edited out of this version is Clare Neely's insistence that it would only take a couple of minutes for ambulance crews to get out of their vehicle drag the roadblocks out of their way and then put them back before continuing.



She said that? How farcical. Let's hope that there isn't a barrier to move when her house is burning down or she needs an ambulance.


----------



## Winot (Oct 12, 2015)

I had dinner on Friday with a friend who lives is Hinton Rd.  She didn't receive a consultation leaflet and had no idea about the changes until they took place.

/anecdata


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

LadyV said:


> She said that? How farcical. Let's hope that there isn't a barrier to move when her house is burning down or she needs an ambulance.


She did say it yes, and it was in the old version of the minutes.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

Winot said:


> I had dinner on Friday with a friend who lives is Hinton Rd.  She didn't receive a consultation leaflet and had no idea about the changes until they took place.
> 
> /anecdata


I didn't receive one either, and was surprised when 7 NO ENTRY signs appeared outside my window.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

The CCTV in operation sign has been removed overnight from the junction of Gordon & Flaxman.
It was there yesterday and now it's gone.What does that mean ? Is it a sign?


----------



## Aeryn (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> I didn't receive one either, and was surprised when 7 NO ENTRY signs appeared outside my window.



Me either. Found out about it from my neighbour.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 12, 2015)

Winot said:


> /anecdata



Anecdata - love it. So much of what we say here is anecdata.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> Me either. Found out about it from my neighbour.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 77978



How can a 5.75% response rate be "comprehensive", Imogen needs to consult a dictionary before she gives quotes

*Definition of comprehensive in English:*
* adjective*
Including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

maybe she meant the other sort of comprehensive, like maybe she was saying that the consultation was a bit like a secondary school?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 77978








Cllr Imogen Walkers version of "Comprehensive" sounds like the New Orleans' levees failier...
A fully comprehensive consultation was satisfactory done, *BUT...*


----------



## irf520 (Oct 12, 2015)

"Comprehensive consultation" is a standard politician bullshit phrase. It generally means, "we'll pretend to listen to people, then do what we want anyway."


----------



## irf520 (Oct 12, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It is roughly this: when not driving around the estate trying reach places they ought to be walking to, and polluting us all to death, Loughborough Estate residents watch Sky or ITV.
> 
> On the other hand LJAG apparatchiks, when they are not reading Architectural Abstracts, or writing newspaper articles about desirable locations in Windsor and Reading, spend their time watching documentaries on BBC4 comparing Brutalism and Betjeman's Metroland.



Maybe a bit of Haiku poetry somewhere in the mix there as well ...


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

irf520 said:


> "Comprehensive consultation" is a standard politician bullshit phrase. It generally means, "we'll pretend to listen to people, then do what we want anyway."


Just in this case they did an unusually crap job with the pretending to listen bit.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 77978



Where did that little snippet come from?


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Where did that little snippet come from?


it's from the evening standard article, last week.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> Agree with you - that's what the road closures are really all about.
> This picture's unintentionally revealing, with the arches sanitised into blank white spaces.
> 
> View attachment 77974



I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I'm sure that is part of it, but if that's the whole story, why close Barrington Road as well?
A while back Loughborough Road was closed at the junction with Coldharbour Lane for gas works (about 2 years ago I think) for several weeks and Barrington Road was the official diversion. Surely it's a better access road for the estate than St James's Crescent? At least it's wide enough for vehicles to go both ways at the same time.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> Just in this case they did an unusually crap job with the pretending to listen bit.



Absolutely. I think it's one of those phrases they come out with reflexively whenever people ask awkward questions.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 12, 2015)

LadyV said:


> How can a 5.75% response rate be "comprehensive", Imogen needs to consult a dictionary before she gives quotes
> 
> *Definition of comprehensive in English:*
> * adjective*
> Including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something



I would agree the consultation was comprehensive if they did send out 11,000 letters (acknowledging residents above have said they didn't receive anything!) but the response received wasn't. So they can claim it was comprehensive as they can't compel people to reply. 

The above is assuming the lettering wasn't targeted etc


----------



## leanderman (Oct 12, 2015)

Of the 2.2million people in Leeds eligible to give feedback about devolved powers, 104 replied.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 12, 2015)

Lol that's terrible! I suspect most people read it, go "whatevs", then go about their day.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Of the 2.2million people in Leeds eligible to give feedback about devolved powers, 104 replied.



Blimey that's terrible, I wonder did they do anything to poll people again? I've love to have the time and money to research what makes people get involved or just ignore things like that, the general apathy that seems to have gripped this country is atrocious.


----------



## MrM (Oct 12, 2015)

I'm feeling so depressed about proposals for Carnegie and Minet libraries (and several parks) that I'm starting to feel that if Lambeth HAD spent a fortune on a 'comprehensive consultation' on road closures I'd now be arguing they should have spent the cash differently. 

Besides, a consultation needs a pretty exceptional and resounding result to force a change of direction (the Higgs consultation was pretty emphatic, but that made little difference). I'm not convinced there would have been a clear result here, especially given it's (_lobs grenade, runs for cover_) only a trial.
The (feeble) consultation results came out in favour. I know there was the petition, and all those voices are real, but it doesn't pretend to represent a balanced view - after all if you have a petition against something you're obviously filtering out anyone in favour/undecided.
Nothing changes the fact that they should have tried a scheme with a better chance of success, but in a time of apparently catastrophic budget contraints, I can buy the idea that the bulk of the consultation effort ought to be concentrated on gauging whether it's worked, rather than people's expectation of how it will go.


----------



## Winot (Oct 12, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Blimey that's terrible, I wonder did they do anything to poll people again? I've love to have the time and money to research what makes people get involved or just ignore things like that, the general apathy that seems to have gripped this country is atrocious.



I'm sure the reason is that they are big fans of representational democracy, and trust their elected representative to act reasonably and responsibly


----------



## critical1 (Oct 12, 2015)

Two sides of the fence...


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I'd love to have the time and money to research what makes people get involved or just ignore things like that, the general apathy that seems to have gripped this country is atrocious.


It's true that most people can't be bothered to get involved or express an opinion either way about things which don't very obviously directly immediately impact their own lives, like in a really clear way, such as the closing of the road in front of your home for instance. Nimby things like that.

But one thing that didn't help in this case (leaving aside the issue of how people were supposed to find out about what was planned and how they were supposed to get a copy of the survey to fill in the first place) is the way the thing was written:
The first two questions on Lambeth's questionnaire start with "What three words would you use to describe..".
That's not really the most effective way of getting feedback on a proposed road closure, I think, in a place where (apparently) not everyone directly impacted has english as first language .


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

here's a thing. 
Why are London cyclists so white, male and middle-class?


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 12, 2015)

And that's currently being criticised for being massively out of date research / evidence base.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> And that's currently being criticised for being massively out of date research / evidence base.


I know, wasn't saying it was a good thing, just a thing.

The study that the article is based on is more interesting than the article though..
https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/1179/1/Cycling_and_the_city_published_author_copy.pdf

like here's a bit from it


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 12, 2015)

Ah, I see.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> here's a thing.
> Why are London cyclists so white, male and middle-class?



For me, cycling is a distraction from the fact that (better planned than this) road closures can curb deadly pollutants and carbon emissions.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> the fact that (better planned than this) road closures can curb deadly pollutants


I'm sure you're right. Did you see coldharbour lane this morning? I really truly pulled my jumper-sleeve over the bottom half of my face when crossing to the co-op shop because so stinky.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

Colharbour Lane is where the most shops and bus stops and people are, and the way to walk into Brixton, and (anecdata!) whilst it never was a sweet smelling idyll it has just lately become bad in a way that (you know how smells set off memories?) it reminds me of cities in India a long time ago, like proper serious back of your throat scary pollution.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

More unreliable numbers from which nobody can infer anything much:
On change.org there are two petitions going on about these road closures.

One is for them, entitled "community support for the loughborough junction plan" and one is called "reverse the loughborough junction road closures now !"

One of them has so far got 22 signatures on it and the other is currently at 1,802.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> It's a real problem. Colharbour Lane is the place where the most shops and bus stops and people are, and the way to walk into Brixton, and (anecdata!) whilst it never was a sweet smelling rural idyll it has just lately become bad in a way that (you know how smells set off memories?) it reminds me of cities in India a long time ago, like proper serious back of your throat scary pollution.



Which is why action has to be taken - although not necessarily this action.

The problem is that any significant road closure - if it is not hurting, it is not working - will run into massive opposition.

That's if any are attempted after this fiasco.


----------



## bimble (Oct 12, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Which is why action has to be taken - although not necessarily this action.
> 
> The problem is that any significant road closure - if it is not hurting, it is not working - will run into massive opposition.
> 
> That's if any are attempted after this fiasco.



I agree. The panda said something about how in German cities for instance there are real incentives (financial measures) to get people out of their cars, and if they need to drive to make them buy smaller / less polluting ones. That sounds to me like the way forward, something serious like that.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> I agree. The panda said something about how in German cities for instance there are real incentives (financial measures) to get people out of their cars, and if they need to drive to make them buy smaller / less polluting ones. That sounds to me like the way forward, something serious like that.



Agreed. From this, it looks like we can't change habits, maybe we have to change the cars.

But still a shame from the point of view of congestion, obesity, accidents, cycling etc.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 12, 2015)

I think the Greeks tried a system where certain number plates could only drive on certain days. Basically you could drive your car on alternate days or something. Presumably as it was Greece though, nobody paid any attention to the rule


----------



## Belushi (Oct 12, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I think the Greeks tried a system where certain number plates could only drive on certain days. Basically you could drive your car on alternate days or something. Presumably as it was Greece though, nobody paid any attention to the rule



Yeah in Athens, which is murder in summer


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Yeah in Athens, which is murder in summer



Athens and Rome have less lane discipline than Mumbai. Did the system they employed in Athens not work then?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 12, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Athens and Rome have less lane discipline than Mumbai. Did the system they employed in Athens not work then?



I'm not sure tbh, I think it was a temporary thing when they had particularly brutal smog one summer


----------



## leanderman (Oct 12, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I'm not sure tbh, I think it was a temporary thing when they had particularly brutal smog one summer



And in Paris, in May: Paris emergency measures to combat smog hailed as a success


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> That sounds like an idea that would actually work, reducing pollution instead of just moving it around a bit. Would also make slightly nervous cyclists (like me) really happy.
> 
> Why do you think Germany can do that but it's impossible here?



Several reasons:
1) Political will - integrated public and private transport has been a big deal in the two Germanies after the war, and continued to be post-reunification, and solving congestion problems has always addressed public transport as the primary "go to" solution.
2) Individualism. People in the UK tend to see car driving as a "right", rather than as a concession, whereas in Germany the view often tends more to community benefit than individual benefit.
3) Post-war regeneration. Most main cities in Germany required significant rebuilding. This made the installation of wide boulevards incorporating tram and/or bus lanes possible, on top of already (in most major and many minor cities) well-developed rail (surface and subterranean) systems.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2015)

irf520 said:


> "Comprehensive consultation" is a standard politician bullshit phrase. It generally means, "we'll pretend to listen to people, then do what we want anyway."


As happened at Cressingham Gardens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I would agree the consultation was comprehensive if they did send out 11,000 letters (acknowledging residents above have said they didn't receive anything!) but the response received wasn't. So they can claim it was comprehensive as they can't compel people to reply.
> 
> The above is assuming the lettering wasn't targeted etc



It also assumes a decent delivery system. As I found out a few weeks ago, Lambeth don't use Royal Mail for large-scale mailouts (anything more than a couple of hundred), they use a courier company. Now, given the usual time constraints on couriers, it may well be that a significant minority of the 11,000 letters sent out were never delivered.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> I agree. The panda said something about how in German cities for instance there are real incentives (financial measures) to get people out of their cars, and if they need to drive to make them buy smaller / less polluting ones. That sounds to me like the way forward, something serious like that.


I work near one of the most polluted roads in London - Oxford Street.  There aren't that many cars to be fair - but tons of buses and taxis. It's even congested at eleven o'clock at night on weekends.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 13, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Agreed. From this, it looks like we can't change habits, maybe we have to change the cars.
> 
> But still a shame from the point of view of congestion, obesity, accidents, cycling etc.


My mate who designs car engines told me that the emissions coming from the newest, most efficient cars are cleaner than the air in central London.  The problem is that there are tons of old cars out there.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2015)

Ms T said:


> My mate who designs car engines told me that the emissions coming from the newest, most efficient cars are cleaner than the air in central London.  The problem is that there are tons of old cars out there.


That's assuming that the stated emissions hadn't been fiddled by the manufacturer, of course.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Ms T said:


> I work near one of the most polluted roads in London - Oxford Street.  There aren't that many cars to be fair - but tons of buses and taxis.


That congestion charge zone was a bold idea wasn't it.
Apparently it worked, as in it actually reduced the amount of cars stinking up the place, unlike what we have here.
'On 23 October 2003 TfL published a report reviewing the first six months of the charge. The report's main findings were that the average number of cars and delivery vehicles entering the central zone was 60,000 fewer than the previous year. Around 50–60% of this reduction was attributed to transfers to public transport..'


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Vacancies available (paid) for a consultant and for a fundraiser at something called the *VASSALL AND COLDHARBOUR FORUM* which looks like a good thing. Deadline's Friday.
Job description includes :
'Bringing in expertise to explore barriers to inclusive decision making and
to work with community members to devise innovative programmes and
structures that mean all members across diverse communities can share
power equally'

CONSULTANTS BRIEF- fund raiser vacf.docx


----------



## critical1 (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Vacancies available (paid) for a consultant and for a fundraiser at something called the *VASSALL AND COLDHARBOUR FORUM* which looks like a good thing. Deadline's Friday.
> Job description includes :
> 'Bringing in expertise to explore barriers to inclusive decision making and
> to work with community members to devise innovative programmes and
> ...



Do you think LJAG fits the brief...


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Do you think LJAG fits the brief...


I think.. I think it's really good that these people whoever they are seem to be trying to figure out how to get other voices heard.


----------



## Angellic (Oct 13, 2015)

Went to the Akerman health Centre this morning. It's a real shame that Iveagh House Surgery closed.
 Anyway, there were a couple of people monitoring traffic on Akerman Rd. I asked why they were doing it and they said it was part of nation-wide census and nothing to do with this particular road. He said this as if to allay any fears i might have. Must have thought i was a motorist, or something.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Angellic said:


> nothing to do with this particular road. He said this as if to allay any fears i might have. Must have thought i was a motorist, or something.


Can you imagine what it's like being that man in the CCTV car? He's been out collecting feedback from the community.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 13, 2015)

Ms T said:


> I work near one of the most polluted roads in London - Oxford Street.  There aren't that many cars to be fair - but tons of buses and taxis. It's even congested at eleven o'clock at night on weekends.


When I had to rely on a bus pass for reasons of economy I wasted several hours in Oxford Street in traffic jams on buses even in mid evening. I had assumed it was due to rail tunnel building and diversions at Tottenham Court Road, but maybe not?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Do you think LJAG fits the brief...


Both LJAG and the Brixton Society have structures which could accommodate such a project - but isn't there also a Myatts Field group which might be slightly more central to the specified area?  No doubt also middle class but have been effective in the past Minet Hub - Home


----------



## CH1 (Oct 13, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Went to the Akerman health Centre this morning. It's a real shame that Iveagh House Surgery closed.
> Anyway, there were a couple of people monitoring traffic on Akerman Rd. I asked why they were doing it and they said it was part of nation-wide census and nothing to do with this particular road. He said this as if to allay any fears i might have. Must have thought i was a motorist, or something.


Agree about Iveagh House. How are they nowadays? I changed from there when it moved but current GP is telephone consultation only ("We are a triage surgery") and I''m not happy. Would it be worth changing back - assuming they don't scrap  the P5 as part of the Loughbrough Road "improvements"?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 13, 2015)

Ms T said:


> I work near one of the most polluted roads in London - Oxford Street.  There aren't that many cars to be fair - but tons of buses and taxis. It's even congested at eleven o'clock at night on weekends.



To be fair, you can't really blame taxi drivers. It's not like they have a huge choice of vehicles available to them - it's a choice of 2 I believe.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> To be fair, you can't really blame taxi drivers. It's not like they have a huge choice of vehicles available to them - it's a choice of 2 I believe.


There's been some shocking stories in the Daily Mail about overcharging on cycle rickshaws too.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> There's been some shocking stories in the Daily Mail about overcharging on cycle rickshaws too.



I can't see myself ever using one of those. For a journey in rickshaw range you might as well just walk it.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I can't see myself ever using one of those. For a journey in rickshaw range you might as well just walk it.


I went in one in India in my youth. I told my host it made me feel uncomfortable being transported by a hard-working and emaciated guy peddling his guts out. "Oh - how would he and his family eat if it weren't for us?" replied my friend.

So obviously the cycle rickshaw is like Hardcore "Big Issue".


----------



## irf520 (Oct 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I went in one in India in my youth. I told my host it made me feel uncomfortable being transported by a hard-working and emaciated guy peddling his guts out. "Oh - how would he and his family eat if it weren't for us?" replied my friend.
> 
> So obviously the cycle rickshaw is like Hardcore "Big Issue".



You would like to the think that the idea of using people as beasts of burden had been consigned to history (at least in this country). Seems to be making a comeback though.


----------



## Angellic (Oct 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Agree about Iveagh House. How are they nowadays? I changed from there when it moved but current GP is telephone consultation only ("We are a triage surgery") and I''m not happy. Would it be worth changing back - assuming they don't scrap  the P5 as part of the Loughbrough Road "improvements"?



It's ok but a longer walk than the old surgery but get to take in the sights of Oval Quarter. The submarine is always a welcome sight. Kept the same doctor and an infrequent user so it suits my current needs. Was very quiet this morning.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 13, 2015)

UTURN & changing Horses in midstream, Well done LJAG

LJAG call Lambeth to account with regard to planning and resources used to implement experimental road closure | Loughborough Junction Action Group


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Better late than not at all, I reckon. I think that counts as good news.

{"LJAG sincerely hopes that there have been significant learnings from what has to this point been a very divisive event for our community." }
If you look at it in a certain way that looks a bit like an apology.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> UTURN & changing Horses in midstream, Well done LJAG
> 
> LJAG call Lambeth to account with regard to planning and resources used to implement experimental road closure | Loughborough Junction Action Group



Not sure I'd call that a U-turn. A 90 degree turn maybe, to try and distance themselves from the unexpected amount of flak without actually conceding ground.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Not sure I'd call that a U-turn. A 90 degree turn maybe, to try and distance themselves from the unexpected amount of flak without actually conceding ground.



*Yes a very swift move considering it was their idea, to close the roads, I wonder what else is in the cooking pot. They do seem to be very talented at getting what they want.*


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Was it LJag who came up with the idea of closing the roads in the first place?
Haven't been able to figure out where the whole idea even came from.
Network Rail the most obvious beneficiaries of the plan had it worked, seems to me.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 13, 2015)

What I don't understand is why you all don't join LJAG, rather than sniping from the sidelines, so it represents a more diverse group of people?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Agree about Iveagh House. How are they nowadays? I changed from there when it moved but current GP is telephone consultation only ("We are a triage surgery") and I''m not happy. Would it be worth changing back - assuming they don't scrap  the P5 as part of the Loughbrough Road "improvements"?



I moved with them, it's a bit further to walk than the old surgery but I quite like it, it's nice and clean and the waiting space is big enough that you can avoid the really ill looking people who sneeze, cough and splutter over everyone else. I know it's the same staff and everything but they seem to stick to appointments a lot better than before too, although it is still a bugger to get an appointment, which can be a pain.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Can you imagine what it's like being that man in the CCTV car? He's been out collecting feedback from the community.



He was getting some grief from a woman with a pushchair when I walked past him this morning, I felt sorry for him actually, he hasn't put the changes into place, he's just the poor sod that has to sit there and snap people going through and take grief off people


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> When I had to rely on a bus pass for reasons of economy I wasted several hours in Oxford Street in traffic jams on buses even in mid evening. I had assumed it was due to rail tunnel building and diversions at Tottenham Court Road, but maybe not?



I've worked near Oxford St for 10 years and it's always been super busy, various building works have made it worse at times but it's never that quick, although with the hybrid buses and taxis it's not as bad pollution wise as it was for instance when the old routemasters were there. I would say that Brixton Road is worse these days, that is plain old nasty during rush hour


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> There's been some shocking stories in the Daily Mail about overcharging on cycle rickshaws too.



Hideous things, stupidly overpriced, cause problems for everyone in the west end, pedestrians, cyclists, bus drivers, taxi drivers and the few idiots that actually drive in to the west end, there's also now so many of them that I don't see how any of them make any money, I think they used to when they first arrived but not now.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Was it LJag who came up with the idea of closing the roads in the first place?
> Haven't been able to figure out where the whole idea even came from.
> Network Rail the most obvious beneficiaries of the plan had it worked, seems to me.



Mr Wright perhaps? I haven't seen any documentation that shows the change from the improvements to the junction to all the closures. Probably a throw away comment at a meeting that someone has taken away and run with


----------



## Angellic (Oct 13, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I moved with them, it's a bit further to walk than the old surgery but I quite like it, it's nice and clean and the waiting space is big enough that you can avoid the really ill looking people who sneeze, cough and splutter over everyone else. I know it's the same staff and everything but they seem to stick to appointments a lot better than before too, although it is still a bugger to get an appointment, which can be a pain.



Agree about walking and much better now the building/road works  are nearly finished. Not great if you are feeling poorly but then there is the bus.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> LJAG call Lambeth to account with regard to planning and resources used to implement experimental road closure | Loughborough Junction Action Group
> LJAG call Lambeth to account with regard to planning and resources used to implement experimental road closure | Loughborough Junction Action Group



For over a year LJAG has persistently ignored any criticism of its scheme and of Lambeth's consultation.

Presumably that letter to Lib Peck was composed by a very tight group of insiders and that is wrong: now is the time for LJAG to grow up and become properly democratic.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I haven't seen any documentation that shows the change from the improvements to the junction to all the closures.


No me neither and being an obsessive type of person I tried quite hard to find any written clue as to where the road closures idea had come from.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 13, 2015)

Beasley said:


> now is the time for LJAG to grow up and become properly democratic.



Can you outline what that means in practical terms?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

LJAG statement basically says that the council's implementation of the experimental scheme has been rubbish. Which it has.

There is no "U-turn". They are not calling for it to be scrapped. They specifically say:



> LJAG is open to a trial of the scheme, in particular to see if it would increase walking and cycling in the area and enable public realm improvements.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

Here's the link for anyone who'd like to sign the petition expressing support in principle for the aims of the Loughborough Junction Plan. This includes the road closure proposals.

Lambeth council: Community support for Loughborough Junction Plan


----------



## Beasley (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Was it LJag who came up with the idea of closing the roads in the first place?



The LJAG/Lambeth Loughborough Junction Plan (2013) proposed a station yard on the site of Loughborough House etc. That idea changed within a year into the proposal for a new public space on a closed Loughborough Road with re-routed P5 bus that requires the closure of another five roads to prevent rat-runs. In mid 2014 the scheme was taken over by the LCC Space for Cycling campaign and barely another thought has been given to the new public space, now so downgraded that it has buses, bikes and emergency vehicles passing through it all the time.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

oh dear. It looks like (this is from LJAG's end of year report for 2014, on their website) they were closely involved with or actually handled the accursed consultation process they're now protesting about. 
Is this the right timings ? I am confused.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 13, 2015)

Until late September 2014 nothing was heard about road closures. The earlier consultations referred only to public realm improvements.
Astonishingly, the leaflets advertising the 2014 public consultation had no mention of road closures and no attempt was made to advertise the proposals to passing users of the route.
No wonder it took so long for the word to get around.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> oh dear. It looks like (this is from LJAG's end of year report for 2014, on their website) they were closely involved with or actually handled the accursed consultation process they're now protesting about.
> Is this the right timings ? I am confused.
> 
> View attachment 78024


God help us.

No, a consultation completed in "December 2013" is not the same consultation as the one described in the first page of this thread which is dated as October 2014.

Is it too much to ask that the conspiracy theorists (a) understand that 2013 comes before 2014, and (b) actually read the thread?


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

So.. where the actual bloody hell did the idea of closing the main road, and 5 other ones, come from?
If this was connected to a wider environmental / air quality initiative clearly it wouldn't have just been cobbled together out of the blue in a couple of weeks as a half baked add on to a local plan idea about making pretty 'Yards'. 
Did anyone else at any of those planning meetings notice the way in which the man from Network Rail spoke about the people who currently rent the arches particularly mentioning Rathgar Road as a hotbed of antisocial behaviour and underpayment of rent? Just saying.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

Beasley said:


> no attempt was made to advertise the proposals to passing users of the route.
> Little wonder it took so long for the word to get around.


You'd think that actually banning cars from the proposed closure site for a day in September 2014, and presenting the details of the proposed closures on that site and on that day, might have been noticed by _some_ of those for whom closing a short stretch of road to motor traffic has now had such an immediate and profoundly devastating impact.

Maybe they should have done a car free week instead?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 13, 2015)

LJAG to SUPPORT the road closure scheme as reported in their notes from:

*LJAG/Lambeth steering group for the Loughborough Plan and public realm improvements*
Note of meeting of 18 June 2014, 6.30pm, at SIA CAFE

5.  Lambeth to report on proposed traffic improvements for the junction of Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road.
GW has taken over from Richard Ambler. Important that LJAG show support during the public consultation as road closures are often initially opposed.

Several of us joined LJAG at their AGM on 9th July this year.
There was no request for nominations from the floor for any executive positions so no elections took place.
Therefore the executives remained the same, Chair, Treasurer and Vice Treasurer. There is no Secretary.
There are no LJAG meetings that mere "members" can attend.
So it seems all the decisions are made by a very small handful of Trustees! 8 according to the web site.
So joining does nothing at all!
This also seems the same for the Farm.

LJAG =Too few people making too many decisions for too many people.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Here's the link for anyone who'd like to sign the petition expressing support in principle for the aims of the Loughborough Junction Plan. This includes the road closure proposals.



Yeah I saw LOL its already been there for over a month and only collected 37 people! I do like the support comments"it's important the scheme is allowed to run for the planned 6 months so we have good information on which to base decisions."

Yes it is increase in accidents and hospitalisations, Loss of earnings, closure of local businesses, increased local pollution and despondency. After all of that we can clearly see that the closures were a Very Bad Idea keh!

But at least we will have good metrics to base our decisions on.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> LJAG to SUPPORT the road closure scheme as reported in their notes from:
> 
> *LJAG/Lambeth steering group for the Loughborough Plan and public realm improvements*
> Note of meeting of 18 June 2014, 6.30pm, at SIA CAFE
> ...


Why are you going on about LJAG supporting the proposals as if there's some kind of conspiracy and as if they are now pretending they didn't?

Of course they supported them. They are not claiming otherwise.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 13, 2015)

Ms T said:


> What I don't understand is why you all don't join LJAG, rather than sniping from the sidelines, so it represents a more diverse group of people?


LJAG meetings are "open" in name but not in spirit. They don't provide scope for debating and putting important issues to a vote. LJAG is not a community council.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yes it is increase in accidents and hospitalisations, Loss of earnings, closure of local businesses, increased local pollution and despondency. After all of that we can clearly see that the closures were a Very Bad Idea keh!


If at the end of 6 months we have evidence of effects such as you describe above, I will certainly accept the trial has been unsuccessful.

If we don't, will you change your mind?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If at the end of 6 months we have evidence of effects such as you describe above, I will certainly accept the trial has been unsuccessful.
> 
> If we don't, will you change your mind?


So your saying that you will accept accidents, hospitalisations, Loss of earnings, closure of local businesses, increased local pollution and despondency as just statistics! for you to play with?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 13, 2015)

Ms T said:


> What I don't understand is why you all don't join LJAG, rather than sniping from the sidelines, so it represents a more diverse group of people?



Because I would get barred from the Hero of Switzerland.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Beasley said:


> LJAG is not a community council.


And have never claimed to be.
They are basically a pressure group with a certain vision of how the area should be changed and improved upon.
If Lambeth council find LJAG an ideal cut price alternative to actual community consultation and sees a cup of tea with LJAG leadership as a nice easy way of ticking the 'local community is on board ' box that is not really LJAG's fault.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 13, 2015)

Not barred  me   lool
Not all LJAG members support the scheme!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Here's the link for anyone who'd like to sign the petition expressing support in principle for the aims of the Loughborough Junction Plan. This includes the road closure proposals.
> 
> Lambeth council: Community support for Loughborough Junction Plan



Here's my dilemma, I am in favour of supporting the aims of the LJ Plan, very much so but I'm not in favour of the road closure proposals. For me they would have been better with their original plans, everything is open, traffic is moving but slower and therefore safer for everyone, creating more of the village/town centre feeling they wanted, even if they sort out the terrible implementation of the road closure with proper signage and get more engagement, the road closure is not going to create that feeling because nothing has been done to tackle CHL.

While I'm loathe to create another petition etc, I do feel more research is needed into what options there are and what people want, and I mean proper research, not just here's a leaflet go to a website which will always be filled in by the angries or the do-gooders, this needs representation from all corners of the area and also some representation from surrounding areas. So rather than if you want cleaner air, safer spaces etc you have to support the road closure, how about the two things being separated and different options being presented? Imo the two are dependant on each other.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> And have never claimed to be.
> They are basically a pressure group with a certain vision of how the area should be changed and improved upon.
> If Lambeth council find LJAG an ideal cut price alternative to actual community consultation and sees a cup of tea with LJAG leadership as a nice easy way of ticking the 'local community is on board ' box that is not really LJAG's fault.



That is the issue. 

The Council officer said as much at last LJ Neighbourhood planning meeting. 

That the Council have no budget to pay for consultation on the Masterplan and would rely on LJAG.

LJAG have made mistake of allowing themselves to become to close to the Council.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You'd think that actually banning cars from the proposed closure site for a day in September 2014, and presenting the details of the proposed closures on that site and on that day, might have been noticed



Indeed, Love Lambeth did post a notice on 18 September 2014 to advertise the event that was to take place only two days later! (on Sunday 21 September).
“Come and have your say about future plans, dance to some music and roller in the disco”.

That made the event look more like a one-off street party than a serious warning that the through route and other roads in LJ were to going to be closed.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> LJAG have made mistake of allowing themselves to become to close to the Council.


Apart from that is not a mistake if you basically are interested in getting your vision of the future to prevail. Only a mistake if you were hoping to be a community council.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Indeed, Love Lambeth did post a notice on 18 September 2014 to advertise the event two days later on Sunday 21 September!
> “Come and have your say about future plans, dance to some music and roller in the disco”.
> 
> That would have sounded more like a one-off street party than a serious warning that the through route and other roads in LJ were to going to be closed.



I totally missed that. We had a roller disco consultation ?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 13, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Here's my dilemma, I am in favour of supporting the aims of the LJ Plan, very much so but I'm not in favour of the road closure proposals. For me they would have been better with their original plans, everything is open, traffic is moving but slower and therefore safer for everyone, creating more of the village/town centre feeling they wanted, even if they sort out the terrible implementation of the road closure with proper signage and get more engagement, the road closure is not going to create that feeling because nothing has been done to tackle CHL.
> 
> While I'm loathe to create another petition etc, I do feel more research is needed into what options there are and what people want, and I mean proper research, not just here's a leaflet go to a website which will always be filled in by the angries or the do-gooders, this needs representation from all corners of the area and also some representation from surrounding areas. So rather than if you want cleaner air, safer spaces etc you have to support the road closure, how about the two things being separated and different options being presented? Imo the two are dependant on each other.



Funnily enough at the LJ Masterplan consultation meetings Council said to set aside the road closure plans for the Masterplan. Not to discuss that as Masterplan would be written up to work whether the road closures were permanent or not. 

The "angries" and "do-gooders" - not sure if I like these definitions. So people who make the effort are to be ruled out? As by merely making an effort to comment they show themselves to be not representative.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You'd think that actually banning cars from the proposed closure site for a day in September 2014, and presenting the details of the proposed closures on that site and on that day, might have been noticed by _some_ of those for whom closing a short stretch of road to motor traffic has now had such an immediate and profoundly devastating impact.
> 
> Maybe they should have done a car free week instead?



You're right, maybe they should have done a week, people would have noticed it then. As it was, it was held on a Sunday, quietest day of the week for the road and billed as a fun event rather than a pre-cursor to closures. I remember getting a flyer, I don't remember reading on the flyer that that's what it was about, I was away that weekend so didn't take that much notice, hence why I think a week might have been better but that would have required resources and actually making an effort to engage with people. One day and a few sessions outside the station is not engaging with people.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> The "angries" and "do-gooders" - not sure if I like these definitions. So people who make the effort are to be ruled out? As by merely making an effort to comment they show themselves to be not representative.



Obviously those are the extremes and of course there are people somewhere in the middle but often these sorts of things are decided by the extremes as they speak the loudest. The quiet middle ground does often get overlooked.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Can't believe I missed roller disco research day.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> So your saying that you will accept accidents, hospitalisations, Loss of earnings, closure of local businesses, increased local pollution and despondency as just statistics! for you to play with?


Eh?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Eh?



That is most certainly probably the shortest reply we have ever had from you ever on U75...

with reference to you accepting accidents, hospitalisations, Loss of earnings, closure of local businesses, increased local pollution and despondency as just statistics! for you to play with?


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 13, 2015)

That's a perfect bit of Whataboutery...


----------



## Beasley (Oct 13, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> at the LJ Masterplan consultation meetings Council said to set aside the road closure plans for the Masterplan



That was how the master planners explained it in their very first pop-up street meetings, as if they did not even know anything about it (as with the planning permission granted for Higgs Triangle).
My impression was that in the larger more recent meetings they had started to accept that the road closures would go ahead.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> That is most certainly probably the shortest reply we have ever had from you ever on U75...
> 
> with reference to you accepting accidents, hospitalisations, Loss of earnings, closure of local businesses, increased local pollution and despondency as just statistics! for you to play with?


who me?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 13, 2015)

Larger more recent meetings?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> who me?


No not you Bimble @ teuchter coz took so longto reply thread was a bit lost to quote "Eh!" lol or a bit of Whataboutery

teuchter said:"If at the end of 6 months we have evidence of effects such as you describe above, I will certainly accept the trial has been unsuccessful."


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 13, 2015)

What meeting did LJAG have with the Council on the 24th September?
Where are any minutes for that?
Who attended as the Corporate meeting was on that evening at the Karibu Centre and there was nothing asked of any Council then or was this a "private" meeting LJAG had with the Council  who ever the Council is?


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> No not you Bimble @ teuchter coz took so longto reply thread was a bit lost to quote "Eh!" lol or a bit of Whataboutery
> 
> teuchter said:"If at the end of 6 months we have evidence of effects such as you describe above, I will certainly accept the trial has been unsuccessful."



ah. Of course I'm confused forgot i invisibled him . sorry..


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> That is most certainly probably the shortest reply we have ever had from you ever on U75...
> 
> with reference to you accepting accidents, hospitalisations, Loss of earnings, closure of local businesses, increased local pollution and despondency as just statistics! for you to play with?



I don't understand what you're trying to say/ask.

You posted your list of possible negative effects of the closures scheme. If it were to turn out that the scheme caused all these things, then I would certainly see the scheme as having badly failed. Who wouldn't?

I asked whether you would change your mind if, at the end of the scheme, these negative things had turned out not to happen at all, you would change your mind. Would you?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> UTURN & changing Horses in midstream, Well done LJAG
> 
> LJAG call Lambeth to account with regard to planning and resources used to implement experimental road closure | Loughborough Junction Action Group


I don't think it's a U turn at all. LJAG have always said that they would be following this up with the council and would be holding it to account if it wasn't well executed. So which specific bit of them doing what they said they would do is a U turn?


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Beasley said:


> That was how the master planners explained it in their very first pop-up street meetings, as if they did not even know anything about it (as with the planning permission granted for Higgs Triangle).
> My impression was that in the larger more recent meetings they had started to accept that the road closures would go ahead.



So the master planners didn't suggest road closures you're saying, and made an effort to keep it separate from all other discussions, not part of the plan (that''s the impression I got too) but then more recently began to speak about the road closures as a thing that was just going to happen, sort of an unforseen development? Resulting from the overwhelming support gathered during the consultation process? It's all a bit mystifying.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

Beasley said:


> That was how the master planners explained it in their very first pop-up street meetings, as if they did not even know anything about it (as with the planning permission granted for Higgs Triangle).
> My impression was that in the larger more recent meetings they had started to accept that the road closures would go ahead.


I went to both of the more recent larger meetings about the masterplan.

It was made clear at both that the closure scheme was not within the scope of the masterplan discussions, and (at the second meeting) that the proposals they were presenting for comment had been designed such that they were not dependent on the road closures going ahead.

(I think there was one option for the Wyck Gardens/Farm area that proposed a greened-over section of the road. But the other options for that site could work without the road closure.)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> So the master planners didn't suggest road closures you're saying, and made an effort to keep it separate from all other discussions, not part of the plan (that''s the impression I got too) but then *more recently began to speak about the road closures as a thing that was just going to happen*, sort of an unforseen development? Resulting from the overwhelming support gathered during the consultation process? It's all a bit mystifying.


Having attended the meetings concerned I can categorically state that no, this is not true.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I asked whether you would change your mind if, at the end of the scheme, these negative things had turned out not to happen at all, you would change your mind. Would you?


I would, yes. If there was evidence to show that the trial is a success and that for instance the air I'm breathing every day has been improved  (just back from the shop on CHL, another jumper over nose moment).


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Having attended the meetings concerned I can categorically state that no, this is not true.


I'm curious as to how do you think the road closures came about Teuchter, as they seem to have not been part of the plan or "the road closure scheme was not within the scope of the masterplan discussion" as you say?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> I don't think it's a U turn at all. LJAG have always said that they would be following this up with the council and would be holding it to account if it wasn't well executed. So which specific bit of them doing what they said they would do is a U turn?


It's written in a big red typeface so it must be true.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> I would, yes. If there was evidence to show that the trial is a success and that for instance the air I'm breathing every day has been improved  (just back from the shop on CHL, another jumper over nose moment).



If you think it's bad now, just wait until they start on the Higgs development and you have tipper lorries going up and down Coldharbour Lane to and from the site all day.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm curious as to how do you think the road closures came about Teuchter, as they seem to have not been part of the plan or "the road closure scheme was not within the scope of the masterplan discussion" as you say?


What plan are you talking about now?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 13, 2015)

Oh those meetings  I asked of the light industrial estate option sited at Loughborough Farm how traffic would get into it and was told they were not 
seeing the road as closed.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> If you think it's bad now, just wait until they start on the Higgs development and you have tipper lorries going up and down Coldharbour Lane to and from the site all day.


True. Got to say it's a fucking hellzone out there just now and full of kids walking home from school breathing that in, waiting to cross at the dodgy temporary lights.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> If you think it's bad now, just wait until they start on the Higgs development and you have tipper lorries going up and down Coldharbour Lane to and from the site all day.


And all because the cyclo-nazis banned tipper lorries from going up and down Loughborough Road all day instead.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What plan are you talking about now?


I was quoting your good self. I know there is the masterplan and the loughborough junction plan, and I will admit I get confused by that, but I'll go with your "the closure scheme was not within the scope of the masterplan discussions".


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 13, 2015)

Yes and there is also the development of land on the corner of CHL and Rathgar that at some point will take place.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Having attended the meetings concerned I can categorically state that no, this is not true.



When you attended these meetings did you just attend in your own private capacity, or were you representing some interest?


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> And all because the cyclo-nazis banned tipper lorries from going up and down Loughborough Road all day instead.


missed you.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> True. Got to say it's a fucking hellzone out there just now already and full of kids walking home from school breathing that in, waiting to cross at the dodgy temporary lights.


The kids may be breathing in all that pollution but what about the poor kids sitting in the cars that are causing all the pollution eh? Why won't anyone think of them? They probably have to suffer a car journey that takes 5 minutes longer than before. The priorities are all wrong here.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> When you attended these meetings did you just attend in your own private capacity, or were you representing some interest?


I was attending in my private capacity as a local resident and citizen of London who'd like a better public realm and streets that are better for pedestrians, public transport users and cyclists, both locally and city wide as a result of a wider transport strategy based on evidence and precedence.

But I want to hear your conspiracy theory about whose interests I'm _really_ representing, please.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> And all because the cyclo-nazis banned tipper lorries from going up and down Loughborough Road all day instead.



If you leave Loughborough Road open, traffic will go that way. If not, it will have to divert onto CHL, adding to the congestion there. The tippers will add even more.
Journey time is not a linear function of traffic volume. There is a threshold effect. Above a certain traffic volume journey time increases disproportionately.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I don't understand what you're trying to say/ask.
> 
> You posted your list of possible negative effects of the closures scheme. If it were to turn out that the scheme caused all these things, then I would certainly see the scheme as having badly failed. Who wouldn't?
> 
> I asked whether you would change your mind if, at the end of the scheme, these negative things had turned out not to happen at all, you would change your mind. Would you?





critical1 said:


> with reference to you accepting accidents, hospitalisations, Loss of earnings, closure of local businesses, increased local pollution and despondency as just statistics! for you to play with?




Well the evidence at hand shows that these things are currently happening and are detrimental, they are not a list of "possible" so why wait for 6 months.. When we have to deal with corpses of this experiment.
Reverse the closures NOW.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> If you leave Loughborough Road open, traffic will go that way. If not, it will have to divert onto CHL, adding to the congestion there. The tippers will add even more.
> Journey time is not a linear function of traffic volume. There is a threshold effect. Above a certain traffic volume journey time increases disproportionately.


So, let's wait and see whether or not that threshold is crossed as a result of the road closures.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I was attending in my private capacity as a local resident and citizen of London who'd like a better public realm and streets that are better for pedestrians, public transport users and cyclists.. as a result of a wider transport strategy based on evidence and precedence.



I want all those things too. We sound like people who would agree on the big issues.

And you are stoically defending this particular scheme because you think it meets which of those your above stated aims / criteria?

1) better public realm
2) streets that are better for pedestrians
3) better for public transport users
4) better for cyclists
5) as part of a wider transport strategy based on evidence & precedence


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Well the evidence at hand shows that these things are currently happening and are detrimental, they are not a list of "possible" so why wait for 6 months.. When we have to deal with corpses of this experiment.
> Reverse the closures NOW.


Oh really?
I wasn't aware of the evidence of increased accidents and hospitalisations. Please provide a link to that evidence.
Neither was I aware that local businesses had already closed. Which ones?


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> I don't think it's a U turn at all. LJAG have always said that they would be following this up with the council and would be holding it to account if it wasn't well executed. So which specific bit of them doing what they said they would do is a U turn?


I think the feeling is that it was a mistake for LJAG to remain entirely silent on the subject until right now.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Oh really?
> I wasn't aware of the evidence of increased accidents and hospitalisations. Please provide a link to that evidence.
> Neither was I aware that local businesses had already closed. Which ones?




A cyclist was hospitalised the other day, I'm sure they are now aware of this forum and will respond in their own time, I'm really surprised that you want to see local businesses close before action is taken, cant you see the impact that is already occurring or does that not matter as local family firms are run down, then we can go in.. actually it sounds a bit like financial colonisation... kill them all then just walk in and take over!

Platitudes are pointless, so sorry to the stress this has caused you and yours and the difficulties you have had to endure whilst this experiment came to an end, but you know only the fit survive. Sorry for your loss.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Has Teuchter left the building?
After asking so many rhetorical questions it seems rude to just ignore genuine ones. 
Just to recap: 
I'm curious as to how do you think the road closures came about Teuchter, as "the road closure scheme was not within the scope of the masterplan discussion" as you say?
& 
You are stoically defending this particular scheme because you think it meets which of those your stated aims / criteria?
1) better public realm
2) streets that are better for pedestrians
3) better for public transport users
4) better for cyclists
5) as part of a wider transport strategy based on evidence & precedence


----------



## irf520 (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I was attending in my private capacity as a local resident and citizen of London who'd like a better public realm and streets that are better for pedestrians, public transport users and cyclists, both locally and city wide as a result of a wider transport strategy based on evidence and precedence.
> 
> But I want to hear your conspiracy theory about whose interests I'm _really_ representing, please.



No conspiracy. I was just curious as to whether you might be a member of the London Cycling Campaign, or any other cycling-related organisation. But if not then never mind.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 13, 2015)

I don't fancy whoevers job it is to quantify the levels of despondency!


----------



## irf520 (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Has Teuchter left the building?
> After asking so many rhetorical questions it seems rude to just ignore genuine ones.
> Just to recap:
> I'm curious as to how do you think the road closures came about Teuchter, as "the road closure scheme was not within the scope of the masterplan discussion" as you say?
> ...



He's probably gone to see if he can find some more roads to close. Or some evil motorists to harass. Maybe he's gone down to one of the closures with a video camera to film people going through the no entry signs so he can grass them up.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It's written in a big red typeface so it must be true.



And if you mix your metaphors as well as using a big red typeface, it makes it doubly true.

LJAG have clearly been busy if they've found the time to change their horses whilst doing a U Turn. No wonder they've only done exactly what they said they were going to do.


----------



## Angellic (Oct 13, 2015)

I've got RSI from keeping up with the alerts.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> I don't fancy whoevers job it is to quantify the levels of despondency!


That's me, I have a machine for that, it straps on your back with an old gramaphone type nozzle on top and you have to walk at a steady pace around the junction taking readings. Current despondency level remarkably low. I attribute this to an unusual wave of righteous indignation and activism in the area but things usually settle down to base rate average in the high seventies by November.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 13, 2015)

Just  been spotted on Loughborough Estate  Cllr Brathwaite and George Wright.

Over 2000 signatures now on  Lambeth Council: Reverse the Loughborough Junction Road Closures Now!


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> And if you mix your metaphors as well as using a big red typeface, it makes it doubly true.



Can you see how part of the problem here may be that LJAG (which I believe has good if blinkered intentions in promoting its particular vision of the future for LJ but never claimed to try to represent everybody who lives here) is led by a professional journalist and tends to attract the combined efforts of residents who as a group are very practiced and comfortable at communicating with the powers that be?


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Can you see how part of the problem here may be that LJAG (which I'm sure has good intentions in its vision of the future for LJ but never claimed to try to represent everybody who lives here) is led by a professional journalist and tends to attract the combined efforts of residents who as a group are very practiced and comfortable at communicating with the powers that be?



Are you seriously crediting a journalist with good written communication skills? What do you think sub editors are for?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> A cyclist was hospitalised the other day, I'm sure they are now aware of this forum and will respond in their own time,


How does the rate of cyclist hospitalisation pre- and post- closures compare? (And please provide some details of the geographical area you are taking your samples from)

Are you confident your two-or-three week sample period of post-closure cyclist hospitalisation rate represents information that you can extrapolate anything meaningful from? (Clue: answer is almost certainly not).



critical1 said:


> I'm really surprised that *you want to see local businesses close* before action is taken,



I'm not really surprised that you're using such offensive and disingenuous tactics to try and present your argument.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> He's probably gone to see if he can find some more roads to close. Or some evil motorists to harass. Maybe he's gone down to one of the closures with a video camera to film people going through the no entry signs so he can grass them up.



Seriously? Why does this have to be so personal? He's got just as much right to his opinion as anyone else, the fact his opinion is different to yours does not make this post necessary, if you want someone to vent at, go for one of the people that made this happen, ie the council.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'm not really surprised that you're using such disingenuous tactics to try and present your argument.


Hi Teuchter. any response to post 1648? x


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Has Teuchter left the building?
> After asking so many rhetorical questions it seems rude to just ignore genuine ones.



You put me on ignore for being rude, and now you are saying I'm rude for ignoring you? Excellent work as ever.



bimble said:


> Just to recap:
> I'm curious as to how do you think the road closures came about Teuchter, as "the road closure scheme was not within the scope of the masterplan discussion" as you say?



They were proposed as part of the outcome of the initial "masterplan" by Lambeth/LJAG/DSDHA. They were accepted and carried forward by Lambeth, as I understand it because they fitted in with their broader transport strategy. It seems LCC had some input as well. I think you can work all this out by reading information already posted on this thread, if that's not too much bother for you.



bimble said:


> You are stoically defending this particular scheme because you think it meets which of those your stated aims / criteria?
> 1) better public realm
> 2) streets that are better for pedestrians
> 3) better for public transport users
> ...



I think it has the potential to meet all of those aims.

Again, this is information easily gleaned by reading my previous posts on this thread, which is why it's a bit of a waste of my time answering them again. I propose you put me back on ignore.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

LadyV said:


> He's got just as much right to his opinion as anyone else


Agree. I am just really annoyed by how he seems to insist that this particular scheme is a net gain environmentally, that it makes life better for pedestrians, or makes public transport better, or improves the 'public realm in LJ, or reduces the fumes we have to breathe. I am all for measures to do those things but as far as I can see this is a total failure on all counts.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 13, 2015)




----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> No conspiracy. I was just curious as to whether you might be a member of the London Cycling Campaign, or any other cycling-related organisation. But if not then never mind.


I am not a member of the LCC or any other "cycling-related" organisation that I can think of.

The last time I was on a bike was last Friday afternoon when I cycled from Sevenoaks to Guildford on a mid-90s Specialised Hardrock (some original components replaced). The weather was good and I had quite a nice ride thanks.

The last time I cycled in London was about two weeks ago when I used a Boris Bike to get from Elephant and Castle to the Fenchurch Street area. I do not cycle in London very much but do so occasionally when it's the quickest/easiest mode for the job.

If I could get a place in a Bike Hangar near where I live, I would probably cycle a bit more in London. At the moment keeping a bike in a smallish flat is more hassle than it's worth. Better cycle facilities, well maintained cycle lanes and more traffic calming would also encourage me to cycle more regularly.

I have a driving license, but have never owned a car. I am a member of Zipcar and use their cars/vans when it's necessary for me to do so within London, which over the past few years has been perhaps 5 or 6 times a year. I have on several occasions used the route down Loughborough road.

I hope this provides you with a sufficiently detailed declaration of my interests and cyclist/motorist profile to continue making further, better informed judgements about my fascist endeavours.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Agree. I am just really annoyed by how he seems to insist that this particular scheme is a net gain environmentally, that it makes life better for pedestrians, or makes public transport better, or improves the 'public realm in LJ, or reduces the fumes we have to breathe. I am all for measures to do those things but as far as I can see this is a total failure on all counts.


This conclusion based on visions seen in your crystal ball no doubt.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You put me on ignore for being rude, and now you are saying I'm rude for ignoring you? Excellent work as ever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





*"They were proposed as part of the outcome of the initial "masterplan"  *
The masterplan does not have any road closures in it at all . Does it? Am I mistaken ? Please advise.
"*They were accepted and carried forward by Lambeth, as I understand it because they fitted in with their broader transport strategy" .*
I am still waiting (2 weeks) for a response from GW about whether or not I somehow misunderstood the document which says that the air quality assessment of this scheme will consist of a two hour stint on the closed Loughborough Road with CHL as the control:  CHL as the control means any changes in the adjoining road and main hub will be attributed to weather conditions  or some other outlier. If you think this really is part of a considered and planned air pollution reduction agenda, to improve the air pedestrians breathe, please point me towards anything at all that might help show how that is the case.
*"I think it has the potential to meet all of those aims."*
Please if you have time just let me know, which of these you feel show signs of improvement so far since the trial began:
1) better public realm
2) streets that are better for pedestrians
3) better for public transport users
4) better for cyclists


----------



## LadyV (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Agree. I am just really annoyed by how he seems to insist that this particular scheme is a net gain environmentally, that it makes life better for pedestrians, or makes public transport better, or improves the 'public realm in LJ, or reduces the fumes we have to breathe. I am all for measures to do those things but as far as I can see this is a total failure on all counts.



Yes but again, that's his opinion and he is entitled to it. He's also not alone in that opinion. I don't want the closures any more than you but that doesn't mean it's worth getting annoyed about. We need to be getting annoyed with the right people.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Just  been spotted on Loughborough Estate  Cllr Brathwaite and George Wright.


Did anyone invite them in for a biscuit and frank exchange of views?


----------



## leanderman (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Agree. I am just really annoyed by how he seems to insist that this particular scheme is a net gain environmentally, that it makes life better for pedestrians, or makes public transport better, or improves the 'public realm in LJ, or reduces the fumes we have to breathe. I am all for measures to do those things but as far as I can see this is a total failure on all counts.



One problem with the road closure may be that it does not go far enough.

Right now, 'though' drivers can divert around it, apparently causing congestion. 

More comprehensive closures could deliver what you say you want:

Better for pedestrians
Better (quicker) public transport
Environmental (carbon-cutting) gains
Reduced (deadly) fumes


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This conclusion based on visions seen in your crystal ball no doubt.


My crystal ball is unreliable. I do live here though and as a non driver I do most of my shopping and walks into Brixton along Coldharbour lane.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

leanderman said:


> One problem with the road closure may be that it does not go far enough.
> 
> Right now, 'though' drivers can divert around it, apparently causing congestion.
> 
> ...



For me personally just my own self interest yes. Please bring it on, make the whole city a pedestrian bus tram cycle rickshaw heaven, with electric taxis once or twice a year. Bring in more bold measures to get people out of their cars if possible or change to less polluting ones, and fines or anyone who bangs their horn just to express how they feel. And pedaloes on the river please.   

But this just here this peculiar trial is a disaster.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

2,054 is a big number. Can't all be jeremy clarkson.
Lambeth Council: Reverse the Loughborough Junction Road Closures Now!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> *"They were proposed as part of the outcome of the initial "masterplan"  *
> The masterplan does not have any road closures in it at all . Does it? Am I mistaken ? Please advise.


As far as I can see the initial masterplan did not propose road closures. It proposed various alterations to the street around the top of LR including a new crossing, raised surfaces etc. with the general aim of making it more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists and encouraging its use as a public space. There are multiple public realm improval proposals along that stretch of road, including down to the Hero Of Switzerland.
It appears to me that this was subsequently developed further to include the idea of closing it off as a through route for motor vehicles. In my opinion that is entirely compatible with the aims I have summarised above. In adition it fits within Lambeth's cycling strategy. It seems like a decision consistent with the aims of the initial masterplan and transport policy. It is quite a brave decision actually because such proposals do have a history of drawing opposition.
I can't comemnt any further on the detailed machinations of the process of arriving at that point because I wasn't there and wasn't involved. I expect Lambeth were lobbied both by members of LJAG and LCC and I would have supported them in doing so.



bimble said:


> "*They were accepted and carried forward by Lambeth, as I understand it because they fitted in with their broader transport strategy" .*
> I am still waiting (2 weeks) for a response from GW about whether or not I somehow misunderstood the document which says that the air quality assessment of this scheme will consist of a two hour stint on the closed Loughborough Road with CHL as the control:  CHL as the control means any changes in the adjoining road and main hub will be attributed to weather conditions  or some other outlier. If you think this really is part of a considered and planned air pollution reduction agenda, to improve the air pedestrians breathe, please point me towards anything at all that might help show how that is the case.



Based on the limited information available, the air testing as proposed appears inadequate to me. It seems likely that it will not provide convincing enough evidence either way. 
Woudl I like to see it done properly so that we have better information on which to base decision making? Yes.
Is it measuring the sole, or most important potential positive outcome of this project? No.
If the air pollution measurements provide limited information, is that a reason to write off the whole project? No.



*


bimble said:



			"I think it has the potential to meet all of those aims."
		
Click to expand...

*


bimble said:


> Please if you have time just let me know, which of these you feel show signs of improvement so far since the trial began:
> 1) better public realm
> 2) streets that are better for pedestrians
> 3) better for public transport users
> 4) better for cyclists



How many times do I have to say that trying to assess outcomes is pointless until the trial has been allowed to run for a decent amount of time?
Ask me again in 3 months or 6 months' time.
At that point I am sure you will be able to bring your own observations too.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> 2,054 is a big number. Can't all be jeremy clarkson.
> Lambeth Council: Reverse the Loughborough Junction Road Closures Now!


2,054 people willing to pass judgement on the outcome of an incomplete experiment.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> As far as I can see the initial masterplan did not propose road closures. It proposed various alterations to the street around the top of LR including a new crossing, raised surfaces etc. with the general aim of making it more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists and encouraging its use as a public space. There are multiple public realm improval proposals along that stretch of road, including down to the Hero Of Switzerland.
> It appears to me that this was subsequently developed further to include the idea of closing it off as a through route for motor vehicles. In my opinion that is entirely compatible with the aims I have summarised above. In adition it fits within Lambeth's cycling strategy. It seems like a decision consistent with the aims of the initial masterplan and transport policy. It is quite a brave decision actually because such proposals do have a history of drawing opposition.
> I can't comemnt any further on the detailed machinations of the process of arriving at that point because I wasn't there and wasn't involved. I expect Lambeth were lobbied both by members of LJAG and LCC and I would have supported them in doing so.
> 
> ...




Your considered response is appreciated.
I agree, it would be really helpful if we understood where the idea came from in the first place.
Or if there were plans in place to ascertain whether or not this would make air quality better for people who live here.
Like if this was in any way a coherent part of a wider pollution reduction strategy.
Or if there were any measures in place to help us figure out conclusively what the benefits might be to pedestrians cyclists and public transport users.
Let's agree to wait and see what the results are then, from the research that is being conducted on all these fronts.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> So the master planners didn't suggest road closures [?] _#1624 _



The new planners (Fluid, working on the LJ Masterplan) did not suggest the road closures.
They were suggested by the old planners (DSDHA who produced the LJ Plan). But it was not mentioned in the Plan: it must have been developed later. 

It was touched on in the Feb 2014 LJAG/Lambeth Public Realm meeting minutes:
Narrow Loughborough Road and Hinton Road making Coldharbour Lane the main route through LJ. RA [Richard Ambler, Lambeth Cycling Officer]: "this would tie in well with this being a cycle quietway."


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> *Let's agree to wait and see what the results are then*, from the research that is being conducted on all these fronts.


You say this, but at the same time are continually promoting the petition which is asking for the experiment to be scrapped rather than letting it run and making a decision based on the results.

So, which is it? Do you want it scrapped or do you want to wait for the results?


----------



## Angellic (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You say this, but at the same time are continually promoting the petition which is asking for the experiment to be scrapped rather than letting it run and making a decision based on the results.
> 
> So, which is it? Do you want it scrapped or do you want to wait for the results?




Sadly, the whole scheme seems to be ignored a lot of the time. I saw plenty of traffic there on Sunday evening so cannot see how there can be an adequate assessment.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 13, 2015)

Would not Lambeth retain its dignity and the confidence of the public if it stopped this experiment immediately?  I think it would -- and they must have learned enough already.

Back at the drawing board they could design a better scheme and plan to implement it at a more suitable time in proper collaboration with TfL and Southwark.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Do you want it scrapped or do you want to wait for the results?


Which results?
I am not aware of any research at all going on so far from Lambeth (quantitative) or its appointed partners at Stockwell Partnership  (qualitative). Both seem postponed to some unknown date.
All I can find out about the plans to eventually measure its success or failure make me laugh, in a not funny way.
The only data being compiled that I know about is being cobbled together by angry residents, frustrated bus drivers, a concerned ambulance worker etc. So not up to your standards of being worth consideration.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 13, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> LJAG have made mistake of allowing themselves to become to close to the Council.


Some of their earlier projects could not have been achieved without being close to the council (and Network Rail for that matter).
E.g. the Cambrian artwork under the railway arch at Cambria Road is presumably sanctioned by Network Rail and LJAG's efforts to mobilise residents around Elam Open Space (and of course "The Farm") no doubt required Lambeth's agreement [unless this is direct action - which I doubt]


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Beasley said:


> The new planners (Fluid, working on the LJ Masterplan) did not suggest the road closures.
> They were suggested by the old planners (DSDHA who produced the LJ Plan). But it was not mentioned in the Plan: it must have been developed later.
> It was touched on in the Feb 2014 LJAG/Lambeth Public Realm meeting minutes:
> Narrow Loughborough Road and Hinton Road making Coldharbour Lane the main route through LJ. RA [Richard Ambler, Lambeth Cycling Officer]: "this would tie in well with this being a cycle quietway."*[*/QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## CH1 (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So, let's wait and see whether or not that threshold is crossed as a result of the road closures.


It has certainly increased out of all proportion for people having nothing to do with driving on Loughborough Road. My house has become an emergency second bus stop on Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

Beasley said:


> The new planners (Fluid, working on the LJ Masterplan) did not suggest the road closures.
> They were suggested by the old planners (DSDHA who produced the LJ Plan). But it was not mentioned in the Plan: it must have been developed later.
> 
> It was touched on in the Feb 2014 LJAG/Lambeth Public Realm meeting minutes:
> Narrow Loughborough Road and Hinton Road making Coldharbour Lane the main route through LJ. RA [Richard Ambler, Lambeth Cycling Officer]: "this would tie in well with this being a cycle quietway."



"Narrow Loughborough Road and Hinton Road *making Coldharbour Lane the main route through LJ"?*
An excellent idea!
Shove all the traffic out of the only modern wide road onto the main shopping and pedestrian street, and the one used by most of the buses.
Much appreciated by pedestrians, shoppers, people who use buses.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 13, 2015)

leanderman said:


> One problem with the road closure may be that it does not go far enough.
> 
> Right now, 'though' drivers can divert around it, apparently causing congestion.
> 
> ...


Surely what you want is to move the congestion charge boundary to take in Zone 2?


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 2,054 people willing to pass judgement on the outcome of an incomplete experiment.


2,055 if you count those immovably in favour?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> 2,055 if you count those immovably in favour?


If that extra one is supposed me, then you've clearly not read what I've been writing here and all discussion with you is a waste of time.


----------



## bimble (Oct 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If that extra one is supposed me, then you've clearly not read what I've been writing here and all discussion with you is a waste of time.


Ok I'm sorry. Will leave you in peace.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 14, 2015)

I wonder why Rosendale put up opposition then road closure declined, Loughborough puts up opposition road closure agreed!!!

Is there some sort of divide in Lambeth


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2015)

teuchter said:


> How does the rate of cyclist hospitalisation pre- and post- closures compare? (And please provide some details of the geographical area you are taking your samples from)
> 
> Are you confident your two-or-three week sample period of post-closure cyclist hospitalisation rate represents information that you can extrapolate anything meaningful from? (Clue: answer is almost certainly not).



Awaiting your replies with interest critical1


----------



## critical1 (Oct 14, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Awaiting your replies with interest critical1


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)




----------



## Beasley (Oct 14, 2015)

Stop that NOW! Manter may be watching.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 14, 2015)

Interesting comment on the other Change.org petition  Lambeth council: Community support for Loughborough Junction Plan

From Anthea Masey of LJAG:
“In all the fuss about the road closures the vision for a better Loughborough Junction is getting lost.”


----------



## irf520 (Oct 14, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Awaiting your replies with interest critical1



The thing is, this whole "let's try it and see what happens" approach is a specious argument. You are proposing removing a structural element of the road network. Would you start with a somewhat dilapidated building, remove a structural element then wait six months to see if it falls down? If it doesn't fall down, then what? You start removing more structural elements - a few bricks here, a beam there, a lintel there. Still it doesn't fall down. One day there's a strong gust of wind or a slight ground tremor, and down it comes. I am against the principle of removing structural elements of the road network because it weakens the network as a whole. What happens if there is an accident or a police incident or even roadworks on one of the few remaining available roads? No-one is going anywhere, that's what.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2015)

irf520 said:


> The thing is, this whole "let's try it and see what happens" approach is a specious argument. You are proposing removing a structural element of the road network. Would you start with a somewhat dilapidated building, remove a structural element then wait six months to see if it falls down? If it doesn't fall down, then what? You start removing more structural elements - a few bricks here, a beam there, a lintel there. Still it doesn't fall down. One day there's a strong gust of wind or a slight ground tremor, and down it comes. I am against the principle of removing structural elements of the road network because it weakens the network as a whole. What happens if there is an accident or a police incident or even roadworks on one of the few remaining available roads? No-one is going anywhere, that's what.



Quite a silly and simplistic analogy, I think, but before I reply can you define what you mean by "structural element of the road network" and how you distinguish them from non-structural elements, please.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

People like this are in favour.  
Which is good to know. I mean its nice that she cares about this squalid little place. 
I wonder which local businesses she visits on her way through. Maybe she stops for a cheeky fried chicken.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 14, 2015)

teuchter said:


> can you define what you mean by "structural element of the road network"



The meaning is clear enough for me. The route through fields shown on maps as far back as 1745 was the first to be built on in later developments and became a main component -- structural element -- of the area's road system.


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2015)

According to a reader comment on Buzz: 



> There’s a LJAG Planning meeting tomorrow (Thursday) at 6.30 in the Loughborough Centre (corner of Barrington and Angell).
> 
> They have invited the public.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2015)

Beasley said:


> The meaning is clear enough for me. The route through fields shown on maps as far back as 1745 was the first to be built on in later developments and became a main component -- structural element -- of the area's road system.
> View attachment 78055 View attachment 78058


You haven't given a definition of "structural element of the road network". You've just restated that Loughborough Road is one.
Unless the definition is "a road what was there when it was still mostly fields round here"?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 14, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Interesting comment on the other Change.org petition  Lambeth council: Community support for Loughborough Junction Plan
> 
> From Anthea Masey of LJAG:
> “In all the fuss about the road closures the vision for a better Loughborough Junction is getting lost.”



Sadly she's right, it's soured the whole scheme, which is such a shame because the general aims and ideas are good, it's just this one and it's shockingly bad implementation that has buggered everything up


----------



## Beasley (Oct 14, 2015)

LadyV said:


> such a shame because the general aims and ideas are good



The basic idea -- public space on LR -- was not very good at all. Lambeth should have counselled against it and provided professional help with a less disruptive scheme.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 14, 2015)

Lambeth council: Community support for Loughborough Junction Plan

I think the other Change.org petition has got slightly confused. Some people are seeing it as a place to support the road closures whereas others seem to be using it as a place to support the Masterplan but not the closures, it doesn't have very clear aims.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 14, 2015)

Beasley said:


> The basic idea -- public space on LR -- was not very good at all. Lambeth should have counselled against it and provided professional help with a less disruptive scheme.



I meant the general aims of the original Masterplan, make the area nicer to be in, narrow but keep open road, cycle lanes, more space for pedestrians etc, less pollution, I support all of those things, it's when the confusion of trying to join up the farm to Wyck Gardens and then the road closures came in that it all started to go screwy. 

Everyone is so focused just on the road closures right now that the original ideas are being lost and it has soured everyone's views


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Lambeth council: Community support for Loughborough Junction Plan
> 
> I think the other Change.org petition has got slightly confused. Some people are seeing it as a place to support the road closures whereas others seem to be using it as a place to support the Masterplan but not the closures, it doesn't have very clear aims.


Yes, I noticed that too. People (some) are signing their names to that petition and then using the comment button to say how much they don't want this road closure scheme. The petition doesn't really say what it's about very clearly.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Awaiting your replies with interest critical1


I too would really like to know about any change in average accident rates and any change in emergency response times before and since the closures. I'd expect those numbers to be collected and looked at and shared as part of Lambeth's evaluation of the scheme.
Along with any notable increase in bus journey times along CHL, any change to air quality on CHl, and so on.

I don't think it's necessarily critical1's job, strictly speaking, to get all that vital information together.
I haven't heard that the council are planning to do any of those things though. 
Far as I know they'll just be counting cars?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> It isn't really critical1's job, strictly speaking, to get all that vital information together, would you not agree?


It's critical1's job to find and look at that information before claiming that there's evidence the closures have increased hospitalisations. As it is, it's clear that claim was a load of made-up nonsense, like so many of the supposed criticisms of these closures.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

ok fair enough. I would still like to know, as someone who wants to see 'the results' of the experiment before deciding either way, which results you are looking forward to seeing. Are you aware of anything Lambeth is planning to include in its quantitative evaluation apart from the reduced pollution on the closed street and the counting of cars?


----------



## Beasley (Oct 14, 2015)

LadyV said:


> the general aims of the original Masterplan, make the area nicer to be in, narrow but keep open road



That's the problem: things have moved too quickly without proper notification or discussion. The LJ Plan of 2013 (which was not a "master" plan) did not refer to closing or even narrowing Loughborough Road. Apparently, that only evolved in LJAG's discussions with DSDHA in early 2014. It was included in this scheme but not properly advertised before consultations began in Oct 2014 -- which was bad.

This year, as Cllr Matt Parr put it in his Call-In, the road closure decision "jumps the gun in that it is happening before the completion of the Loughborough Junction Masterplan." The Masterplan began as a hasty attempt to forestall the Higgs Triangle scheme when the road closures scheme was already underway. There was no coordination between the two -- which again is bad.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

It looks like George Wright, architect of the scheme, is taking a break. Presumably won't be able to make it to the meeting about the closures tomorrow.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2015)

Taken at 4.45 this evening

 

So still being widely ignored then.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

But .. is that a picture of  "a structural element of the road network"?



teuchter said:


> before I reply can you define what you mean by "structural element of the road network" and how you distinguish them from non-structural elements, please.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 14, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Taken at 4.45 this evening
> 
> View attachment 78070
> 
> So still being widely ignored then.



Blimey that's nearly a grand right there, maybe with all their fines Lambeth can do everything again but properly, so a proper consultation with more than 299 people within the consultation area responding and then if people still  want the road closed, a proper bus gate.

I see at least 10-15 cars every morning and every evening on my way to and from work, so that's about £2000 in about 5 minutes, if they all pay £130 each.

If we take Teucher's picture with 7 cars in one snapshot and maybe have an low estimate of 5 cars per minute, that's still a potential of 7,200 cars a day still going through. If we have the CCTV car there for say 9am to 5pm, so 8 hours a day, that's a possible 2,400 fines being issued, which is £312,000, £156,000 if they all pay within 14 days. £156,000 a day, a working week of the CCTV car being there could generate £780,000. Obviously once the fines start landing on door mats the traffic would reduce so you wouldn't get as much as time goes on but still that is a heck of lot of money. Where do we think that money is going? Because I can't imagine that it's going back to help regenerate Loughborough Junction!!

Even if we reduce that estimate to 2 cars a minute which is way too low on current anecdata, that's still 2,880 cars a day. Again with our model of CCTV car there for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, a week could generate £624,000 at full price fine or £312,000 at the 50% reduction.

And this is just at the Loughborough Road junction, I've also seen cameras at Barrington Road and one of the other blocked roads, can't remember it's name. The potential for making money is massive!

A conspiracy theorist might speculate that Lambeth have done a really shit job of implementing the plan to raise some much needed cash. Maybe our councillors should be asking the traffic team where the money will go, maybe I'll enquire.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 14, 2015)

LadyV said:


> A conspiracy theorist might speculate that Lambeth have done a really shit job of implementing the plan to raise some much needed cash.



If Lambeth kept the Rosendale Road scheme they could get some drivers twice or even four times in one day -- £520 -- easy money!


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

Here are some numbers from something called Clean Air In London, a website called howpollutedismyroad.org.uk.
You can compare last year's pollution & vehicle numbers for Loughborough Road and Coldharbour Lane.
Coldharbour Lane much worse on all counts, before this experiment, as you'd expect.
How many of the 10,000 vehicles from Loughborough Road have been added to CHL's existing 13,000 we can't know, with proper statistics, unless the closures stay and this becomes the new normal.

Whoever it was that came up with this idea of adding all Loughborough Road's stink onto our main shopping, bus and pedestrian street deserves some sort of special recognition, like a plaque or something.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Even if we reduce that estimate to 2 cars a minute which is way too low on current anecdata, that's still 2,880 cars a day. Again with our model of CCTV car there for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, a week could generate £624,000 at full price fine or £312,000 at the 50% reduction.



That is some serious money right there. Maybe this is good news, maybe the takings will be reinvested right here in a proper attempt to improve the public realm in Loughborough Junction. That would be nice.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> That is some serious money right there. Maybe this is good news, maybe the takings will be reinvested right here in a proper attempt to improve the public realm in Loughborough Junction. That would be nice.


Have asked Rachel Heywood if she knows


----------



## LadyV (Oct 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> Whoever it was that came up with this idea of adding all Loughborough Road's stink onto our main shopping, bus and pedestrian street deserves some sort of special recognition, like a plaque or something.



A plaque or a plague?


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 14, 2015)

Here is an intriguing snippet, a cycling lawyer trying to whip up support for the closures made a blog post which has been removed since i stumbled on it last week........ luckily the cached version still exists..................

Lambeth Council to decide on closure of Loughborough Road «  Personal Injury Blog

..............it appears she thinks the closure zone has " good space for cycling "


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

I wonder why she removed it, maybe she's observed that cycling around the junction and down coldharbour lane has become extremely unpleasant and things were better before.

Whenever people say that thing about "an pedestrianized zone apart from buses and cycles' it confuses me. Had this idea about pedestrian zones that they were just for people moving around in a quite relaxed manner on feet. I don't really see the point otherwise.


----------



## leanderman (Oct 14, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Have asked Rachel Heywood if she knows



Will the fines stick though?

I could see them being overturned on appeal on grounds of inadequate signage etc


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Will the fines stick though?
> 
> I could see them being overturned on appeal on grounds of inadequate signage etc



I think that side of things has been taken quite seriously.
Believe it was the day after someone spray painted over the £130 fine signs that those two brand new giant portable digital ones appeared at the junction, saying the same thing.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Well the evidence at hand shows that these things are currently happening and are detrimental, they are not a list of "possible" so why wait for 6 months.. When we have to deal with corpses of this experiment.
> Reverse the closures NOW.



I was cycling down Loughborough road this morning at about 9.30 to get to Brixton Road. With the road closure further up its now clear from Fiveways to Brixton Road.

Normally its rammed with traffic trying to get both ways.

I saw for the first time an ambulance go straight up that bit of road towards Fiveways.

Normally this would be impossible at this time of day.

So on that bit of residential street ( lot of it Council) its a lot more pleasant environment for those that live there.

Its also means that emergency vehicles can now use that stretch of road.

So reversing the road closures will stop that. You ok with that?


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> So reversing the road closures will stop that. You ok with that?


I think it's clear that there are 'winner's and 'losers' in this experiment, George Wright used those words himself I remember, when talking about some residential roads which will inevitably get more polluted etc. 
To me the question is how many people are better off with and how many worse. 
The ambulance worker who spoke at the meeting against the closures did have a many paged document he waved around whilst he was speaking about increased response times, but I'm sure as you say there are some places the ambulance can reach quicker than before, I just don't think it's the majority of places. There was one (ambulance ) paused for a while outside my window this morning, doing that confused thing all drivers do, confronted with 3 NO Entry signs.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> "Narrow Loughborough Road and Hinton Road *making Coldharbour Lane the main route through LJ"?*
> An excellent idea!
> Shove all the traffic out of the only modern wide road onto the main shopping and pedestrian street, and the one used by most of the buses.
> Much appreciated by pedestrians, shoppers, people who use buses.



This is not blocking off Loughborough road but narrowing it instead? 

Sorry I thought earlier in this thread alternatives to the complete closure of a section of Loughborough Road were considered ok.

That "we" all wanted to reduce through traffic at LJ. So an alternative model is considered ok. 

Are u now saying that any alternative is no out of order?

Closing a section of Hinton road instead was voiced at the last LJ Neighbourhood planning meeting. No one objected to it. It seemed to me something to follow up.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> ok fair enough. I would still like to know, as someone who wants to see 'the results' of the experiment before deciding either way, which results you are looking forward to seeing. Are you aware of anything Lambeth is planning to include in its quantitative evaluation apart from the reduced pollution on the closed street and the counting of cars?



The problem with teuchter is that definitive answers are not possible and if they were the community would be dead a bit like schrödinger's cat. If its broken how will you fix it? Will you give compensation to businesses etc? Thought so...

Which view do you think teuchter would take!


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> This is not blocking off Loughborough road but narrowing it instead?
> 
> Sorry I thought earlier in this thread alternatives to the complete closure of a section of Loughborough Road were considered ok.
> 
> ...



No I'm VERY keen on any plan for reducing the amount of fumes I have to breathe every day. 
Its just I'd particularly like one that involved reducing the traffic on coldharbour lane, the main pedestrian and shopping and bus stop street please. Instead of increasing it a lot.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think it's clear that there are 'winner's and 'losers' in this experiment, George Wright used those words himself I remember, when talking about some residential roads which will inevitably get more polluted etc.
> To me the question is how many people are better off with and how many worse.
> The ambulance worker who spoke at the meeting against the closures did have a many paged document he waved around whilst he was speaking about increased response times, but I'm sure as you say there are some places the ambulance can reach quicker than before, I just don't think it's the majority of places. There was one (ambulance ) paused for a while outside my window this morning, doing that confused thing all drivers do, confronted with 3 NO Entry signs.



The ambulance I saw going fast with its lights and horn on. This route would take it direct to the hospital from that direction. Emergency vehicles can ignore the road closure. If they dont know this then its lack of informing drivers not the schemes fault. 

I would like some more evidence of how its actually affecting emergency vehicles. 

As for increased pollution I live directly on CHL. So any increase in traffic will affect me. 

Just saying before anyone accuses me of just being selfish cyclist.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

Me too, I want those informations too. They are not part of the plan though, the evaluation plan.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2015)

BTW whose going to the LJ Neighbourhood planning meeting meeting on Thursday? Just be good to say hello to fellow urbanites

BTW Its not that secret who I am on Urban. LJAG know I post here. So u can just ask me. 

Got email saying where its at:

For as I know its open meeting. Anyone can attend.

*LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum meeting on Thursday 15 October at 6.30pm*
You are invited to the next meeting of the LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum at 6.30pm in the hall at the Loughborough Centre, Angell Road (on the corner with Barrington Road).

Please click below for the following documents:

1.   Agenda in docx and pdf formats
2.   Minutes of the meeting on Wednesday 16 September in docx and pdf formats
3.   Bid to GLA regeneration fund.

Best wishes
Anthea Masey
Forum co-ordinator


https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c678366a8fc275dc2daf27f88/files/LJAGLJNeighbourhoodPlanningForum16_09_2015.docx

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...JAGLJNeighbourhoodPlanningForum16_09_2015.pdf

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...es/LJAGLJNeighbourhoodPF15_10_2015agenda.docx

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c678366a8fc275dc2daf27f88/files/LJAGLJNeighbourhoodPF15_10_2015agenda.pdf

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c678366a8fc275dc2daf27f88/files/LJAGGLARegenbid1.pdf


----------



## leanderman (Oct 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> No I'm VERY keen on any plan for reducing the amount of fumes I have to breathe every day.
> Its just I'd particularly like one that involved reducing the traffic on coldharbour lane, the main pedestrian and shopping and bus stop street please. Instead of increasing it a lot.



It's not impossible that net traffic, and therefore pollution and emissions, in the area is down.

Might some drivers not now have concluded that their commute, or school drop-off, needs to be rethought?

Oyster card data reveals that - forced to rethink their routes because of Tube strikes - commuters stumble on small but significant journey-time savings.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> It looks like George Wright, architect of the scheme, is taking a break. Presumably won't be able to make it to the meeting about the closures tomorrow.
> 
> View attachment 78063


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> Me too, I want those informations too. They are not part of the plan though, the evaluation plan.



They should be. Something to bring up tomorrow.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> They should be. Something to bring up tomorrow.


Please do. I don't think I can make it but I would be asking about how this whole thing is being evaluated, how its success or failure will be judged.
Particularly in reference to the joke of their air quality measuring plan, which consists only of 2 hours measuring the pollution on the closed road, with CHL as the control (!) so any changes there deemed unconnected.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2015)

leanderman said:


> It's not impossible that net traffic, and therefore pollution and emissions, in the area is down.
> 
> Might some drivers not now have concluded that their commute, or school drop-off, needs to be rethought?
> 
> Oyster card data reveals that - forced to rethink their routes because of Tube strikes - commuters stumble on small but significant journey-time savings.



There was massive increase of use of Boris Bikes. Instead of getting Tube to Railway station people cycled. They had to get about 200 extra Boris Bikes to Soho Sq in morning. I know I was hanging out in Soho Sq when they brought them in.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

leanderman said:


> It's not impossible that net traffic, and therefore pollution and emissions, in the area is down.


I walk down coldharbour lane every day.  It does not seem down to me. It seems up a lot. But I just live here, it''s just anecdata.


----------



## prunus (Oct 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Closing a section of Hinton road instead was voiced at the last LJ Neighbourhood planning meeting. No one objected to it. It seemed to me something to follow up.



Assuming the suggestion is for a closure of a section under the bridges (closing the bit south of the roundabout wouldn't achieve much) then surely you'd have to close Wanless and probably Wingmore, and likely Alderton and indeed the rest of Hinton too, otherwise the north <-> south route (Milkwood <-> Loughborough Road) would just dogleg through those streets and via Herne hill road. 

Personally I'd love all that to happen (disclosure those are the roads I live in, and yes I have a car), but the point is that one can't just close one road in a network - it needs to be co-ordinated with likely alternative routes.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2015)

bimble said:


> No I'm VERY keen on any plan for reducing the amount of fumes I have to breathe every day.
> Its just I'd particularly like one that involved reducing the traffic on coldharbour lane, the main pedestrian and shopping and bus stop street please. Instead of increasing it a lot.



Im not sure what to about that.

In central London as measures to reduce traffic and make central London more pedestrian friendly (wider pavements in Oxford street for example) have come in it means traffic moves more slowly in many parts. .

Oxford street is getting to be a bus car park now.

Bloomsbury Way and Shaftesbury Avenue have been narrowed down so much that car traffic moves really slowly.

The basic problem in London is to much traffic. London had declining population in 80s now its increasing a lot. So more traffic.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2015)

At least the question is being passed around Lambeth council relevant people today, the one about air quality, is the air better or worse for residents with or without closures. . It seems it hadn't been raised at all as a concern yet.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 14, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Will the fines stick though?
> 
> I could see them being overturned on appeal on grounds of inadequate signage etc


Some will definitely be appealed, especially if they were clever enough to take photos of the vandalised signs but there have been a good few days of proper signage and cameras, yet people are still going through, those people will have difficulty appealing


----------



## Beasley (Oct 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Closing a section of Hinton road instead was voiced at the last LJ Neighbourhood planning meeting.



I never quite got that idea when posted by CH1, way back in 4 Nov 2014, on page 4 of this thread (#94) when it was a more sedate discussion:


CH1 said:


> I think the obvious solution to all this is simply to close off Hinton Road. That area is where the traffic is coming from - and apparently the complaints.
> Then the Loughborough Estate area can be left in peace - in both senses.



But… Milkwood and Hinton Roads are classified as B222 so surely TfL would forbid their being closed? Loughborough Road is obviously part of the same route but, by some accident of history, not classified and therefore not subject to the same conditions.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 14, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Interesting comment on the other Change.org petition  Lambeth council: Community support for Loughborough Junction Plan
> 
> From Anthea Masey of LJAG:
> “In all the fuss about the road closures the vision for a better Loughborough Junction is getting lost.”


Actually she does not say that she says and I quote;   
"In all the fuss but the road closures the vision for a better Loughborough Junction is getting lost."
She cannot even write one sentence and get it right!!!


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 14, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I was cycling down Loughborough road this morning at about 9.30 to get to Brixton Road. With the road closure further up its now clear from Fiveways to Brixton Road.
> 
> Normally its rammed with traffic trying to get both ways.
> 
> ...


I live near Loughborough Road and can see the traffic and ambulances have never had any problems driving up it at any time of day before the closures.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

Good news! Mr Mistry at Lambeth has promised to fix their website so that if you look for ongoing consultations in the borough, something will appear telling you that there is a consultation ongoing here and whom to contact with ideas and feedback about the current trial. so that it might look a bit more as promised,


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Quite a silly and simplistic analogy, I think, but before I reply can you define what you mean by "structural element of the road network" and how you distinguish them from non-structural elements, please.


Still awaiting clarification from irf520 on this.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

I know you're asking 520 about this but I'm going to have a go.
Maybe something counts as a "structural element of the road network" if it was the one street in a given locality which was wide enough to allow two buses to pass one another comfortably whilst parked cars line both sides.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 15, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Here is an intriguing snippet, a cycling lawyer trying to whip up support for the closures made a blog post which has been removed since i stumbled on it last week........ luckily the cached version still exists..................
> 
> Lambeth Council to decide on closure of Loughborough Road «  Personal Injury Blog
> 
> ...


Nice to see that firm has a Polish section and also deal with "Psychiatric Injury" to cyclists - presumably they mean PTSD but forgot what the current technical term was.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Nice to see that firm has a Polish section and also deal with "Psychiatric Injury" to cyclists - presumably they mean PTSD but forgot what the current technical term was.



Talking about Polish sections and psychiatric injuries, 
I got this yesterday, when I tried to email the lead at Stockwell Partnership, the one in charge of the ongoing consultation about LJ road closures.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 15, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> I live near Loughborough Road and can see the traffic and ambulances have never had any problems driving up it at any time of day before the closures.


Emergency Vehicles are not permitted to ignore No Entry/Road Closed signs.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> I wonder why she removed it, maybe she's observed that cycling around the junction and down coldharbour lane has become extremely unpleasant and things were better before.
> 
> Whenever people say that thing about "an pedestrianized zone apart from buses and cycles' it confuses me. Had this idea about pedestrian zones that they were just for people moving around in a quite relaxed manner on feet. I don't really see the point otherwise.


The so-called pedestrian zone is anything but.  Cyclists, Buses, and allowed vehicular access to 2 nearby roads Ridgway and Rathgar (according to the signs). Not to mention emergency services if they need to (though it contravenes the Highway Code) So be careful if you fancy strolling around.


----------



## Aeryn (Oct 15, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> Here is an intriguing snippet, a cycling lawyer trying to whip up support for the closures made a blog post which has been removed since i stumbled on it last week........ luckily the cached version still exists..................
> 
> Lambeth Council to decide on closure of Loughborough Road «  Personal Injury Blog
> 
> ...



Yeah, she says the bad bit is the bit between Fiveways and Brixton Road. She's right, that bit's awful. But it's awful due to the parked cars, and it's outside the closure zone. So I'm not sure how the closures are meant to help. I haven't seen much difference on my morning commute so far (though tbf since cars are still going through the closed sections maybe that's no surprise).


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

Here's a sad thing.
More evidence that the only air quality measurement that will be part of the evaluation of this scheme is the pollution level on Loughborough Road.

As in.. *the measurements will only show that a closed road is less polluted than a road which has lots of vehicles on it.*

This is how the scrutiny response document explains the air quality assessment plan:



This seems very clear.

No other air quality measurements are planned and no other measurements, like for instance in adjoining streets, have been taken as baselines.
So all we can possibly learn from this is that a closed road is better for you than one with cars on.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 15, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Milkwood and Hinton Roads are classified as B222 so surely TfL would forbid their being closed



Out of curiosity, what does that mean classified as B222? Is that the road number or a type of road? And why would TfL forbid them being closed? No buses or public transport go down there. In fact why would TfL forbid any road being closed?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2015)

Some roads (main roads) are the responsibility of TfL, and the rest are the responsibility of local authorities. I think.

So if Hinton Rd is a TfL controlled road, Lambeth would have to agree changes with them (again, I think).


----------



## Angellic (Oct 15, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Out of curiosity, what does that mean classified as B222? Is that the road number or a type of road? And why would TfL forbid them being closed? No buses or public transport go down there. In fact why would TfL forbid any road being closed?




I found this but note the article only received 2 stars.

B222 - Roader's Digest: The SABRE Wiki


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2015)

Angellic said:


> I found this but note the article only received 2 stars.
> 
> B222 - Roader's Digest: The SABRE Wiki


No contest for the A4061, boasting a 5 star article which identifies it as "a bit of a dark horse".


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

AlexH said:


> The so-called pedestrian zone is anything but.  Cyclists, Buses, and allowed vehicular access to 2 nearby roads Ridgway and Rathgar (according to the signs). Not to mention emergency services if they need to (though it contravenes the Highway Code) So be careful if you fancy strolling around.


So no picnics in the middle of the new public space then, no bouncy castles or farmers market or kids playing happily under cherry trees.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 15, 2015)

So who's going to the planning meeting this evening? And what do we think the chances of it being completely over run by anti-road closure people?


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

LadyV said:


> So who's going to the planning meeting this evening? And what do we think the chances of it being completely over run by anti-road closure people?



Both George Wright who is running the experiment and the woman at Stockwell Partnership who has the task of carrying out all qualitative research on it are both away on leave, say their emails.
I imagine Clare Neely will be there though.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

LadyV said:


> So who's going to the planning meeting this evening? And what do we think the chances of it being completely over run by anti-road closure people?


Seeing as the road closures are on the agenda,  I'd say it's pretty likely.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

Of course, people who feel strongly about a thing will probably turn up to an open meeting where they hope to get heard, only not sure who will be there to listen.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> Of course, people who feel strongly about a thing will probably turn up to an open meeting where they hope to get heard, *only not sure who will be there to listen.*



It says this on the LJ Road Madness facebook page.

6. Road closures – 8 week evaluation – presentation by.
Steve Griffin and Aga Kulesa from the Stockwell Partnership. 
Representatives from Lambeth’s traffic and communications teams will
also be present.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

Yes, I know. Just that I got email bounceback out of office replies from Aga (lead on this at stockwell) and from George (lead at Lambeth on it) yesterday, both saying they're on leave (until 21st and 28th)(.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

just got this from Stockwell Partnership:

'*Aga is coming to the meeting tonight but then away until the week after next.
There’s going to be several people doing survey sessions on the streets and in local businesses over a fortnight starting next week.'*


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2015)

Complete waste of resources. The scheme's not been in long enough to see meaningful effects, especially given that the closures are obviously still being widely ignored by drivers.

So, to appease a shouty facebook group who aren't prepared to let the experiment run before jumping to conclusions, money down the drain on surveys that will garner little useful information.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> Both George Wright who is running the experiment and the woman at Stockwell Partnership who has the task of carrying out all qualitative research on it are both away on leave, say their emails.
> I imagine Clare Neely will be there though.


I actually meant out of us lot but good to know who will be trying to speak over the top of lots of jeers and catcalls


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

I agree, would be a total waste of time for everyone if that's what it ends up being like in there this eve. I'm going to miss it, so any jeering isn't me.
Also, Matt Parr has apparently got himself a really loud microphone.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> I agree, it would be a total waste of time for everyone if that's what it ends up being like in there this eve. I'm going to miss it, so any jeering isn't me.


I'm going to try to go, depends if I get out of work on time, merely to quietly observe rather than to jeer. I figure that if I'm going to criticise things on here, I should make an effort to go to events which help shape those things and see what happens. I had always intended to go to earlier meetings but they're invariably too early for me, I'm usually still at work at 6.30, never mind near home and in the mood to go to one of these.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I'm going to try to go, depends if I get out of work on time, merely to quietly observe rather than to jeer.


It would be great if someone here could do their own brief version of minutes. 
(would definitely be there, was at the last one, just important work thing this eve)


----------



## Angellic (Oct 15, 2015)

LadyV said:


> So who's going to the planning meeting this evening? And what do we think the chances of it being completely over run by anti-road closure people?





bimble said:


> It would be great if someone here could do their own brief version of minutes.
> (would definitely be there, was at the last one, just important work thing this eve)



I won't be able to make it tonight.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 15, 2015)

Angellic said:


> unfortunatley, I won
> 
> 
> I won't be able to make it tonight.


For those that support the petition to stop the closure I suggest emailing their local MP and the Lambeth Councillors. Here are some of the email addresses (I don't have all of them). 'helen.hayes.mp@parliament.uk''jbrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'Poulter@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'Steve@stockwell.org.uk'; 'MAgdomar@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'jdickson@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'JHolborn@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'DAnyanwu@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'rheywood@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'mparr1@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'TBriggs@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'JDyer3@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'PGadsby@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'AGallop@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'SWinifred@lambeth.gov.uk'


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2015)

AlexH said:


> For those that support the petition to stop the closure I suggest emailing their local MP and the Lambeth Councillors. Here are some of the email addresses (I don't have all of them). 'helen.hayes.mp@parliament.uk''jbrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'Poulter@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'Steve@stockwell.org.uk'; 'MAgdomar@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'jdickson@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'JHolborn@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'DAnyanwu@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'rheywood@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'mparr1@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'TBriggs@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'JDyer3@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'PGadsby@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'AGallop@lambeth.gov.uk'; 'SWinifred@lambeth.gov.uk'


Those who'd like the experiment to run its course before jumping to hasty decisions should also email their councillors/MPs.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2015)

I was in the meeting but had to leave a short time ago.

The room was full but not over-full.

The transport chap from the council was trying to explain the evaluation measures that are going to be taken. However most of the time it wasn't possible to hear him as people were shouting over him from the audience. 

The people from stockwell partnership were supposed to be explaining what they are going to be doing for the upcoming consultation. They'd had to pretty much abandon that halfway through because of the constant interruptions.

Clr Parr was doing a fairly poor job of keeping things on track.

I'll try and post what information I could glean from the speakers in between the shouting and jeering, later on.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The transport chap from the council was trying to explain the evaluation measures that are going to be taken.
> 
> The people from stockwell partnership were supposed to be explaining what they are going to be doing for the upcoming consultation.
> 
> I'll try and post what information I could glean from the speakers in between the shouting and jeering, later on.



If those important questions didn't get a chance to be answered that is a real shame.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

I recorded the meeting on my mobile.  Well up to the point they started moving onto other things.  Most of the people left then.  I'm trying to upload it to dropbox if anyone is interested.  Was surprised to see Opik Lembit there.  He held his hand up for ages waiting to speak.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 15, 2015)

xsunnysuex said:


> I recorded the meeting on my mobile.  Well up to the point they started moving onto other things.  Most of the people left then.  I'm trying to upload it to dropbox if anyone is interested.  Was surprised to see Opik Lembit there.  He held his hand up for ages waiting to speak.


 
was it as raucous as teuchter has suggested ?


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

xsunnysuex said:


> Opik Lembit



curiouser & curiouser. Don't know anything about him apart from that he married a cheeky girl. Did he get to speak? Does he live here?


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> curiouser & curiouser. Don't know anything about him apart from that he married a cheeky girl. What did he want to say? Does he live here?


 
He used to take his classic MG to one of the LJ mechanics.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 15, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> He used to take his classic MG to one of the LJ mechanics.


That will be Ian at Mayflower I imagine. He used to fix my camper when I lived nearby years ago. Nice bloke, had a Delorean in the corner of one of his arches which was safe.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> He used to take his classic MG to one of the LJ mechanics.


That must be what it is. Clearly a man of sophisticated tastes.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

xsunnysuex said:


> I'm trying to upload it to dropbox if anyone is interested.  Was surprised to see Opik Lembit there.  He held his hand up for ages waiting to speak.


you could try sticking it on Utube, that's quite easy. I'm interested.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 15, 2015)

Dan U said:


> That will be Ian at Mayflower I imagine. He used to fix my camper when I lived nearby years ago. Nice bloke, had a Delorean in the corner of one of his arches which was safe.



yes, a nice guy, unfortunately he shut up shop over summer and the yard will soon be flats and a property surveyors practice*

* _if planning consent is granted_


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> was it as raucous as teuchter has suggested ?



At times it was.  The crowd were definitely making their feelings felt.   They were very riled when it was suggested the road closures were only going to get 45mins.  They soon decided it was a good idea to change that.   There was a lot of shouting over people.   The crowd want the road closures stopped.  And they want it now.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

Dan U said:


> That will be Ian at Mayflower I imagine. He used to fix my camper when I lived nearby years ago. Nice bloke, had a Delorean in the corner of one of his arches which was safe.


I've just google image searched Delorian. 
That looks like an Opik Lembit sort of car.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> curiouser & curiouser. Don't know anything about him apart from that he married a cheeky girl. Did he get to speak? Does he live here?
> View attachment 78121


He did get to speak.  Although I can't rightly remember what he said.  I don't know where he lives.  But don't think it's around here.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> you could try sticking it on Utube, that's quite easy. I'm interested.



My phone isn't giving me the option to put it on youtube.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

xsunnysuex said:


> My phone isn't giving me the option to put it on youtube.


I think if you go to Utube website & look for 'upload' in top right corner you can make it up from there ?


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> yes, a nice guy, unfortunately he shut up shop over summer and the yard will soon be flats and a property surveyors practice*
> 
> * _if planning consent is granted_



I thought you were being symbolic. I suspect planning consent will be granted with a bow on top. The political climate does seem to be turning against car repair shops round here.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 15, 2015)

xsunnysuex said:


> He did get to speak.  Although I can't rightly remember what he said.  I don't know where he lives.  But don't think it's around here.



Kennington IIRC


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> I thought you were being symbolic. I suspect planning consent will be granted with a bow on top. The political climate does seem to be turning against car repair shops round here.



that particular car repair shop was told as much some years back by a representative of the council


----------



## Dan U (Oct 15, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> yes, a nice guy, unfortunately he shut up shop over summer and the yard will soon be flats and a property surveyors practice*
> 
> * _if planning consent is granted_


Really? That's a real shame. He was the most chaotic mechanic I've ever dealt with but really liked him and Ronnie 

[emoji20] 

I never would have picked that bit of Hinton Road for redevelopment for flats, times are definitely changing. 

he had a long history with network rail, when they did the bridge years back and closed the road it almost finished him then and iirc he got bugger all compo for the disruption.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

Dan U said:


> times are definitely changing.


 They are. It's a hard rains a-gonna fall.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think if you go to Utube website & look for 'upload' in top right corner you can make it up from there ?


Arhh I should have made it clear,  it's just an audio file.  And youtube says no.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

xsunnysuex said:


> Arhh I should have made it clear,  it's just an audio file.  And youtube says no.


oh. then i have no clue, maybe someone technical can help. Would've been better than written minutes.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> oh. then i have no clue, maybe someone technical can help. Would've been better than written minutes.


Will keep trying.


----------



## editor (Oct 15, 2015)

xsunnysuex said:


> Will keep trying.


If the quality is good, forward it to me and I could share it on Buzz (and here)

brixtonbuzz - at gmail.com


----------



## CH1 (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> curiouser & curiouser. Don't know anything about him apart from that he married a cheeky girl. Did he get to speak? Does he live here?
> View attachment 78121


I suspect he may live round here. No stranger to controversy Lembit has been a vocal supporter of Oasis Church Waterloo (a former Prebysterian Church next to Kennington Police Station). Oasis is an evangelical church which is pro gay marriage - and got kicked out of the Evangelical Alliance because of that.

I don't think you are right about him marrying a Cheeky Girl - that seems to have been a relationship which did not lead to marriage.

He was of course a Lib Dem MP for many years(up to 2010) but of more relevance to road closures or not - Wikipedia says he is a long term supporter of the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) of which he is apparently a director.

Don't know if Lindsay Avebury has engaged in this debate - but she is the other Liberal bigwig who might possibly be concerned - resides and very active in the Myatts Fields area (President of Longfield Hall trust I think).


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

editor said:


> If the quality is good, forward it to me and I could share it on Buzz (and here)
> 
> brixtonbuzz - at gmail.com


It says the file is too big.


----------



## editor (Oct 15, 2015)

xsunnysuex said:


> It says the file is too big.


Try this: WeTransfer


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I suspect he may live round here. No stranger to controversy Lembit has been a vocal supporter of Oasis Church Waterloo (a former Prebysterian Church next to Kennington Police Station). Oasis is an evangelical church which is pro gay marriage - and got chicked out of the Evangelical Alliance because of that.
> 
> I don't think you are right about him marrying a Cheeky Girl - that seems to have been a relationship which did not lead to marriage.
> 
> ...



You seem a well informed person politically Mr CH1. Here's a thing. I met - very briefly -  someone called Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC this eve. He seems to be a top quality lord, as lords go. See this for instance THE ODYSSEUS TRUST
Any chance he'd be interested in squalid little LJ and its consultation process and road closure assessment process do you think?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Don't know if Lindsay Avebury has engaged in this debate - but she is the other Liberal bigwig who might possibly be concerned - resides and very active in the Myatts Fields area (President of Longfield Hall trust I think).


Re that comment Facebook says: 
LINDSAY AVEBURY JUST SIGNED THIS PETITION ON CHANGE.ORG. (that is the Reverse the Closures one)


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

editor said:


> Try this: WeTransfer


Nope.  It's way too large.  Says 20hrs.  It's 1002.3 MB


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 15, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> I live near Loughborough Road and can see the traffic and ambulances have never had any problems driving up it at any time of day before the closures.



Really?

I cycle down it nearly every morning and it was jammed packed with vehicles in mornings from junction of Brixton road and Fiveways until the road closures.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> You seem a well informed person politically Mr CH1. Here's a thing. I met - very briefly -  someone called Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC this eve. He seems to be a top quality lord, as lords go. See this for instance THE ODYSSEUS TRUST
> Any chance he'd be interested in squalid little LJ and its consultation process and road closure assessment process do you think?


Never met him - and from his reputation I would expect him to be thinking about refugee issues primarily right now.

What you (and I) need are connections in the upper echelons to answer such questions. I can remember a time when the Brixton Society boasted one member who worked for the Privy Council, and one for the House of Lords (back in the 1980s).

Andrew McGrgegor (presenter of record review on Radio 3) lives locally - but he is a Tube user, so not much chance there!


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

xsunnysuex said:


> Nope.  It's way too large.  Says 20hrs.  It's 1002.3 MB


20 hours you'd all still be in there. What about.. one of these voice recognition things that phones can do . or maybe you/ someone who has time could just listen and type up the key bits.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Andrew McGrgegor (presenter of record review on Radio 3) lives locally - but he is a Tube user, so not much chance there!


I think the idea that this particular road closure is a motorists v environmentalists issue is long gone don't you?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 15, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> was it as raucous as teuchter has suggested ?



Yes it was. At end I felt I had to say something as no one else was going to stick up for cyclists. The guy from Motor Cycle Action Group annoyed me. Was that Opik? Annoying twat. 

Raucous in sense of unlike here where there has been a debate there was little in way of debate. It was borderline mob rule. 

Unlike teuchter thought that Cllr Parr did a good job.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> 20 hours you'd all still be in there. What about.. one of these voice recognition things that phones can do . or maybe you/ someone who has time could just listen and type up the key bits.


I've got it on my laptop now.  But still having problems.   I'm the only one here I'm afraid.  And I type with one finger lol.  This is so frustrating.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> I met - very briefly -  someone called Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC this eve.


(2) I suggest if you meet him again you pop the question.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 15, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Yes it was. At end I felt I had to say something as no one else was going to stick up for cyclists. The guy from Motor Cycle Action Group annoyed me. Was that Opik? Annoying twat.
> 
> Raucous in sense of unlike here where there has been a debate there was little in way of debate. It was borderline mob rule.
> 
> Unlike teuchter thought that Cllr Parr did a good job.


Give you a like for supporting your local councillor and _minus_ a like for zapping Lembit Opik = nul point!

What did he say that annoyed you? - he must have wanted to say it if he was waving his hand for ages.

P.S. I wasn't there - had arranged to go to an educational thing with a friend so felt obliged to keep the arrangement.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Give you a like for supporting your local councillor and _minus_ a like for zapping Lembit Opik = nul point!
> 
> What did he say that annoyed you? - he must have wanted to say it if he was waving his hand for ages.
> 
> P.S. I wasn't there - had arranged to go to an educational thing with a friend so felt obliged to keep the arrangement.



He was just stirring it up imo. Didnt realise it was him.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> (2) I suggest if you meet him again you pop the question.



I don't even know if a Lord being the Lord of Herne Hill means that he lives here. Does it? 
The Herne Hill Society did produce a very good reasoned objection to our road closures (see below) and it is just up / down the road.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 15, 2015)

bimble said:


> I don't even know if a Lord being the Lord of Herne Hill means that he lives here. Does it? The Herne Hill Society did do good reasoned objection to our road closures (see below) and it is just up / down the road.


I know as much or as little as you do about him. He is described as Lord Lester of Herne Hill in the Borough of Southwark, which suggests if he is local or locally connected it is round Half Moon Lane/Sunray Avenue etc.

Some years ago the Guardian was careful to stress that Lord Lester was a Jenkinsite co-founder of the SDP and "a Labour Man" (although a Lib Dem peer).

So there is a slight difference between him and Lord Avebury (the other half of Lindsay Avebury). Eric Lubbock/Lord Avebury is 87 and does live in Myatts Fields. He is concerned with Freedom for Tibet and Voluntary Euthansia, whereas Lindsay seems to deal with local issues.

I did meet Lord Avebury once - he used to run a computer dealership in Vauxhall and was a very ebulient salesman at the time (1992 - don't think Windows had been invented back then).

Lord Lester is 79 (as they say in the Daily Mail)


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 15, 2015)

Erm, no - he's a lib dem peer - left labour to set up lib dems etc. In the 80s - so you can infer his local influence. Peerage is rep for Southwark, Edit: as ever ch1 beat me to it!


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Lord Lester is 79 (as they say in the Daily Mail)


He did look 79 but in a very good way. Anyhow, I don't think it would be the most hopeful of emails, "Hello Lord L, I met you for 2 minutes, please get to the bottom of this local issue for us.  Don't know. He was very charming though, and interested in judicial reviews apparently.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 15, 2015)

My computer is dying. So limited access. 

Sad not to meet teuchter met Beasley and another poster here. 

Depressing meeting. Democracy by who shouts loudest. Where I sometimes find the idea of community a bit scary. Someone at meeting said good thing about the road closure debacle is that it had brought the community together. Not for me. Problem with idea of communities is that you are either in or out. 

No way one could as teuchter and me think to wait for a while to see and then come to an opinion. Thats now becoming untenable option.

I got to meeting a bit late so sat at back. Unlike the other LJ Neighbourhood Planning meetings this one was well attended. Unfortunately all people wanted to talk about was the road closures. Big row about agenda at start. 

Whilst Council officers and Stockwell Partnership tried to explain what they were going to do no one wanted to listen. All they wanted to know was when the closures would end.

As I was at back and could not hear everything at front but I could hear the ongoing comments around me. A lot of which I could sympathise with. Those around me said that the road closures were about gentrifying the area - they used the word gentrifying.

They also saw the Farm as part of that. "What do we need a farm for"...

So it was not just about road closures. It was a whole load of issues of which road closures is the focus/ final straw.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

If there is a way of getting the audio of the whole meeting up, then that would be good. Then people can judge for themselves the quality of discussion that was possible and/or took place.

For what it's worth here is my account of things, in a general sense. editor if you want to quote this in a Buzz article feel free to do so. NB that I had to leave the meeting about an hour in so don't know what happened after that.

I've not been to one of these neighbourhood planning forum meetings before, so am not sure what they are normally like. I know that Gramsci and others have.

My expectations (based partly on what I'd read on here and elsewhere) was that there would be some kind of LJAG mafia plus their favoured councillors facing the inevitably hostile audience.

In fact, sat at the table were:

- Clr Matt Parr (chairing). He is the one who "called in" the scheme previously, and made it clear during the meeting that he was not in favour of the scheme.
- Clr Rachel Heywood. Also openly anti the scheme.
- Woman representing LJroadmadness group. Did not get her name. As far as I understood, she is also chair/secretary(?) of the Loughborough Estate Tenants Group. 
- Anthea Masey from LJAG. While I was there she didn't comment either way on the road closure scheme. She was taking minutes.

There was also a guy representing Lambeth on the transport front (didn't get his name either) who was not at the table but was asked up at various points to present/answer questions. George Wright not there because he was on annual leave, apparently organised some time ago. If I understood correctly, the transport guy seemed to say that leadership of the project was being taken over to some extent by someone more senior anyway.

Clr Brathwaite (Lambeth cabinet member ultimately in charge of the scheme) was not there. There was some anger in the audience that she wasn't (perhaps fair enough). No-one was able to give a specific reason why she could not attend.

So, of those sat at the table, 75% were openly anti the scheme.

Nonetheless I felt the atmosphere was that the audience were largely hostile to anyone that spoke. From the very beginning people were interupting everything with questions, depsite the LJroadmadness woman's request that people obey the "house rules" and put their hand up to speak. A fair bit of time was wasted at the beginning with a chaotic argument about whether the closures should be discussed first or last, and whether the 45 minutes allocated to that subject were adequate (the road scheme was not the only item on the agenda). LJroadmadness woman suggested the discussion be moved to the end so that questions could go on afterwards for as long as necessary. Clr Parr reluctantly agreed to this, but then on a show of hands the auduence rejected that too, so back to plan A. Quite a lot of time wasted already which I feel might have been avoided with a more assertive chairman (he kept asking people to wait until after the presentations before asking questions, but then repeatedly engaged with whoever shouted their points the loudest).

The transport chap was trying to put forward the argument that the decision about whether the closures should continue should be based on an assessment of the best evidence available (which of course I agree with). To his credit he was pretty patient with the barrage of shouting thrown at him and was firm in his assertion that the people in the room didn't necessarily represent the majority view in the area. He did reference the initial consultation results which supposedly showed a majority in favour, this predictably was met with a certainamount of jeering. There were some questions from the audience asking about what the actual point of the closures were anyway, and his reply was that these had been restated in a letter sent out shortly after the scheme commenced, and also detailed on the Lambeth website. I think that was a fair point really, because while I've no doubt many will claim they never got that letter, the fact is that for anyone interested it's not that difficult to read the stated aims. And yet a suggestion from the audience seemed to be that the aims were opaque and had never been explained to anyone.

Here is the thing: I am happy to admit that I would like this scheme to succeed, because I believe in the general principles behind it. Having said that, I'm also completely prepared to listen to anyone with legitimate concerns about it, and if there are major problems with it that can't be resolved then I would accept that maybe it has to be abandoned. However, I think it's important that all these concerns are not just listened to but that someone goes out to check whether the problems are real, and if they are, tries to find a way to resolve them with modifications rather than simply abandoning the whole scheme.

It might have been possible, if the meeting had been properly chaired, and if everyone in the audience respected the principle that those with the loudest voices shouldn't be allowed to dominate the discussion, for grievances to be aired in a way that they could be responded to and noted, and then investigated further. But there was no way that was going to happen in tonight's meeting. It was very clear that the majority (or at least the shoutiest portion of it) weren't interested in discussing anything - the scheme was to be abandoned right now, end of. There was a point where a couple of specific points were raised - increased traffic on St James Crescent, and a cut-through route via an estate car park - in a way that would allow them to be discussed. I listened to both of those points and felt that I woudl like to go and try and understand what was going on. There would be the potential to address them specifically and constructively - see if measures to prevent people using that cut-through, for example, could be taken. But the discussion soon returned to something approaching chaos.

I did feel that some audience comments reflected an atmosphere of conspiracy theory. Someone seemed to be saying cars were deliberately being directed into the estate to "kill us off". There was a complaint about the fact that there weren't enough copies of the agenda to go round the audience. The chair pointed out that it was simply a list of items to be discussed which he had read out at the beginning but the audience member seemed to feel there was a plot to supress information. The issue of class was explicitly mentioned, with the suggestion that the scheme was being foisted on the area because of the type of people living there. It might be unfair to describe such feelings as conspiracy theories because I do understand that there are legitimate reasons for people to be concerned about class-related issues in a broader sense. But the point is, the audience seemed dominated by a complete unwillingness to discuss or even listen to those trying to present to them an outline of the reasons behind the scheme or the ways in which an attempt was being made to take a vaguely representative sample of feeling in the area alongside more objective measures of its impact.

I don't know what's going to happen now. The people from Stockwell Partnership were faced with quite a lot of hostility despite not representing a position and I doubt they are looking forward to trying to carried out their consultative excercises in that atmosphere, especially as it's all now to be done in a hasty and rushed fashion before the time it was supposed to take place.

All I want is that we take the chance to try and make LJ a bit nicer for those who aren't just driving through, but if there'd have been a show of hands for those in favour of the scheme, or even in favour of completing the experiment and then making a decision on consideration of the results, I don't know if I'd have been brave enough to put up my hand. The atmosphere created by those so vociferouly opposed is why I refuse to accept that the angry mob necessarily represent a majority of local opinion.

It was quite a relief to leave the unpleasant atmosphere in the meeting room, and come out onto Loughborough Road, which to me seemed pleasingly peaceful, very few cars, you could hear people talking, and the occasional clatter of bike wheels and associated headlamps drifting by. But I live the other side of the tracks so can't assume that's what everyone likes.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

I see Gramsci put things rather more concisely as I was typing all that out


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

There was a guy sat right at the front with a clipboard who was constantly having his say and interrupting. Clr Parr pretty much told him to shut up at one point, saying something about wasn't he from Croydon anyway. not sure what that was all about.

Didn't notice Lembit Opik.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 16, 2015)

I just popped out for my evening constitutional and it occurred to me that the "cameras" on the poles at the junction do not flash - whereas I have seen cameras flash when people are speeding.

Are those cameras functional or are they like those mock burglar alarm thingees people have in gentrified areas as a deterrent?

Does anyone know if any fines have been issued? FOE coming on (assuming Mr Wright's office do not wish to answer a direct question)?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

There were a couple of calls for "direct action" to put an end to the "havoc" that this scheme is apparently causing.

My thoughts were that instead of spraying over the signs on Loughborough Rd, maybe people could take direct action to stop drivers cutting through estate car parks. Or intervene in the reported hour-long driver standoff on St James Crescent.

But it seems that folk don't see the legions of unecessary car journeys as the problem. Despite all the stuff about danger to children and air pollution and so on.

It's "the cyclists" or something who are causing the problems here


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I just popped out for my evening constitutional and it occurred to me that the "cameras" on the poles at the junction do not flash - whereas I have seen cameras flash when people are speeding.
> 
> Are those cameras functional or are they like those mock burglar alarm thingees people have in gentrified areas as a deterrent?
> 
> Does anyone know if any fines have been issued? FOE coming on (assuming Mr Wright's office do not wish to answer a direct question)?


Why do you want to know?

The most efficient use of taxpayers' money may be via fake cameras that don't cost much but put a decent number of people off.

They don't work if it's stated that they are fake. The we have to pay someone to sit in a CCTV car. And then everyone can come up with conspiracy theories about that being no more than a revenue drive by Lambeth.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

Potemkin cctv? Could be but unlikely, they do badly need the money.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Why do you want to know?
> 
> The most efficient use of taxpayers' money may be via fake cameras that don't cost much but put a decent number of people off.
> 
> They don't work if it's stated that they are fake. The we have to pay someone to sit in a CCTV car. And then everyone can come up with conspiracy theories about that being no more than a revenue drive by Lambeth.


I guess I'm just suspicious that this would be further evidence of a "bodge job". The streetscape looking down Loughborough Road is a joke. Can you imagine that in Sutton or Surbiton, never mind Hampstead or Westminster?

I am in favour of clear lines. If you break the rules you WILL be fined. Not you may be if our cameras are not fake.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I am in favour of clear lines. If you break the rules you WILL be fined. Not you may be if our cameras are not fake.



Then we'd better have police officers installed on every single street corner so that we can say with certainty that if you assault someone in the street you WILL be held to justice. Not that you may be if there happen to be sufficient witnesses willing to give evidence in court.

Sounds expensive.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

I don't know if the cameras are pretend or not but the cctv car was here today. I doubt that the revenue collection side of things is being bungled as wholeheartedly as other bits.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If there is a way of getting the audio of the whole meeting up, then that would be good. Then people can judge for themselves the quality of discussion that was possible and/or took place.
> For what it's worth here is my account of things, in a general sense.....


Thank you for a comprehensive report - you give the flavour of things in detail.
I do still come back to question why it is such a surprise if people's lives are quite dramatically changed in some cases they might get upset.
Surely in this case the problem should be for those who want to make the change to carry the people with them. That is a democratic process.
Simply changing people's access and expecting them to like it or lump it is condescending and reminiscent of the traditional British approach IMHO


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 16, 2015)

Fake cameras are known to deter crime. They're just useless at proving crime, particularly once criminals know they're fake. Their was a study which showed displaying a set of human eyes on an anti-bike theft poster on the wall by a bike stand had a noticeable effect on the number of bikes stolen.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> There was a guy sat right at the front with a clipboard who was constantly having his say and interrupting. Clr Parr pretty much told him to shut up at one point, saying something about wasn't he from Croydon anyway. not sure what that was all about.
> 
> Didn't notice Lembit Opik.



Opik turned up late and was at back.

Still think Cllr Parr did a good job. It was more of a protest than a meeting.

Anthea did speak. Must have been after you left. She basically said LJAG supported experiment. If it didnt work then think again. She also put in support for what is in fact Lambeth Labour policy of putting pedestrians etc first.

She was only LJAG person I saw there tonight. Unlike other meetings they seemed thin on the ground tonight.

I think the guy from Croydon may have been the one someone posted up here about who is known campaigner for the motorist.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Then we'd better have police officers installed on every single street corner so that we can say with certainty that if you assault someone in the street you WILL be held to justice. Not that you may be if there happen to be sufficient witnesses willing to give evidence in court.
> Sounds expensive.


Reductio ad absurdum


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Still think Cllr Parr did a good job. It was more of a protest than a meeting.



He certainly didn't have an easy job.

I'm sure I could have done no better myself.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Thank you for a comprehensive report - you give the flavour of things in detail.
> I do still come back to question why it is such a surprise if people's lives are quite dramatically changed in some cases they might get upset.


I don't think it's a surprise.

Of course in some cases people will get upset, and in some with good reason.

It's a matter of trying to get things in perspective though, and make sure you're actually getting a good picture of the full range of opinion.

It may well be that the consultation failed to do this. But I think there's now a high likelihood of the whole thing collapsing as a result of not taking proper steps to gather in the full range of opinion post-closures. 

And I'm rather sceptical that many people's lives have really been changed "dramatically" by this.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 16, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Anthea did speak. Must have been after you left. She basically said LJAG supported experiment.



I remember that was her line at the first consultation meeting last October -- somewhat disingenuous when LJAG played such a big part in the scheme behind it all -- for the new "public space which isn't a public space" and which nobody talks about anymore.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

I don't see why that's disingenuous.

Thought it was pretty brave of her to sit there in front of an audience so openly hostile to her. She lives here too after all.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Thank you for a comprehensive report - you give the flavour of things in detail.
> I do still come back to question why it is such a surprise if people's lives are quite dramatically changed in some cases they might get upset.
> Surely in this case the problem should be for those who want to make the change to carry the people with them. That is a democratic process.
> Simply changing people's access and expecting them to like it or lump it is condescending and reminiscent of the traditional British approach IMHO




Unlike the cycle superhighways and the low emission zone that Boris pushed through against opposition this is not permanent closure.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 16, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Unlike the cycle superhighways and the low emission zone that Boris pushed through against opposition this is not permanent closure.


That's not how a lot of people see it though.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 16, 2015)

So I also went along, nice to meet Gramsci and Beasley whilst there, hello!

I started out by trying to make notes on my phone but it got too much. But here's what I can got down/remember.

The meeting as described by others was very unruly, man from the council traffic dept, Ian, was predictably jeered as he spoke, people from Stockwell Partnership did at least get most of their info out before they too got shouted down.

What I did get was that Stockwell Partnership will start their consultation next week until end of month, it's going to be, by their own admission, a rush job, will take form of online survey, some people out with clipboards in the area and some random door knocking. They will then turn around a report to Lambeth by mid November, I think, that's when it got quite shouty so might have mis-heard.

It was suggested that the closures be taken away while the Stockwell Partnership surveys are carried out, obviously also suggested that they were taken away full stop and what was the point of another consultation, 3000 people have signed the stop the closures petition, surely that was enough etc etc. People were concerned that by the time the report goes before the council properly it'll be new year.

There were repeated calls for Jennifer Braithwaite to resign and then a more sensible call for her to be at a future meeting to answer to her decision. Can not see that happening personally, well not without security.

As mentioned by others there was anecdata from some residents on St James Crescent and from Angell Town about big lorries and trucks getting stuck when trying to find way through, drivers cutting through what essentially car parks, lots of complaints about Coldharbour Lane congestion and pollution. Man from council said CHL congestion was caused by dodgy traffic lights at Herne Hill road junction, was now sorted but they were monitoring it. Something was also said about the monitoring of air quality on CHL, which I think was that they're not monitoring it but I'm not sure, it got quite shouty at that point again.

Anthea Massey did have the guts to stand up and try to justify LJag's position on the closures, couldn't hear all of what she said unfortunately, she lost most of the room by the use of the phrase "bold and progressive" plan! But I did hear her say that they would hold Lambeth to account for the experiment and that they had written and asked questions etc.

The G word, gentrification, was also mentioned but not until a good while into the meeting, with shouts of social cleansing from the crowd, a lady from Vassall and Coldharbour Forum (VCF) answered partially to that saying that VCF want to consult people on that aspect of things, didn't quite get how, she wasn't a good speaker, then or when she gave a presentation later.

Lembit Opik was indeed there, quite open that there as motor cyclist. Doesn't live in the immediate area, I asked him, didn't quite catch the answer, think he said Brixton, Herne Hill borders but travels through the area daily. Didn't really add anything new to the table tbh but very eloquently questioned democracy in Lambeth when there can so much opposition to something but no action by the council.

There was also another man there who started talking about judicial reviews of the process that brought the closures in, might just have been a lot of hot air but he certainly got people's attention. He was also the first person I heard there to blame LJag, he laid it firmly at their door which I personally thought a little unfair, nobody else really followed up with it so I guess most people blame the council, I don't know.

Towards the end of the section about the closures, there were some questions to the council about what has happened to the complaints that have already been made, how many are there and will they be included in the review by Stockwell Partnership? There was also a question about the notification letter that came through to locals about the closure, apparently the letter said that at any point if there were issues or lots of opposition the experiment could be halted, however the man from the council and the two councillors said that wasn't the case as there was a process that had to be gone through. This led to calls that the process was illegal etc, judicial review brought up again.

I swore to myself before hand that I wouldn't speak but when the council man started spouting about 68% of locals wanted this I saw red and did speak to remind him that that just 181 local people wanted it not 68%! He had no answer to that, I also asked if the new review would be expected to get more responses, didn't hear if there was answer to that, too loud. 

I also asked later how we went from the original master plan ideas to a road closure and it seems that as I thought, it was a throwaway remark in a previous meeting that was then taken away and run with, with everyone's favourite person Mr Wright as the likely suspect!

There's probably a lot more I could write but that's all I can remember for now, if I think of anything else I'll add it in the morning.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I don't see why that's disingenuous.
> 
> Thought it was pretty brave of her to sit there in front of an audience so openly hostile to her. She lives here too after all.



I thought she was pretty brave too, it can't have been easy to have sat there and then spoken up in favour of something that was so unpopular. 

Towards the back, her living in the area was called into question, lots of chatter about her not living in the area for that long and what did she know etc, also a certain amount of suspicion and animosity towards her as not from an estate


----------



## Winot (Oct 16, 2015)

How depressing this all is. 

The people have shouted. The bastards.


----------



## Haya87 (Oct 16, 2015)

Ok Bimble it was your post re removing motor traffic from across London. You were right about my arrogant remark at the last LJAG meeting re emergency services.That said as Emergency Services are a statutory consultee my understanding is that the Highway Authority, in this instance Lambeth, have to take note of them.

 A total delight following this thread. Particular thanks for the records of last night's meeting.

 We London Cycling Campaign transport planning and infrastructure headbangers, talk about cells. That is where you can walk and cycle and take buses through an area, so strictly speaking roads aren't closed, and drive in and out, but through motor traffic is filtered out. It is what, I understand, the Dutch do. 

The cell I have gone on about at LJAG meetings and elsewhere for years,  is bounded by the TLRN (Transport for London Road Network) in this area, Denmark Hill, Herne Hill,  Dulwich Rd, Effra Rd, Brixton Rd, Camberwell New Rd. Yes filtering out through motor traffic from CHL, not buses. I think people here get motor traffic evaporation via modal shift, and get the tiny number of have to motor vehicle journeys,  as opposed to the want to ones. A plug for Wheels for Wellbeing on the Brixton Rd, whose CEO is a wheelchair using cyclist. 

Some years ago Lambeth consulted on types of reducing speed measures in the LJ area South of CHL. Filtering wasn't in the mix. The long Bromley to centre of town rat run has a route via Poplar Walk onto Hinton, and speeds of over 50 mph have been recorded. People on this thread have got the potential filters apart from the one on Lyham Rd between the two Poplars. The group of us campaigning for filtering out through motor traffic from the LJ area South of CHL didn't quite get the votes 48% from memory. For people interested in hyper local politics, that was supported by Herne Hill Forum. From my experience of the campaign against taking part of Brockwell Park when Railton Rd was closed at Herne Hill Junction,  Herne Hill Forum is a different animal from the Herne Hill Society. 

Bimble I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House,   on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition. 

After the last LJAG meeting I followed the rat runs noted, that from your notes, Lady V, were raised again last night, and emailed Lambeth.   The estate one could be dealt with, it would need the Ok of LEMB as it is an estate rd, similarly the one through Angell Town could be dealt with. The Angell Town rat run would need a new Traffic Order which could add more trial time. 

Historically there are a number of local filters and other measures that have been retrospectively installed, to prevent East West through motor traffic in the LJ area and borders , North of CHL. On Angell Rd, the junction of Peckford Place and Brixton Rd and the no entry in the area, with a recent except cycling installed. (She bows). Makes a great EW CHL avoiding route for those of us who use sustainable modes.

Similarly, historically, Angell Town seems to have been redeveloped on Secure by Design principles removing through motor traffic. It is my NS alternative to Loughborough Rd, though not at present. ....

Ok back to my emails to and fro with Rosendale Rd area residents, following a loud, apparently 300 strong, meeting. 

Clare


----------



## Haya87 (Oct 16, 2015)

Ok Bimble it was your post re removing motor traffic from across London. You were right about my arrogant remark at the last LJAG meeting re emergency services.That said as Emergency Services are a statutory consultee my understanding is that the Highway Authority, in this instance Lambeth, have to take note of them.

 A total delight following this thread. Particular thanks for the records of last night's meeting.

 We London Cycling Campaign transport planning and infrastructure headbangers, talk about cells. That is where you can walk and cycle and take buses through an area, so strictly speaking roads aren't closed, and drive in and out, but through motor traffic is filtered out. It is what, I understand, the Dutch do. 

The cell I have gone on about at LJAG meetings and elsewhere for years,  is bounded by the TLRN (Transport for London Road Network) in this area, Denmark Hill, Herne Hill,  Dulwich Rd, Effra Rd, Brixton Rd, Camberwell New Rd. Yes filtering out through motor traffic from CHL, not buses. I think people here get motor traffic evaporation via modal shift, and get the tiny number of have to motor vehicle journeys,  as opposed to the want to ones. A plug for Wheels for Wellbeing on the Brixton Rd, whose CEO is a wheelchair using cyclist. 

Some years ago Lambeth consulted on types of reducing speed measures in the LJ area South of CHL. Filtering wasn't in the mix. The long Bromley to centre of town rat run has a route via Poplar Walk onto Hinton, and speeds of over 50 mph have been recorded. People on this thread have got the potential filters apart from the one on Lyham Rd between the two Poplars. The group of us campaigning for filtering out through motor traffic from the LJ area South of CHL didn't quite get the votes 48% from memory. For people interested in hyper local politics, that was supported by Herne Hill Forum. From my experience of the campaign against taking part of Brockwell Park when Railton Rd was closed at Herne Hill Junction,  Herne Hill Forum is a different animal from the Herne Hill Society. 

Bimble I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House,   on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition. 

After the last LJAG meeting I followed the rat runs noted, that from your notes, Lady V, were raised again last night, and emailed Lambeth.   The estate one could be dealt with, it would need the Ok of LEMB as it is an estate rd, similarly the one through Angell Town could be dealt with. The Angell Town rat run would need a new Traffic Order which could add more trial time. 

Historically there are a number of local filters and other measures that have been retrospectively installed, to prevent East West through motor traffic in the LJ area and borders , North of CHL. On Angell Rd, the junction of Peckford Place and Brixton Rd and the no entry in the area, with a recent except cycling installed. (She bows). Makes a great EW CHL avoiding route for those of us who use sustainable modes.

Similarly, historically, Angell Town seems to have been redeveloped on Secure by Design principles removing through motor traffic. It is my NS alternative to Loughborough Rd, though not at present. ....

Ok back to my emails to and fro with Rosendale Rd area residents, following a loud, apparently 300 strong, meeting. 

Clare


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

Hello Clare! It's great you're here.
I'm a bit confused: Could you maybe summarise whether or not you feel this particular experiment is a good one, as in whether it fits in with your ideas of a wider coherent traffic reduction policy and whether or not LJ has become better for cyclists since the experiment began?


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 16, 2015)

Ok I uploaded the audio file overnight on dropbox.  It starts out a bit muffled and noisy,  but it does get better.  Obviously some of the comments are a bit hard to hear cause of being at the back of the room.  My laptop is old and naff.  So it stops and starts at times.  Hopefully your machines will be better.  Having said all that I'm quite pleased with the way it's come out.
Here's the link.
Dropbox - Audio recording 2015-10-15 18-35-38.wav


----------



## LadyV (Oct 16, 2015)

Addendum to my notes from last night. 

There were two guys that spoke from local businesses, one from a scrap yard, I missed the address and one from the convenience store by the Hero of Switzerland. 

The guy from the scrap yard estimated a 50% drop in business because trucks could no longer get to the yard easily.  He didn't know how long he would be able to stay open. 

The other guy was harder to hear so I can't relay what he said in any great detail, maybe one of the others can?  What I heard was that kids couldn't walk to the store anymore, didn't catch why, possibly because of additional traffic in Barrington Road etc. 

Other item that was raised was about fines. Man from council said that for the first month, people just got warning letters, at great time, effort, expense etc to the council, you can imagine the response that got! Then went on to say that after that they were looking at real fines. Didn't comment about any appeals for poor signage etc but most of the crowd were saying things like not going to pay, the fines are illegal etc. Councillor Matt Parr did say that he wouldn't advise ignoring the fines, they might still stand etc

Other thing I remembered this morning was lots of calls for "direct action", no one elaborated on what that might entail as far as I can tell though. Wouldn't be surprised to see further vandalisation of barriers, signs etc

Be interesting to see how my memory stacks up to the recording!


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

This is an open letter sent to the council yesterday by an important sounding QC who is also a cyclist. 

Cllr Jennifer Braithwaite apparently answered him immediately & promised a detailed response by the end of today.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

"important sounding QC" /


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> "important sounding QC" /


Yes, ok ..  I put that because I think Cllr Braithwaite's response to him might just possibly be related to his letterhead. 
Seeing as she has been unable to attend any of the meetings on the subject so far, and I'm not sure how many other objectors have heard back from her immediately with a promise of a swift & detailed reply to points raised.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I don't see why that's disingenuous.
> 
> Thought it was pretty brave of her to sit there in front of an audience so openly hostile to her. She lives here too after all.


Well it was her meeting, so she had to sit there, or do you think she had an option to run away...
Cllrs get a lot of stick also, running away is not an option.

They all live here too.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Well it was her meeting, so she had to sit there, or do you think she had an option to run away...


got to admit if I was anthea I'd be feeling really uncomfortable right now would have to take a deep breath before just going down the road to the shop or whatever. I might even be getting valuations done on my house.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Well it was her meeting, so she had to sit there, or do you think she had an option to run away...


"Her meeting"?


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> "Her meeting"?


LJAG do convene these Local Planning Forum meetings. I believe is what was meant.


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 16, 2015)

Urban 75 – LJAG


It was LJAG's fault.  Aided by Lambeth.  I went to a meeting of LJAG in late 2012 here they told me about and showed me their plan to pedestrianise LJ for the “benefit of the locals and the children”.  They told me that they were hopeful of persuading Lambeth to do the plans.  I thought it was pie in the sky and told them much of their assumptions about traffic were wrong. That meeting was their Xmas do and there were about 10 people there – as far as I could see I was the only one who lived on the LR side of the tracks (Angell Rd).

Much to my surprise Lambeth then adopted the plan and had a “Consultation”.  At the meeting I went to Lambeth admitted they had not done traffic surveys as conditions weren’t right, but would be doing so after the experimental road closures were approved. They were asked if they had done any survey at all before propsign the plan and thye said thye had ridden around on the bicycles and this had given them a good understanding o the traffic problems in the area.  I asked them (George wright I think) if they were aware that there were other ratruns (such as Witshire/Villa) which would get worse if they closed off a main road (BTW it is an accident that LR is not a B road – Hinton/Milkwood is) – he said he was not aware of this.  I am not sure if I told him that the traffic problem on LR was due to the lights only allowing 2 cars through at a time (since increased to 4) and the narrowing of the road with cars parked on either side. From other questions (mainly from the myatt’s Filed/Vassall people) ti would seem they had little local knowledge, or consideration of local problems, or idea how to get data and plan changes to roads.


Effects – from my experience the effects have been pretty bad.  Rat running on what used to be relatively quiet roads has increased and some roads where there was none it has become endemic.  Traffic jams have made approach to KCL much more difficult and delayed (I couldn’t walk for the first few weeks of the experiment and it was not easy). The alleged pedestrian area is a joke (and 50 yards from a long-standing existing pedestrian area) and prevents people parked in Woolley House from legitimately leaving or entering their property.  Businesses were barely consulted (Ian from Mayflower told me they were told the day before the consultation closed) and there was no consideration on the effect on them, especially nationally known ones like Mayflower or the steel fabricators who did some of Anish Kapoor’s stuff (Anthea from LJAG told me about them) who gave LJ its slightly arty ambiance (as opposed to fake arty now often seen in Brixton).  Myaflwoer has gone and the others will follow if there is no proper plan.


LJ is going to change as it is only 10 mins from the City by train and people with money will move in.  LJAG were able to hijack the area by being he only people who were doing anything and so could do it without actually asking anyone whether they wanted their plan to improve the lives of people in LJ (only on the LR side though).  What is needed is a properly thought out plan about how to grow LJ in the next 10-20 yrs which involves the local people (so they have to make an effort as well to prevent further hijacking).  Brixton was a destination area long before Lambeth or Brixton Village because local people and businesses made it so.  LJ was growing organically and more well known business are coming here and will come here.  Of course Lambeth could try  starting their own nightclubs and restaurants and I am sure that with their planning and business abilities this would kick start the process – but I would rather it happened that the services matched the people who live here (which will develop as different people move here) before it started asking other people to come for a weekend away...


----------



## LadyV (Oct 16, 2015)

Haya87 said:


> We London Cycling Campaign transport planning and infrastructure headbangers, talk about cells. That is where you can walk and cycle and take buses through an area, so strictly speaking roads aren't closed, and drive in and out, but through motor traffic is filtered out. It is what, I understand, the Dutch do.



A lot is made of the dutch model of doing things, I can't speak to the rest of the Netherlands but my best friend lives in Amsterdam and my understanding there is that as rule roads aren't completely blocked to cars, more that they filter traffic by having one way roads, so you go west on one side of a canal and go east on the other side, similar to the block system in New York I guess. But you are still moving traffic through without causing bottlenecks.

Also before we start raving about how wonderful the dutch model is, we should consider the impact to pedestrians in that, accidents between cars and pedestrians may have gone down but accidents between cyclists and pedestrians are still on the increase. One previous trip to Amsterdam for me involved a trip to the hospital for a cracked rib after being hit by a cyclist while standing still in a pedestrian zone where cyclists were supposed to dismount, so I am a little suspicious of comparisons to the Netherlands


----------



## LadyV (Oct 16, 2015)

upthejunction said:


> It was LJAG's fault. Aided by Lambeth.



Is it their fault that they suggested something and the council went for it and then proceeded with it? LJAG didn't come up with the money or the consultation, they didn't stop any of it either but then why would they? They thought it was a good idea. Personally I think we're giving them a bit too much credit.

Either way, their credibility has been seriously dented by this and from the sound of it the new group Vassall and Coldharbour Forum have some similar aims, although their intention is to take things much much slower and be more mindful of the diversity in the area, so it'll be interesting to see how the two groups co-exist


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 16, 2015)

It was LJAG's fault.  Aided by Lambeth.  I went to a meeting of LJAG in late 2012 here they told me about and showed me their plan to pedestrianise LJ for the “benefit of the locals and the children”.  They told me that they were hopeful of persuading Lambeth to do the plans.  I thought it was pie in the sky and told them much of their assumptions about traffic were wrong.  That meeting was their Xmas do and there were about 10 people there – as far as I could see I was the only one who lived on the LR side of the tracks (Angell Rd).

Much to my surprise Lambeth then adopted the plan and had a “Consultation”.  At the meeting I went to Lambeth admitted they had not done traffic surveys as conditions weren’t right, but would be doing so after the experimental road closures were approved. They were asked if they had done any survey at all before propsign the plan and thye said thye had ridden around on the bicycles and this had given them a good understanding o the traffic problems in the area. I asked them (George wright I think) if they were aware that there were other ratruns (such as Witshire/Villa) which would get worse if they closed off a main road (BTW it is an accident that LR is not a B road – Hinton/Milkwood is) – he said he was not aware of this.  I am not sure if I told him that the traffic problem on LR was due to the lights only allowing 2 cars through at a time (since increased to 4) and the narrowing of the road with cars parked on either side. From other questions (mainly from the myatt’s Filed/Vassall people) ti would seem they had little local knowledge, or consideration of local problems, or idea how to get data and plan changes to roads.


Effects – from my experience the effects have been pretty bad.  Rat running on what used to be relatively quiet roads has increased and some roads where there was none it has become endemic.  Traffic jams have made approach to KCL much more difficult and delayed (I couldn’t walk for the first few weeks of the experiment and it was not easy). The alleged pedestrian area is a joke (and 50 yards from a long-standing existing pedestrian area) and prevents people parked in Woolley House from legitimately leaving or entering their property.  Businesses were barely consulted (Ian from Mayflower told me they were told the day before the consultation closed) and there was no consideration on the effect on them, especially nationally known ones like Mayflower or the steel fabricators who did some of Anish Kapoor’s stuff (Anthea from LJAG told me about them) who gave LJ its slightly arty ambiance (as opposed to fake arty now often seen in Brixton).  Myaflwoer has gone and the others will follow if there is no proper plan.


LJ is going to change as it is only 10 mins from the City by train and people with money will move in.  LJAG were able to hijack the area by being he only people who were doing anything and so could do it without actually asking anyone whether they wanted their plan to improve the lives of people in LJ (only on the LR side though).  What is needed is a properly thought out plan about how to grow LJ in the next 10-20 yrs which involves the local people (so they have to make an effort as well to prevent further hijacking).  Brixton was a destination area long before Lambeth or Brixton Village because local people and businesses made it so.  LJ was growing organically and more well known business are coming here and will come here.  Of course Lambeth could try  starting their own nightclubs and restaurants and I am sure that with their planning and business abilities this would kick start the process – but I would rather it happened that the services matched the people who live here (which will develop as different people move here) before it started asking other people to come for a weekend away...


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

upthejunction said:


> Much to my surprise Lambeth then adopted the plan and had a “Consultation”.
> 
> LJ is going to change as it is only 10 mins from the City by train and people with money will move in.  LJAG were able to hijack the area by being he only people who were doing anything and so could do it without actually asking anyone whether they wanted their plan to improve the lives of people in LJ (only on the LR side though).  What is needed is a properly thought out plan about how to grow LJ in the next 10-20 yrs which involves the local people (so they have to make an effort as well to prevent further hijacking).  Brixton was a destination area long before Lambeth or Brixton Village because local people and businesses made it so.  LJ was growing organically and more well known business are coming here and will come here.  Of course Lambeth could try  starting their own nightclubs and restaurants and I am sure that with their planning and business abilities this would kick start the process – but I would rather it happened that the services matched the people who live here (which will develop as different people move here) before it started asking other people to come for a weekend away...



*upthejunction* : 
Your posts on page one of this thread (before i was even born) say it all really.
Did you ever get the reply you asked for 'in 7 days'?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

upthejunction said:


> the steel fabricators who did some of Anish Kapoor’s stuff (Anthea from LJAG told me about them)


They've gone already - they were on the Higgs estate.


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 16, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Is it their fault that they suggested something and the council went for it and then proceeded with it? LJAG didn't come up with the money or the consultation, they didn't stop any of it either but then why would they? They thought it was a good idea. Personally I think we're giving them a bit too much credit.
> 
> Either way, their credibility has been seriously dented by this and from the sound of it the new group Vassall and Coldharbour Forum have some similar aims, although their intention is to take things much much slower and be more mindful of the diversity in the area, so it'll be interesting to see how the two groups co-exist



It is in the sense that they should have recognised that they were not repesentative of all the people in the area, nor had they consulted or surveyed them, or indeed local conditions.  Clearly the majority of the blame is Lambeth's as they funded and implemented the plan - equally without proper consultation or surveys.  But the ball was started rolling by LJAG and without them I doubt the Council would have done anything.  Interestingly LJAG now appear to be doing a "reverese ferret" and attempting to say they are questioning the bases on which the closures were ordered by Lambeth.  Had they done this at the start nothing would have happened.  What I should say is that it is a quite an interesting challenge for democracy as the mode by which public authorities have a "consultation" and then come up with the answer they want (as they did here by deliberately ignoring an admittedly late petition which far outweighed the results they had previously had) is one repeated all over the country for all sorts of things, and enables them to push through patently bad ideas, or ideas objected to by the majority of the residents or people affected.  Obvisouly elected representatives are there to do things and have a mandate, but all I want is for them to plan them better and explain how they are going to deal with any problems that people affected point out to them. Part of that means Councils taking an objective stance on what lobbying groups say.
BTW:  Was KCL part of the consultation?  Has anyone asked them?
P.S. When they do the traffic survey is it going to include areas affected by the change which are outside the original consultation and survey areas?  Coldharbour lane appears to be affected all the way to the Town Hall, and Railton Road is a nightmare.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

upthejunction said:


> P.S. When they do the traffic survey is it going to include areas affected by the change which are outside the original consultation and survey areas?  Coldharbour lane appears to be affected all the way to the Town Hall, and Railton Road is a nightmare.



There are 2 locations on CHL on the list of where they counted traffic before the closures:

35.	Coldharbour Lane Somewhere between j/w Herne Hill Rd and j/w Loughborough Rd
36.	 Coldharbour Lane Somewhere j/w Loughborough Road and north of j/w Shakespeare Road

Don't know if the counts will be taken in same spots after the closures. Wouldn't even count on that.
(I don't know how to upload/ share whole list it's a long thin spreadsheet)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Also before we start raving about how wonderful the dutch model is, we should consider the impact to pedestrians in that, accidents between cars and pedestrians may have gone down but accidents between cyclists and pedestrians are still on the increase. One previous trip to Amsterdam for me involved a trip to the hospital for a cracked rib after being hit by a cyclist while standing still in a pedestrian zone where cyclists were supposed to dismount, so I am a little suspicious of comparisons to the Netherlands


Obviously a rise in accidents between pedestrians and cyclists is not a good thing. But as I understand it, in Amsterdam it is in the context of a massive rise in number of cyclists on the roads. Is it balanced by a decrease in the number of pedestrian/motor vehicle accidents? It appears it is, because the overall number of road fatalities in Amsterdam is consistently falling.

So it doesn't seem like it's a valid argument against increasing the number of cyclists on the road, because it appears that in Amsterdam the increasing number of cyclists is accompanied by a decreasing number of pedestrians killed on the road.

http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-dis...ands-most-dangerous-city-cyclists-pedestrians


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 16, 2015)

Is this the same thread?  I had forgotten where I posted the stuff!  No I did not.  They do not feel an obligaiton to answer anyone - though if I was really sneaky I could try to get something out of them.  The questions I wantto know about now are:
1. What were the results of the original consultation in terms of numbers and unequivocal postive replies (given the quesituons were so slanted)?
2. What was the effect of the very large petition from Loughborough Estate that was delivered a few days late?
3. What were the resutls of he traffic survey that was eventually done?
4. Is the raw data from the traffic survey availabel to be analysed by an independent expert?  If so, please supply them.
5. Is any forthcoming traffic survey going to include areas badly affected by the change (such as Coldharbour lane all the way to the Town Hall, and Railton Road) which are outside the original consultation and survey areas?
6. Is any consultation going to involve a leaflet drop to residents in the immediately affected area (200yds either side) explaining the changes and askign what people think (preferably in an easy tick box form with questions such as "Do you support Loughborough Road being blocked to traffic?").  A leaflet drop of this kind would cost about £200 commercially, and presumably not much more to collect responses.
7. Where did the original figure quoted of "13000 vehicles per day" come from, where were the vehicles, where were they going, and how many were local people using the roads outsides their abodes?
8.  How was the 13000 figure arrived at if there had been no traffic survey before the consultation concluded?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

upthejunction said:


> BTW:  Was KCL part of the consultation?  Has anyone asked them?


Last night I think the Lambeth guy said yes, they were part of the consultation (although it might have been that he said the Ambulance Service, rather than KCL).

He also said they woud be talking to them as part of the evaluation process.

I assume that if LAS or KCL have been concerned about the effects so far, they will have had channels to Lambeth to let them know.

I haven't seen any official statements from either confirming there's a serious issue. Just anecdotes and someone wearing a paramedic uniform speaking at the previous meeting.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

upthejunction which roads specifically are the ones where there's been a significant increase in rat-running?

Denmark Rd and St James Crescent have been mentioned. Which others?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Obviously a rise in accidents between pedestrians and cyclists is not a good thing. But as I understand it, in Amsterdam it is in the context of a massive rise in number of cyclists on the roads. Is it balanced by a decrease in the number of pedestrian/motor vehicle accidents? It appears it is, because the overall number of road fatalities in Amsterdam is consistently falling.
> 
> So it doesn't seem like it's a valid argument against increasing the number of cyclists on the road, because it appears that in Amsterdam the increasing number of cyclists is accompanied by a decreasing number of pedestrians killed on the road.
> 
> http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-dis...ands-most-dangerous-city-cyclists-pedestrians



Those are fatalities though, fatalities will decrease due to less cars, cars are bigger and heavier, therefore cause more damage. But a bicycle can still cause a decent amount of damage to a pedestrian. Plus I wasn't using it as an argument against increasing the number of cyclists, more against using the Netherlands as a perfect model


----------



## LadyV (Oct 16, 2015)

upthejunction said:


> Is this the same thread?  I had forgotten where I posted the stuff!  No I did not.  They do not feel an obligaiton to answer anyone - though if I was really sneaky I could try to get something out of them.  The questions I wantto know about now are:
> 1. What were the results of the original consultation in terms of numbers and unequivocal postive replies (given the quesituons were so slanted)?
> 2. What was the effect of the very large petition from Loughborough Estate that was delivered a few days late?
> 3. What were the resutls of he traffic survey that was eventually done?
> ...



Maybe you should send it again to all the relevant players, and get someone important to write it on fancy letterhead to Jennifer Braithwaite, you might get a response, a la Bimble's QC. Who did you send the original request to?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Those are fatalities though, fatalities will decrease due to less cars, cars are bigger and heavier, therefore cause more damage. But a bicycle can still cause a decent amount of damage to a pedestrian. Plus I wasn't using it as an argument against increasing the number of cyclists, more against using the Netherlands as a perfect model


What are the numbers for injuries, then?


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

upthejunction


upthejunction said:


> Is this the same thread?  I had forgotten where I posted the stuff!



It is! and your questions there over a year ago are scarily prescient.



upthejunction said:


> 1. What were the results of the original consultation in terms of numbers and unequivocal postive replies (given the quesituons were so slanted)?



The total number of people living inside the consultation area who participated in the consultation & responded ‘yes’ to the proposed road closures = 181.




upthejunction said:


> 2. What was the effect of the very large petition from Loughborough Estate that was delivered a few days late?



I believe it was delivered on the day that was stated as last day of consultation. The response was basically that it was ignored completely.



upthejunction said:


> 3. What were the results of he traffic survey that was eventually done?



No idea.



upthejunction said:


> 4. Is the raw data from the traffic survey availabel to be analysed by an independent expert?  If so, please supply them.



Information request maybe ?



upthejunction said:


> 5. Is any forthcoming traffic survey going to include areas badly affected by the change (such as Coldharbour lane all the way to the Town Hall, and Railton Road) which are outside the original consultation and survey areas?



Apparently not. There are 2 locations on CHL on the list of where they counted traffic before the closures. They are:

> Coldharbour Lane Somewhere between j/w Herne Hill Rd and j/w Loughborough Rd
> Coldharbour Lane Somewhere j/w Loughborough Road and north of j/w Shakespeare Road



upthejunction said:


> 6. Is any consultation going to involve a leaflet drop to residents in the immediately affected area (200yds either side) explaining the changes and asking what people think (preferably in an easy tick box form with questions such as "Do you support Loughborough Road being blocked to traffic?").  A leaflet drop of this kind would cost about £200 commercially, and presumably not much more to collect responses.



The scrutiny committee documents say that 10,991 letters saying something will be delivered during the closures, but nobody (incl George Wright and Stockwell Partnership have any idea what they will be or who is supposed to send them.


upthejunction said:


> 7. Where did the original figure quoted of "13000 vehicles per day" come from, where were the vehicles, where were they going, and how many were local people using the roads outsides their abodes?
> 8.  How was the 13000 figure arrived at if there had been no traffic survey before the consultation concluded?



That figure seems to be ..a mistake. 
The average traffic on Loughborough road can be seen here below (from clean air london website) .It’s CHL that has 13,000 vehicles a day on average. Or did have, before it got all Loughborough Road's stuff on top.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What are the numbers for injuries, then?


I can't find anything concrete or recent, most research is on pedestrians or cyclists vs cars rather than pedestrians vs cyclists. I imagine it's quite hard to collect data on it as from my experience that info wasn't collected at the hospital and there would be no associated insurance claim. But it stands to reason that there would be an increase due to the increase in cyclists on the road. That said they will go down as many schools in the Netherlands have cycling classes for children similar to the cycling proficiency classes I did when I was a kid. Maybe that's the answer here


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 16, 2015)

Home - Bikeability


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I can't find anything concrete or recent, most research is on pedestrians or cyclists vs cars rather than pedestrians vs cyclists. I imagine it's quite hard to collect data on it as from my experience that info wasn't collected at the hospital and there would be no associated insurance claim. But it stands to reason that there would be an increase due to the increase in cyclists on the road. That said they will go down as many schools in the Netherlands have cycling classes for children similar to the cycling proficiency classes I did when I was a kid. Maybe that's the answer here


So, just speculation on your part, in the end. I don't think you can say it "stands to reason" that overall injuries are up. It's plausible that there are more cyclist/pedestrian injuries on account of there being more bikes on the road. But it's also plausible that there are fewer motor vehicle/pedestrian injuries on account of there being more bikes on the road.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Home - Bikeability


I did that! Helped my confidence on a bike a bit.


----------



## MrM (Oct 16, 2015)

I think it's fair to expect that a massive shift towards cycling is likely to involve additional cycle vs pedestrian collisions, but fewer car vs pedestrian collisions. And on balance that's clearly a social positive, given that a bike collision is less likely to be severe/fatal than being hit by a car. 
I think the point Lady V was making was just that the social benefit is not unqualified - i.e. the thousands of lives saved come at the cost of some injuries too, and that this is often ignored (data not collected). 
I don't think she meant that a shift to cycling is not a good thing (leaving aside the wider benefits of local air quality/global carbon emissions/transport infrastructure savings/health benefits etc).


----------



## Haya87 (Oct 16, 2015)

Bimble, in response to your question, anecdata suggests that East of Loughborough Rd modal shift to walking and cycling has taken place. Is Loughborough Rd more pleasant to cycle? again anecdata suggests yes. Area wide filtering South of CHL starting from Himton Rd would build on the current scheme.

What I cannot get straight in my mind is this. Would filtering area wide from Hinton,  including HHRd and Shakespeare, achieve a similar or greater modal shift than filtering Loughborough Rd? I think the other filters north of CHL, including the car park and Angell Town ones noted earlier, would still be needed to prevent displacement. 

I am struggling to remember what they are called, but 2 rubber lines across the road were installed across Lambeth to measure the speed of traffic prior to the 20mph zone going in. I think they detect the number of vehicles as well. I am pretty certain the number was increased across LJ and Myatts Fields.  I think this was to establish a baseline. 

Clare


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2015)

LadyV said:


> So I also went along, nice to meet Gramsci and Beasley whilst there, hello!
> 
> 
> The G word, gentrification, was also mentioned but not until a good while into the meeting, with shouts of social cleansing from the crowd, a lady from Vassall and Coldharbour Forum (VCF) answered partially to that saying that VCF want to consult people on that aspect of things, didn't quite get how, she wasn't a good speaker, then or when she gave a presentation later.
> .



Where I was sitting it was what people were going on about. (Also said to me previously) Why I said that the remit for consultation should be widened to ask people on estate more about how they feel about area and what is happening to it. Also what they want for improvements to the area. 

It appears to me that a lot of people on the Estate feel the Platform, Farm and road closures are all linked as not something for them and having no relevance to there lives.

Also that its about general gentrifying of the area.

My view is that the road closure issue is linked in with fears about gentrification of area. Talking to estate residents afterwards they also ( correctly imo) see what is happening to other estates like Cressingham Gardens and do not feel Council Housing is safe in Lambeth Labours hands.

So is Lambeth learning anything? My Ward Cllrs objected to road closures but do not seem to see some of the underlying issues that are linked to the objections to the road closures.

I stayed for rest of meeting when the issue of the grant application by Council to do a "Pop" Brixton on the Farm came up. The application was put in with no proper consultation with local residents ( which is the Loughborough Estate).

I objected to the new plans for the Farm going forward with no meaningful consultation at last meeting and did so at this last night.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> My Ward Cllrs objected to road closures but do not seem to see some of the underlying issues that are linked to the objections to the road closures.



This is a salient point I think - and relevant to why I find some of the councillors' stance on this a bit pathetic. It's easy for them to oppose the closures, because they can appear like they are standing up for the residents against the bullying powers-that-be who are imposing this scheme on them. And opposing the closures doesn't involve arguing for funding, or even arguing for change. Just arguing to maintainthe status quo. But (in my opinoin of course) the motives behind the scheme aren't to do with imposing things on those with the least advantage - they are to do with trying to improve things for those with the least advantage. So while the councillors can appear to be standing up for people they are actually helping trash something that could make things better for those people. And meanwhile, are they standing up for people on the really difficult issues? The ones where resisting proposals means coming up against massive financial and other powerful pressures? Like you say Gramsci things to do with protecting social housing in general.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 16, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I stayed for rest of meeting when the issue of the grant application by Council to do a "Pop" Brixton on the Farm came up. The application was put in with no proper consultation with local residents ( which is the Loughborough Estate).
> 
> I objected to the new plans for the Farm going forward with no meaningful consultation at last meeting and did so at this last night.


Sorry to deviate a little from the thread - but surely this particular issue is how grant aided funding always works. 

There is suddenly the prospect of funding for a project which might fit our area - if only we can get the application to suit the requirements of the funders.

This has been going on for 25 years - maybe even since World War II if you count things like originally designing and building the New Loughborough Estate itself.

Who asked for the Camberwell Odeon building to be demolished and replaced with a Nandos and "Foyer" as part of Brixton Challenge? Certainly nobody from Brixton (outside the employees of Brixton Challenge Ltd and Lambeth Council that is). And yet that project - together with the Ritzy Multiplexing accounts for the majority of government regeneration funding allocated to Brixton during 1990-94.  

Who asked for Popes Road car park to be demolished? - Tescos apparently so they could build their Streatham Superstore.

I guess the only saving grace about this Farm site application is that we now know from the Pop Brixton experience that these things are "flexi".
In other words if the residents now demand a gym to be included there is a precedent for doing this - after all Pop Brixton is not the project that was originally approved.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 16, 2015)

upthejunction said:


> Was KCL part of the consultation? Has anyone asked them?



They weren't. My neighbour emailed the then chief executive of King's Trust in April. The reply, from the Head of Stakeholder Relations at King's, was:
"I confirm that the Trust has not been consulted about these proposals by Lambeth Council and I will be contacting Lambeth Council to find out why not.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention."


----------



## Haya87 (Oct 16, 2015)

Off topic, I want to plug the Loughborough Junction Forum. Key members (stakeholdets?) Loughborough Estate Management Board, LEMB and LJAG. It has a revolving chair.

 I have been to meetings where Loughborough Estate activists have chaired, others where an LJAG rep has chaired, and I have chaired myself.  Perhaps someone on this thread could chair a meeting.  Lady V? Bimble? I think volunteers from across the community are very welcome.

 I understand it is moving towards becoming a formal planning body with a formal plan. It is the any means necessary approach. I used to work alongside consultant planners who advised developers  how to get around  locsl authority plans, for instance to provide cycle parking, green space or social housing. If a LA had a good plan which was difficult to get around they would advise developers to go elsewhere. Also active local communities were a consideration. 

Back to filtering
. 
Clare


----------



## Beasley (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Just anecdotes and someone wearing a paramedic uniform speaking at the previous meeting.



Quote from Councilor Brathwaite's FAQs: the proposed closures will be enforced through signage meaning the roads will remain open to vehicles on emergency calls … All emergency services will be made aware of the closures and informal discussions with the emergency services have resulted in no objections to the proposals. End Quote and note:  "informal discussions" not "consultations".

In his talk at the previous meeting, the London Ambulance Service Clinical Team Leader said the ambulance service is concerned at the way things have turned out. Quotes from his accompanying report:
"time critical patients being transported to hospital under emergency conditions are at risk of experiencing delays in receiving definitive, lifesaving care owing to increased congestion.
"We would support the use of traffic calming measures including red light/speed cameras *as an alternative* to the current road closures."


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Quote from Councilor Brathwaite's FAQs: the proposed closures will be enforced through signage meaning the roads will remain open to vehicles on emergency calls … All emergency services will be made aware of the closures and informal discussions with the emergency services have resulted in no objections to the proposals. End Quote and note:  "informal discussions" not "consultations".


yes. When I bumped into a man called Chief Inspector Roy Smith a few weeks back, right at the roadblock on Gordon Grove (when we still had actual blocks across the street) he said he had no clue what this was all about, had never heard a thing from the council about road closures, and would be writing to them to ask what was going on. He used the word 'chaos' as he observed the corner and the maneuvers drivers were making. 
I told him the claim about 'no objections' and he was really surprised. 
So the "informal discussions' must have been very informal, if he wasn't informed.


----------



## upthejunction (Oct 16, 2015)

bimble said:


> upthejunction
> It is! and your questions there over a year ago are scarily prescient.
> The total number of people living inside the consultation area who participated in the consultation & responded ‘yes’ to the proposed road closures = 181.
> Information request maybe ?
> ...


----------



## critical1 (Oct 16, 2015)

bimble said:


> yes. When I bumped into a man called Chief Inspector Roy Smith a few weeks back, right at the roadblock on Gordon Grove (when we still had actual blocks across the street) he said he had no clue what this was all about, had never heard a thing from the council about road closures, and would be writing to them to ask what was going on. He used the word 'chaos' as he observed the corner and the maneuvers drivers were making.
> I told him the claim about 'no objections' and he was really surprised.
> So the "informal discussions' must have been very informal, if he wasn't informed.



Informal as I phoned and had a chat with the receptionist, no paper trail, no records, no documentation...
So yeah I had several informal discussions with all agencies involved, and nothing negative was received back. BUT I don't have any evidence of this.. And when the S*** hits the fan you wont see me around, I'll plonk some poor work mate into the mess I created whilst I hide. Only in Lambeth...

Shame about last nights meeting LJAG could have had more members to support POOR Anthea Massey, looks like they bailed ship also. Some say she's brave, I say NO she is the chair of LJAG, she has stated she "fully supports the closure", forget about the community... nothing has really been stated look at the letter lets reviews it.. no STOP.


800+ said no, and she(LJAG) ignores it an organisation who states the represent Loughborough, but in relation to the Higgs Development only 100 objected and it made the Newspapers, LJAG, The Local MP Tessa Jowell personally wrote an open letter, Lambeth listened, then they cancelled the original plan...
So what gives here?
Who does LJAG really represent? And WHY?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

I heard they are actually LIZARDS.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 16, 2015)

lol  Loughborough Estate Activists?   Haya87


----------



## Beasley (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I haven't seen any official statements from either confirming there's a serious issue.



Maybe not, but there is mounting evidence of delays from unofficial sources such as this recent post on LJ Road Madness Facebook:
When will this hell end!! Camberwell to Brixton.. 45 minutes!!! In an ambulance with patients!! Usually takes 6-8 mins!! Absolute madness!!!


----------



## critical1 (Oct 16, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> lol  Loughborough Estate Activists?   Haya87



Dunno who that is? maybe a resident who calls themselves an activist,A for LEMB board I noticed the LEMB Chair there recently his second only appearance... to talk about the road closures as they are against it and the fact they were not consulted about the pop farm idea!


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 16, 2015)

Not consulted?


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 16, 2015)

Haya87 said:


> Off topic, I want to plug the Loughborough Junction Forum. Key members (stakeholdets?) Loughborough Estate Management Board, LEMB and LJAG. It has a revolving chair.



thanks Haya87 this sounds interesting....... is it online or Irl
can anyone join or do we need an invite ?
contact details ?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 16, 2015)

irl  and open to anyone supporting the local community. It is a serious issue that locals are supported,  not excluded from ideas and decisions that will affect their lives.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2015)

> Further information I have is that: 1) Blue light services other than the ambulances have been badly affected, including the police and fire service - in all instances life threatening. 2) The air quality on Coldharbour Lane and affected streets is noticeably worse. 3) Articulated lorries, commercial vehicles and cars are taking short cuts across pedestrian areas of Angell Town and Loughborough Estates. 4) 1100 bus drivers are considering taking action because of the impossibility of doing their job and indeed of getting to work to do it whilst their passengers are massively delayed in their journeys. 5) There are numerous reports of accidents and serious incidents resulting from the confusion and frustration of everyone trying to get somewhere using the roads. 6) Local businesses of all sizes and sorts have reported a 50% drop in turnover in 3 weeks. 7) Children are late for school and nursery, or not attending at all. 8) Patients with serious and chronic medical conditions requiring treatment are not able to get to hospital for clinics and procedures, including dialysis and blood transfusions. AND SO THE MADNESS GOES ON.



Excellent collection of "information" from mystery sources here (from post on LJRoadmadness page).

"50% drop in turnover for local businesses of all sizes and sorts"

Really? I am struggling with plausibility here.

Couldn't help but notice that the author of these comments has Dulwich College and Dulwich Old Alleynian Rugby Club listed in his likes and groups. And a couple of Caribbean boating resorts.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Couldn't help but notice that the author of these comments has Dulwich College and Dulwich Old Alleynian Rugby Club listed in his likes and groups. And a couple of Caribbean boating resorts.


I hope you noted that on my Facebook page I was photographed protesting outside the Nigerian High Commission in Northumberland Avenue against the law introduced under the  last president prescribing 14 years imprisonment for gay marriage, and requiring parents to inform on their gay sons.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Excellent collection of "information" from mystery sources here (from post on LJRoadmadness page).
> 
> "50% drop in turnover for local businesses of all sizes and sorts"
> 
> ...



So wot.... if their musical tastes are ragga, and good ol 2step... and they go boating off Jamaica every often..
Jealous are we! Struggle you will with facts from the horses mouth.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I hope you noted that on my Facebook page I was photographed protesting outside the Nigerian High Commission in Northumberland Avenue against the law introduced under the  last president prescribing 14 years imprisonment for gay marriage, and requiring parents to inform on their gay sons.


My facebook stalking operations have left you untouched so far, to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> My facebook stalking operations have left you untouched so far, to the best of my knowledge.


Shucks. Still I think the point from 2 diverse posters is valid. It takes all sorts - and this is not really a class thing. It is more a freedom and comprise thing.
I was struck by leanderman's penchant for wider traffic minimisation some posts ago/maybe on another thead. What it seems we need is road pricing. I suggest you get over to Singapore and investigate. And tell their bloody social housing housed buy-to-let investors to leave Oval Quarter alone whilst you are at it.


----------



## Haya87 (Oct 17, 2015)

The recent meeting people went to was a Loughborough Junction Forum meeting. If you get to one and leave your email address you do get notifications of when future meetings are. There are usually land planning issues discussed, as well as transport planning issues. As a newbie to this forum I apologise if I should be on another thread with this.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 17, 2015)

Modern tribes: the anti-gentrification warrior


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> Modern tribes: the anti-gentrification warrior


Not the most insightful way to look at this particular story here ..

Unless of course you're still convinced that everyone opposed to this road closure is a sort of Jeremy Clarkson Class Warrior hybrid, the kind of idiot who'd have found the flyer for that do in Shoreditch which your article is about attractive..


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> thanks Haya87 this sounds interesting....... is it online or Irl
> can anyone join or do we need an invite ?
> contact details ?



What Haya87 is talking about here are the monthly LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum meetings, like the one on Thursday eve.

It's true they are open to anyone who wants to come, but they are co-ordinated and convened by LJAG. To get added to the invitation emails I think you have to contact:
*LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum co-ordinator*<antheamasey@btinternet.com

It's interesting that Haya87 says about them " I understand it is moving towards becoming a formal planning body with a formal plan. It is the any means necessary approach. "

The political landscape here (I think, at least now) means this is a problem.
Until the roads got shut I don't think there were more than 10 people at any of those meetings.

I agree as many people as possible should keep going to these, I will, but I'm going to try again to plug this:
The London Communities Foundation is a charity who is looking at the moment for groups to assist here in Coldharbour / Loughborough Junction.
They are offering funding and guidance to increase involvement of other voices: The London Community Foundation


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> lol  Loughborough Estate Activists?   Haya87


I think that's a compliment.
See Haya87 's little article about herself here:Clare Neely: cycle campaigner and activist


----------



## Complain! (Oct 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Obviously a rise in accidents between pedestrians and cyclists is not a good thing. But as I understand it, in Amsterdam it is in the context of a massive rise in number of cyclists on the roads. Is it balanced by a decrease in the number of pedestrian/motor vehicle accidents? It appears it is, because the overall number of road fatalities in Amsterdam is consistently falling.
> 
> So it doesn't seem like it's a valid argument against increasing the number of cyclists on the road, because it appears that in Amsterdam the increasing number of cyclists is accompanied by a decreasing number of pedestrians killed on the road.
> 
> http://www.iamexpat.nl/read-and-dis...ands-most-dangerous-city-cyclists-pedestrians


I'm confused why people are comparing London to Amsterdam...do I really have to point out that London has many more millions of people; we are a financial and cultural center in the world will millions of more people visiting here then Amsterdam...do I need to go on?  The only people who want to bang on about Amsterdam are the cyclists.  Everyone wants less traffic but just closing roads is not the way to do it...how about better public transport or less building work - has anyone looked at the number of cranes on London's skyline? ...the tube to work is expensive and disgusting and taking the bus now takes 30minutes longer because of Boris's cycle lanes.  And don't say ride a bike - work doesn't have a shower and I'm certainly not sitting next to clients stinking.  It's funny how there's a certain type that cycles...the desk bound types...they go on about a better place to live but I bet they still do their internet shopping...they probably don't count their Acado delivery as there own journey or all the other stuff they get online with upteen small white vans hurtling themselves around London - they weren't even around a few years ago.  
So cyclist I say think about the journeys YOU are creating every time you shop on Amazon - you're a bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

Getting stuck into cyclists versus drivers is (my opinion) a mistake & irrelevant here.

*There are many cyclists who have come out very loud & clear against this particular scheme.*

eg) from that QC's Open letter to Cllr Braithwaite about the road closures a couple of days ago:


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I'm confused why people are comparing London to Amsterdam...do I really have to point out that London has many more millions of people; we are a financial and cultural center in the world will millions of more people visiting here then Amsterdam...do I need to go on?  The only people who want to bang on about Amsterdam are the cyclists.  Everyone wants less traffic but just closing roads is not the way to do it...how about better public transport or less building work - has anyone looked at the number of cranes on London's skyline? ...the tube to work is expensive and disgusting and taking the bus now takes 30minutes longer because of Boris's cycle lanes.  And don't say ride a bike - work doesn't have a shower and I'm certainly not sitting next to clients stinking.  It's funny how there's a certain type that cycles...the desk bound types...they go on about a better place to live but I bet they still do their internet shopping...they probably don't count their Acado delivery as there own journey or all the other stuff they get online with upteen small white vans hurtling themselves around London - they weren't even around a few years ago.
> So cyclist I say think about the journeys YOU are creating every time you shop on Amazon - you're a bunch of hypocrites.


I've posted earlier about the fact that unfortunately, just probviding better public transport does not get people out of their cars. This is what the evidence shows. You have to reduce the convenience of car use if you want to have fewer cars on the roads.

No-one is trying to tell anyone to ride a bike if they don't want to. Again this point has been made over and over again. Other people travelling by bike benefits you. Firstly as a result of taking some cars off the road. Secondly by taking pressure off public transport. This is important in London where much of our public transport is already at capacity. Have you ever noticed how much more crowded the tube is on days with very bad weather? Lots of those extra people usually cycle. It would be that crowded every morning if they didn't, and if all the people who cycle even on bad weather days didn't, then it would be even worse.

You point out that London is much bigger than Amsterdam. It is, and not only is it bigger but it is growing fast. This makes it even more crucial that we sort out transport policy. London is a big city and much of it has very little road space. Possibly even less than Amsterdam, proportionately. We have to make the best use of that limited road space if we don't want everything to grind to a halt. And cars are the least efficient use of road space there is. It uses up 30 times as much road space to have the same number of people travelling by car instead of bus. And that's before you even count all the space needed to park cars. Allowing cars into the centre of London for non-essential journeys is really quite crazy but we still do it. You talk about cycle lanes slowing down bus journeys. Why are you focussing on the cyclists as the problem instead of the cars that your bus is actually stuck behind? The cycle lane can transport 10 times as many people as it would if it were also filled up with cars.

The stuff about internet shopping is nonsense. Having stuff delivered by van is efficient, and it's more efficient the more people do it. The fact that it's widely available now means that life is easier for people who don't or can't own a car. One van delivering a whole load of people's shopping causes lots less congestion and pollution than even a fraction of those people doing their shopping individually by car. Why do you resent "cyclists" taking advantage of this facility? Would you rather they bought a car to use for the supermarket? Or struggle on the bus with handfuls of heavy shopping?


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

Just a couple more comments from cyclists who have posted to say that they are against _*this particular scheme*. 

 

 
_


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

For those whose main objection to the scheme is the congestion they feel it's created on CHL: how about we remove all parking from Coldharbour Lane, make it a red route, and put in bus lanes at all points where it's wide enough? Problem solved?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 17, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I'm confused why people are comparing London to Amsterdam...do I really have to point out that London has many more millions of people; we are a financial and cultural center in the world will millions of more people visiting here then Amsterdam...do I need to go on?  The only people who want to bang on about Amsterdam are the cyclists.  Everyone wants less traffic but just closing roads is not the way to do it...how about better public transport or less building work - has anyone looked at the number of cranes on London's skyline? ...the tube to work is expensive and disgusting and taking the bus now takes 30minutes longer because of Boris's cycle lanes.  And don't say ride a bike - work doesn't have a shower and I'm certainly not sitting next to clients stinking.  It's funny how there's a certain type that cycles...the desk bound types...they go on about a better place to live but I bet they still do their internet shopping...they probably don't count their Acado delivery as there own journey or all the other stuff they get online with upteen small white vans hurtling themselves around London - they weren't even around a few years ago.
> So cyclist I say think about the journeys YOU are creating every time you shop on Amazon - you're a bunch of hypocrites.


I see you've got your own crane now on the corner of Barrington Road and St James's Crescent. Don't remember 2 major planning meetings addressed by pressure groups and a new Masterplan being commissioned over that. 

What does that say about the nimbyism of Loughborough Estate vs LJAG - SW9 vs SE24?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Excellent collection of "information" from mystery sources here (from post on LJRoadmadness page).
> 
> "50% drop in turnover for local businesses of all sizes and sorts"



Can't comment to the other bits but the guy from the local scrapyard did get up and say that he was seeing a 50% drop in business at the meeting on Thursday night, obviously it goes into the pile of anecdata we haven't seen audited accounts from him to back it up!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> For those whose main objection to the scheme is the congestion they feel it's created on CHL: how about we remove all parking from Coldharbour Lane, make it a red route, and put in bus lanes at all points where it's wide enough? Problem solved?



In the same vein why couldn't we have had the same on Loughborough road but have proper sectioned off cycle paths rather than bus lanes, the road is wider in parts than CHL


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Can't comment to the other bits but the guy from the local scrapyard did get up and say that he was seeing a 50% drop in business at the meeting on Thursday night, obviously it goes into the pile of anecdata we haven't seen audited accounts from him to back it up!


Re scrapyard guy: I live on the corner where the big trucks (used to) come to deliver the scrap metal to that yard.. After a few weeks of watching them backing onto the pavements a lot trying to do the only legal option now (turn right into Eastlake road) I can confirm - anecdatally- there's a very noticeable reduction in scrap metal deliveries going on now.
Maybe its modal shift though, maybe I've missed all the scrap cars that are being delivered by bike instead.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The stuff about internet shopping is nonsense. Having stuff delivered by van is efficient, and it's more efficient the more people do it. The fact that it's widely available now means that life is easier for people who don't or can't own a car. One van delivering a whole load of people's shopping causes lots less congestion and pollution than even a fraction of those people doing their shopping individually by car.


Possibly - but what happens on a red route?
Or was your earlier suggestion frivolous?


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The stuff about internet shopping is nonsense. Having stuff delivered by van is efficient, and it's more efficient the more people do it.



Maybe we will all be saved by the amazon drones.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Possibly - but what happens on a red route?
> Or was your earlier suggestion frivolous?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

bimble said:


> Re scrapyard guy: I live on the corner where the big trucks (used to) come to deliver the scrap metal to that yard.. After a few weeks of watching them backing onto the pavements a lot trying to do the only legal option now (turn right into Eastlake road) I can confirm - anecdatally- there's a very noticeable reduction in scrap metal deliveries going on now.


I'd assume they have to come via Minet Rd now, right? Which would be why you aren't seeing them any more.

Your anecdata of seeing them attempting to take the closed route for several weeks before eventually using alternatives fits in exactly with what I've been saying for a while - that you have to allow some time for new travel patterns to settle in.

I wouldn't dismiss the scrapyard owner's concerns. I suspect 50% is probably a bit of an exaggeration but he should be listened to. If I was in charge of the scheme I'd want to talk to him and examine exactly what's going on, to see if there would be a way to modify things to limit the effects on him.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If I was in charge of the scheme I'd want to talk to him and examine exactly what's going on, to see if there would be a way to modify things to limit the effects on him.


I wish you were in charge then.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 17, 2015)

There was a business meeting recently where 47 businesses attended and there would have been far more  but plenty of the local owners run their shops alone. Many of them all reported a huge loss in business and 50% was quoted by quite a few. This is serious and Lambeth knew all this before hand including Cllr Brathwaite.
Last year Cllr Brathwaite called a meeting where businesses, residents groups, organisations, homeowners and several Ward Cllrs were invited by her to attend. They all turned up. It was a very peaceful and informative meeting. She listened to a large amount od plausible reasons why this scheme would NOT work. There was no anger, no shouting, no speaking over each other. She went away with a lot of vital information from a widely represented community of Loughborough and Myatts Fields  to then make her decision. She took months and then went AGAINST ALL the compassionate, honest and fact based information she had received.
What has she now brought about? 
Total and utter chaos. 
A complete FAILURE  of all the ideas they came up with for the reasons for this scheme.
The only positive thing from all this, one gentleman said in the LJNPF the other evening......   it has brought the community together!


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> A complete FAILURE  of all the ideas they came up with for the reasons for this scheme.


Agree, sadly.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

Just went into the little community police office at the junction and spoke to a local officer who prefers to remain nameless for now.
Said he needs to check in with Chief Inspector Roy Smith and see if they can issue a public statement calling for an end to this particular experiment.
He too was never involved in any "informal consultation", had no idea this was happening until the roads were shut.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 17, 2015)

LadyV said:


> In the same vein why couldn't we have had the same on Loughborough road but have proper sectioned off cycle paths rather than bus lanes, the road is wider in parts than CHL



I said that at the last LJ Neighbourhod planning meeting before the last one. Was told by Lambeth Cyclists rep that that has already been looked at and not enough space. Though to me looks like it could be done.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 17, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Possibly - but what happens on a red route?
> Or was your earlier suggestion frivolous?



On Red Routes there are designated areas for deliveries.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 17, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I'm confused why people are comparing London to Amsterdam...do I really have to point out that London has many more millions of people; we are a financial and cultural center in the world will millions of more people visiting here then Amsterdam...do I need to go on?  The only people who want to bang on about Amsterdam are the cyclists.  Everyone wants less traffic but just closing roads is not the way to do it...how about better public transport or less building work - has anyone looked at the number of cranes on London's skyline? ...the tube to work is expensive and disgusting and taking the bus now takes 30minutes longer because of Boris's cycle lanes.  And don't say ride a bike - work doesn't have a shower and I'm certainly not sitting next to clients stinking.  It's funny how there's a certain type that cycles...the desk bound types...they go on about a better place to live but I bet they still do their internet shopping...they probably don't count their Acado delivery as there own journey or all the other stuff they get online with upteen small white vans hurtling themselves around London - they weren't even around a few years ago.
> So cyclist I say think about the journeys YOU are creating every time you shop on Amazon - you're a bunch of hypocrites.



I was in Oxford street some time ago and got chatting to a tourist. Turned out he was a Dutch guy who designed roads. Looking at Oxford street he asked me why there were not segregated cycle lanes in London. Its not so unusual in other cities.

This was before Boris cycle lanes were started. IMO they are good thing. I have noticed an increase of people cycling in mornings and evenings to and from the West End and City in recent years. This is due to support both Ken and Boris have given to giving more priority to cycling.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 17, 2015)

Complain! said:


> I'm confused why people are comparing London to Amsterdam...do I really have to point out that London has many more millions of people; we are a financial and cultural center in the world will millions of more people visiting here then Amsterdam...do I need to go on?  The only people who want to bang on about Amsterdam are the cyclists.  Everyone wants less traffic but just closing roads is not the way to do it...how about better public transport or less building work - has anyone looked at the number of cranes on London's skyline? ...the tube to work is expensive and disgusting and taking the bus now takes 30minutes longer because of Boris's cycle lanes.  And don't say ride a bike - work doesn't have a shower and I'm certainly not sitting next to clients stinking.  It's funny how there's a certain type that cycles...the desk bound types...they go on about a better place to live but I bet they still do their internet shopping...they probably don't count their Acado delivery as there own journey or all the other stuff they get online with upteen small white vans hurtling themselves around London - they weren't even around a few years ago.
> So cyclist I say think about the journeys YOU are creating every time you shop on Amazon - you're a bunch of hypocrites.



Yes, they're always going on about Amsterdam, so I took a virtual tour courtesy of google maps.
For one thing it's much smaller than London. Population of Greater Amsterdam area is about 1.6 million compared to 8.5 million of Greater London, and the area is about 6 times smaller.
A quick look suggested their roads are better than ours. Theres a 3/4/5 lane circular motorway around the city only a bit bigger than the London inner ring road (20 miles circumference compared to 12 miles for the inner ring road). Imagine a motorway going through Archway, Shadwell, Brixton and along the western border of Hyde Park. You're never much more than about 3 miles from a motorway intersection. No need to slog through 17 miles of traffic lights, parked cars and stopped buses (A23 from Westminster to the M23) to get to a motorway.
Most of the small side roads with parked cars on both sides are one-way - they seem to like alternating one way streets. That way you don't get the stand-offs with vehicles trying to go both directions past the parked car obstructions. The main roads aren't blocked with parked cars - anything parked there is in a lay by or set back from the road. I don't know what happens with deliveries, but I'm guessing they must happen off road. In some places you can see vehicles parked on the pavement, I assume being unloaded. Even though a lot of the main roads only have one lane each way for general traffic they all seem remarkably free of the sort of obstructions you get on London's roads - parked cars, vans and HGVs being unloaded, stopped buses etc. They mostly have wide pavements and separated cycle paths, although there are some London-style cycle lanes as well. There are loads of parked cars around, but they are either parked down side streets or in laybys - not in places where they obstruct the traffic flow.
Most of the main roads seem noticeably wider than ours, which allows for all the segregation of cycles, buses/trams, general traffic and for parking areas. Compare that to ours - Camberwell New Road anyone? They also don't have the ubiquitous speed humps that are now appearing even on main roads in London (Denmark Hill got two of them about a year ago, Rotherhithe New Road is full of them). Although they do have some raised tables at junctions on the narrow back streets. Maybe nobody speeds over there?
I didn't notice any particular lack of through routes, although there are only 4 crossing points of the main waterway in the middle of the city (2 are part of the ring motorway, one is a Blackwall Tunnel style crossing but better quality and one is an ordinary road). There certainly doesn't seem to be anything like a 2 square mile area with no through routes. Maybe I missed it?
There seem to be less traffic lights on the roads as well. On a circuit of the 8 mile long Amsterdam inner ring road (Centrumring) you pass 31 sets of lights - just under 4 per mile, not including pedestrian controlled lights. For the London inner ring road you pass 84 sets of lights in a 12 mile circuit - 7 per mile - again not including pedestrian controlled lights. We have too many traffic lights on our major roads. All sorts of minor roads with very little traffic have traffic lights where the join or cross a main road, which disrupts traffic flow on the main road.
Overall, the roads seem better laid out there than here. But then I suppose you can do that if you have a bit more room. Generally we have crap infrastructure in this country - we never do the job properly. It's always left half done if done at all. Look at the North Circular - mostly free flowing now, but they left 3 or 4 traffic light junctions on it and those cause huge jams. Same with the A40 - 4 sets of lights between Marylebone Road and the M25 and you often sit in a mile long queue approaching the first one. The South Circular is a sick joke. Tower Bridge is good as a tourist attraction but crap as a main road - it has an 18 ton weight limit. Blackwall Tunnel northbound has a 13 foot height limit. How are lorries supposed to cross the river? They can't use the ring road or the main crossing in East London.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

Those rubber lines that count cars, there's one appeared overnight here too (Flaxman road).
Anyone know what they are doing (I mean why now)?

EDIT:  Question is here because the locations are not the same as the 'before' counting locations and there are a very lot less of them. So thought maybe this counting is unconnected to the road closures .


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

irf520 I am glad that your observations of Amsterdam have helped you understand that in comparison London is a big city with a very restricted amount of road space. 

So it is even more important for us, than it is there, to use that limited infrastructure as efficiently as possible. We need to massively reduce the number of private road vehicles that are clogging it up and slowing everyone else down.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

bimble said:


> Those rubber lines that count cars, there's one appeared overnight here too (Flaxman road).
> Anyone know what they are doing (I mean why now)?


I just can't think what they could be doing.
Before the scheme started Lambeth announced they would be doing traffic counts before the experimental period, and once the experiment was running.
They did traffic counts before the start.
The experient is now running.
We observe that Lambeth are doing traffic counts again.
No, I still can't work out why there are traffic counts being done now.
It's such a mystery.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

Thanks Teuchter, you are kind.
But .. the rubber lines are in very different places and far fewer places than they were when they counted the cars before the experiment.
And I was also curious why now, whether it is part of the thing about the evaluation being brought forward. But thank you all the same.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

Always happy to be of assistance.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

The list of locations for the car counting has 3 different spots on St James' crescent on it. 
Are there 3 sets of rubber lines there does anyone know?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

I walked into Brixton via St James Crescent earlier today, looking for havoc and chaos but could find none. I do realise it was not a weekday rush hour though.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I walked into Brixton via St James Crescent earlier today, looking for havoc and chaos but could find none. I do realise it was not a weekday rush hour though.


So you did not notice 3 sets of rubber lines there ? 
Does that mean this is not the traffic count you suggested helpfully above ? I don't know.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

I didn't notice.
They might not be putting them all in at the same time. The ones on Herne Hill Rd appeared a few days ago.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

That's true, they might not be able to afford to do them all at the same time now, though they did do that before the experiment. Maybe they can't afford to do them all this time anyway, just a few here and there.
I can't help but wonder, have you always been a person with an innate faith in the council / authorities to generally do things well and rationally?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

Why do you think I have an innate faith in the council or other authorities to generally do things well and rationally?


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

Because of the things you write here. Just this page is an example but all down this thread, it does look like you have a sort of unshakable trust that Lambeth is doing a pretty good job of implementing a noble strategy, or something.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2015)

bimble said:


> Because of the things you write here. Just this page is an example but all down this thread, it does look like you have a sort of unshakable trust that Lambeth is doing a pretty good job of implementing a noble strategy, or something.


Maybe to someone who can't read english and is simultaneously having halucinations. Is that you?

Where even on this page do I demonstrate an unshakable trust that Lambeth is doing a good job of implementing this?


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Maybe to someone who can't read english and is simultaneously having halucinations. Is that you?


That must be me.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 17, 2015)

There are no counts on Barrington Road from Loughborough Road up to the P5 / cycles only point  this is a very busy road now as traffic coming up Loughborough Road have to use it now.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

I think the rubber lines that are currently around may be to do with the 20 mph speed limit that's coming next month & not part of evaluating the effects of the LJ road closures.

Lambeth Goes 20mph - guide | Lambeth Council


----------



## critical1 (Oct 18, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think the rubber lines that are currently around may be to do with the 20 mph speed limit that's coming next month & not part of evaluating the effects of the LJ road closures.
> 
> Lambeth Goes 20mph - guide | Lambeth Council


So much for a coordinated approach to this project, its all just randomly put together, no coordination of any sort... Makes one wonder what happens if they did try....


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

It's true. Or if someone proper like Teuchter was in charge .


----------



## LadyV (Oct 18, 2015)

bimble said:


> It's true. Or if someone proper like Teuchter was in charge .


Please stop with that idea.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 18, 2015)

Was walking down Loughborough Road from 5 ways this afternoon, they have the monitoring things across the road too


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

This 20mph limit that's coming next month to all council roads in Lambeth (apparently at a cost of £700,000 worth of street signs .. that's the business to be in) , that on its own sounds like it would have done a lot to make Loughborough Road & the junction more pedestrian friendly, that and a nice big zebra crossing.

20mph borough wide speed limit expected to be introduced by Lambeth Council at a cost of £700,000 for street signs and road markings


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 18, 2015)

Loads of drivers ignore 20mph signs  it is like crawling along  can cycle faster  oh oops cyclists meant to obey speed rules or are they  haha


----------



## prunus (Oct 18, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Loads of drivers ignore 20mph signs  it is like crawling along  can cycle faster  oh oops cyclists meant to obey speed rules or are they  haha



Yes they are and largely will. 

So, to be clear: it seems you're against the 20mph limit as well as the road closures?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

prunus said:


> So, to be clear: it seems you're against the 20mph limit as well as the road closures?


I think your question was directly to concerned1 but just to clarify:
Me I'm happy about 20mph, would have liked to just add a big zebra crossing in front of Wyck gardens. That way there might even have been some money left over to do a bit of pavement widening. But I don't really like those chairs that point in random directions which seem to be the latest thing in public spaces round here, I mean the ones that don't have buses and cyclists driving around in them of course.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 18, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Loads of drivers ignore 20mph signs  it is like crawling along  can cycle faster  oh oops cyclists meant to obey speed rules or are they  haha


They have speed restrictions also in the USA my observational research suggests that it leads to an increase in drug dealers selling whatever from car windows.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2015)

That's a new one on me. Speed limits will attract drug dealers. You couldn't make it up. You really couldn't.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

critical1 said:


> They have speed restrictions also in the USA my observational research suggests that it leads to an increase in drug dealers selling whatever from car windows.


I got offered weed by a cyclist who looked about 11 yesterday. Maybe the drugs and transport equation can remain open..


----------



## prunus (Oct 18, 2015)

critical1 said:


> They have speed restrictions also in the USA my observational research suggests that it leads to an increase in drug dealers selling whatever from car windows.



Ah. You're either taking the piss or seriously deluded.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

prunus said:


> Ah. You're either taking the piss or seriously deluded.


I thought people were at liberty to do both at the same time here. You want to make it an either or situation?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

here's a totally irrelevant bit of Sunday niceness about Coldharbour Lane before gentrification was even a thing.. (old photo is from somewhere U75 and writing's from a book called Brixton memories). won't do this again I promise


----------



## irf520 (Oct 18, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Loads of drivers ignore 20mph signs  it is like crawling along  can cycle faster ...



I guess that's the idea ... oh wait, could be straying into conspiracy territory here ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







concerned1 said:


> ... cyclists meant to obey speed rules or are they  haha



Actually cyclists are exempt from speed limits. They don't have a speedometer, so they don't know how fast they are going.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 18, 2015)

Not against it  but we will see how much trafiic will snarl up


----------



## irf520 (Oct 18, 2015)

prunus said:


> Yes they are and largely will.
> 
> So, to be clear: it seems you're against the 20mph limit as well as the road closures?



20mph is fine for small residential streets. But you can't seriously tell me it's dangerous to do 30mph along Denmark Hill (has 20mph limit now along entire length).


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

irf520 said:


>


 I'm in technological awe of you. I think 20mph limit for cars might not be part of an evil cyclo-nazi agenda though. Not sure if having cars trundling along at your side is preferable to having them zip past you. Don't know.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 18, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think 20mph limit for cars might not be an evil cyclo-nazi agenda though. Not sure if having cars trundling along at your side is preferable to having them zip past you. Don't know.



Well, from the horse's mouth (Lambeth Goes 20mph - guide | Lambeth Council) :

"Main benefits of the roll out include:

Health- More people are encouraged to walk and cycle Road safety- Reducing speed reduces the number of severe casualties on the road"
*What impact will 20mph limits have on air pollution?*
The greatest environmental benefit from the change will come from unlocking the potential for walking or cycling short distances instead of driving. 

How does reducing the speed limit achieve this? I'll leave that to your imagination lest I be accused of paranoia.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 18, 2015)

Islington already has 20mph limit except for a few roads.

20mph has been shown to reduce accidents.




> Brake believes 20mph is the most appropriate speed limit for built up areas, as it gives drivers the chance to stop in time in an emergency, such as if someone suddenly steps into the road. If a child runs into the road three car lengths ahead, a driver travelling at 30mph (48km/h) will not be able to stop in time, and will still be travelling at 28mph (45km/h) when they hit the child. A driver travelling at 20mph should just be able to stop in time, providing they are paying attention, have well-maintained brakes, and are driving in dry conditions.
> 
> Lowering traffic speeds, and lowering limits to 20mph specifically, is known to reduce casualties and create a safer road environment, especially for people on foot and bicycle. A trial of 20mph limits in Warrington, Cheshire, found pedestrian and cyclist casualties dropped 36% [6]. Analysis of 75 20pmh limit sites in Scotland found casualties dropped 42% [7]. Analysis of traffic casualties in London from 1986-2006 showed that 20mph zones, introduced with traffic calming measures such as speed humps and chicanes, reduced deaths and serious injuries by 42% [8]. 20mph or 30km/h limits are recommended by the World Health Organisation as a key measure to improve pedestrian safety and save lives [9].



and on encouraging cycling and walking



> Fear of fast traffic is a significant factor in people’s decisions to walk or cycle. A Brake and Churchill survey found nine in ten UK parents (90%) say fast traffic poses a danger to families and children in their community, and three in four (74%) say their family would walk more if the safety of nearby roads was improved [1]. A Brake and webuyanycar.com survey found three in four schoolchildren (76%) would like to walk and cycle more, but more than half (56%) worry they might be run over when walking or cycling on roads [2]. The average number of walking trips per person has decreased by 27% since 1995 in Britain, and less than a quarter (22%) of journeys and just 3% of miles travelled in Britain are now on foot [3].
> 
> Similarly, cycling still only accounts for a very small proportion of journeys in Britain, and road safety is a major factor in putting many people off. Just 2% of journeys and 1% of miles travelled are made by bike [4]. A Brake and Direct Line survey found that one in three non-cyclists would be persuaded to cycle if routes were safer.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 18, 2015)

Southwark have done it all over the place already - not just Denmark Hill. They are simply street ahead!


----------



## irf520 (Oct 18, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Southwark have done it all over the place already - not just Denmark Hill. They are simply street ahead!



Yes, I know. I was just using Denmark Hill as a particularly egregious example.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

irf520 said:


> *What impact will 20mph limits have on air pollution?*


This question I don't have a clue.
Better or worse than shutting a main road completely & forcing everything onto the adjoining one that most walking people use ?  I'd guess better.
But if we're getting 20mph on CHL plus the closure of Loughborough road..then I imagine that's really bad news for breathing pedestrians, if you add it up.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 18, 2015)

bimble said:


> This question I don't have a clue.
> Better or worse than shutting a main road completely & forcing everything onto the adjoining one that most walking people use ?  I'd guess better.
> But if we're getting 20mph on CHL plus the closure of Loughborough road..then I imagine that's really bad news for breathing pedestrians, if you add it up.



Pollution


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Pollution


A curious cornucopia of bits and pieces thank you.

Including this:
"A report from Belgium[4] concluded "It is unlikely that imposing strict speed limits in urban areas has a significant influence on emissions of NOx or CO2."
So.. I don't feel very much wiser about 20mph and air quality yet.
Still quite sure that I (pedestrian, occasional cyclist, frequent 345 bus user) would really like to see what would happen with just 20mph,  and not that combined with the shambolic road closures we have going on at the moment)


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 18, 2015)

Pollution will increase obviously as traffic congest on certain roads due to the slower speed.
Not exactly rocket science!
Look at Coldharbour Lane thanks to stupid road closures.
People will in places totally ignore the 20mp. Travel along Albany Road  and you soon see people doing about 40mph when they get a gap.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> People will in places totally ignore the 20mp.


Unless there's a budget left over for some speed cameras ( after the £700,000 going on signs) .  In which case everyone's a winner surely,  including the skint council .


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2015)

bimble said:


> A curious cornucopia of bits and pieces thank you.
> 
> Including this:
> "A report from Belgium[4] concluded "It is unlikely that imposing strict speed limits in urban areas has a significant influence on emissions of NOx or CO2."
> ...


That's emissions per vehicle-km.
The emissions per vehicle seem neither to rise or fall significantly as a result of reducing speed limits to 20mph.
The point is that the lower speed limits encourage modal shift, and each person who walks or cycles instead of driving eliminates pollution which otherwise would have occured.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 18, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I guess that's the idea ... oh wait, could be straying into conspiracy territory here ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sections 28 & 29 Road Traffic Act 1988 may be used to report dangerous and careless cycling respectively. These offences closely mirror the provisions (sections 2 & 3) for motor vehicles.


----------



## ricbake (Oct 18, 2015)

20 MPH restrictions are about reducing the level of mortality and injury to pedestrians and cyclists. Making the roads safer mean that more people feel encouraged to walk or cycle therefore they don't need to take the car and fewer car journeys take place so there is less pollution.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Pollution will increase obviously as traffic congest on certain roads due to the slower speed.
> Not exactly rocket science!
> Look at Coldharbour Lane thanks to stupid road closures.
> People will in places totally ignore the 20mp. Travel along Albany Road  and you soon see people doing about 40mph when they get a gap.


So you are saying that congestion will increase, because people will be observing a slower speed limit which they will be simultaneously ignoring. Now that's rocket science.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 18, 2015)

Haya87 said:


> Ok Bimble it was your post re removing motor traffic from across London. You were right about my arrogant remark at the last LJAG meeting re emergency services.That said as Emergency Services are a statutory consultee my understanding is that the Highway Authority, in this instance Lambeth, have to take note of them.
> 
> A total delight following this thread. Particular thanks for the records of last night's meeting.
> 
> ...


Rather surprised by Clare's post last Friday (above). The discussion has been going on here for a year but as far as I know this is her first appearance on the forum.
She was one of the key proponents of the scheme and I really think she should have been able to explain it a bit better.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

ricbake said:


> 20 MPH restrictions are about reducing the level of mortality and injury to pedestrians and cyclists. Making the roads safer mean that more people feel encouraged to walk or cycle therefore they don't need to take the car and fewer car journeys take place so there is less pollution.


I'm totally modal shifted, always have been. Is why I'm up for 20mph as an idea. 
Still totally confounded by the current road closure experiment though. 
It's made me feel deeply discouraged as a pedestrian cyclist & bus user .


----------



## irf520 (Oct 18, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Sections 28 & 29 Road Traffic Act 1988 may be used to report dangerous and careless cycling respectively. These offences closely mirror the provisions (sections 2 & 3) for motor vehicles.



But a cyclist can't be prosecuted purely on the basis that they exceeded the posted speed limit, whereas a motorist can be.
How likely do you think it is that a cyclist would actually be prosecuted for dangerous cycling? I can't see it myself, unless possibly they clattered a pedestrian at high speed and caused injury.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Rather surprised by Clare's post last Friday (above). The discussion has been going on here for a year but as far as I know this is her first appearance on the forum.
> She was one of the key proponents of the scheme and I really think she should have been able to explain it a bit better.



I think it's great she's been following the thread and has made an entrance.
Thought it was interesting how extremely reserved she seemed as well, in terms of this particular scheme: She nowhere says that she's a fan of it - even if her own activism largely led to the famous figure of "68% in favour".

See how she says in that post,
"I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House, on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition."


----------



## critical1 (Oct 18, 2015)

teuchter said:


> That's a new one on me. Speed limits will attract drug dealers. You couldn't make it up. You really couldn't.



That's absolutely right teuchter you could not make it up...

Man arrested after slow two-hour police car chase

"Ride tells you to _slow_ the car down for the purpose of a _drive_-by, which requires ... _Selling_ weight or moving weight, means to _sell narcotics_ on the street."


----------



## irf520 (Oct 18, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Rather surprised by Clare's post last Friday (above). The discussion has been going on here for a year but as far as I know this is her first appearance on the forum.
> She was one of the key proponents of the scheme and I really think she should have been able to explain it a bit better.



The explanation seems clear enough to me. The current LJ road closures are just the beginning. The ultimate objective would be to close all through routes through the interior of the region bounded by Brixton Road, Effra Road, Dulwich Road, Herne Hill, Denmark Hill and Camberwell New Road. That perimeter is 5 miles long and encloses an area of around 2 square miles. Now in order to achieve this it must be the case that for every point in the interior of that region there is a corresponding edge of the perimeter such that all journeys by motor vehicle to a point exterior to the region must proceed via that edge. If you want to go in a different direction, you must first proceed to your assigned edge and then follow the perimeter until you reach an available road which heads towards your destination. So if you want to go in the opposite direction you will have to go half way round the perimeter, which means an extra 2.5 miles along some heavily congested roads.

Even better, if you wanted to drive from, say, Fiveways to Milkwood Road, you would have to go via the perimeter of the region, so probably out to Brixton Road, through central Brixton and along Effra Rd/Dulwich Rd to Herne Hill then back up Milkwood Road. Yes, I know you could walk or cycle, but what if you have to carry a lot of stuff or if you're taking your car for an MOT or ...

I'm sure someone will be along soon to explain how that will reduce pollution ...


----------



## critical1 (Oct 18, 2015)

I 


bimble said:


> I think it's great she's been following the thread and has made an entrance.
> Thought it was interesting how extremely reserved she seemed as well, in terms of this particular scheme: She nowhere says that she's a fan of it - even if her own activism largely led to the famous figure of "68% in favour".
> 
> See how she says in that post,
> "I can't remember which meeting, it was at Blue Star House, on a scheme for the crossroads, that the idea for filtering out through motor traffic from Loughborough Rd first hardened. I do remember I was late and I do remember someone saying to me I thought you would be pleased and me saying I was in shock, probably because, unconsciously, I knew what was coming in terms of opposition."




I believe this is the same Clare Neely who is up for Cyclist Campaigner of the Year!!!
2015 Campaigner Awards Nominees announced!


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Man arrested after slow two-hour police car chase


 How very odd. God bless america.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I believe this is the same Clare Neely who is up for Cyclist Campaigner of the Year!!!
> 2015 Campaigner Awards Nominees announced!



That's the one.
Which is why I think it's so interesting that Haya87 seems kind of unsure about this particular scheme, now it's in.

I know she's the queen of lambeth cycle lobby & campaigned for cyclists to get involved thereby massively swaying the results of 'the consultation'.
But she does not wholeheartedly defend it anywhere far as I can see. She seems to be saying that other alternatives should have been considered first.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 18, 2015)

She is definitely a fan of it   or should I say an Activist in support of it?
I was informed she was leafletting cyclists to support it on several occasions


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> She is definitely a fan of it   or should I say an Activist in support of it?
> I was informed she was leafletting cyclists to support it on several occasions


I know she had a major part in skewing the results of the consultation. But still she seems (possibly )to be saying in her posts here that she is not totally convinced by this experiment now it's happening, and definitely to be saying that she would have chosen other plans if they were on offer.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

I mean .. what if @Haya87 decided, after having a proper look at everything, including CHL, to add her name to the stop the closures petition, wouldn't that be a coup.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 18, 2015)

bimble said:


> I mean .. what if @Haya87 decided, after having a proper look at everything, including CHL, to add her name to the stop the closures petition, wouldn't that be a coup.



Unless I've completely misunderstood, any misgivings she has are because the scheme doesn't go far enough, not because it goes too far.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 18, 2015)

> *Voluntary or community organisation of the year award – Loughborough Junction Action Group (LJAG)*
> 
> _LJAG aims to improve the environment of Loughborough Junction and the lives of people who live and work there, through various engagement strategies, projects and events. The group runs the Loughborough Farm and a community gardening project. LJAG also support the Loughborough Junction Business Association which hosted a successful Christmas market day._



Just looking at this does anyone know what kind of Business Assc this is, or is it just a Rotary Club?
Coz I think they should be yelling stop the road closures...


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 18, 2015)

She didn't win the award.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 18, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Just looking at this does anyone know what kind of Business Assc this is, or is it just a Rotary Club?
> Coz I think they should be yelling stop the road closures...


It is supposed to be more in the manner of a Forum (what else in Brixton/Lambeth?). LJAG were charged (by the council I think) with getting it up and running. Probably LJAG still provide admin support (minutes etc).

So basically it is a forum of local businesses (theoretically). A year or so ago they were asking if Loughborough Junction needed a BID. I hope they have learned from Brixton BID that this would be a mixed blessing. 

According to LJAG's website the last meeting was in February 2015 - they seem not to be active enough to yell about current events. And being in the LJAG fold so speak......[conflict of interest declaration?]


----------



## CH1 (Oct 18, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> She didn't win the award.


No, but LJAG did http://love.lambeth.gov.uk/lambeth-community-awards-2015-winners-announced/


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2015)

.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Unless I've completely misunderstood, any misgivings she has are because the scheme doesn't go far enough, not because it goes too far.



She says in her post
"What I cannot get straight in my mind is this. Would filtering area wide from Hinton, including HHRd and Shakespeare, achieve a similar or greater modal shift than filtering Loughborough Rd? "

Which (maybe I'm reading it wrong ) might sound a bit like Haya87 cycling campaigner of the year, saying  "I am not at all convinced that this particular experiment is the best idea".
?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

CH1 said:


> No, but LJAG did Love Lambeth



Seems a really unfortunate quote there:
_"we are having a lot of fun with community engagement in Loughborough Junction. "_
What's the opposite of good comic timing..


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

teuchter said:


> .


?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 18, 2015)

bimble said:


> Seems a really unfortunate quote she has quoted there:
> "we are having a lot of fun with community engagement in Loughborough Junction.


This was perfectly true of the 7 Bridges festival or that more recent WW I event. The Farm is probably lots of fun for those who like gardening.

Social engineering on the other hand is not fun it is power play.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 18, 2015)

bimble said:


> She says in her post
> "What I cannot get straight in my mind is this. Would filtering area wide from Hinton, including HHRd and Shakespeare, achieve a similar or greater modal shift than filtering Loughborough Rd? "
> 
> Which (maybe I'm reading it wrong ) might sound a bit like Haya87 cycling campaigner of the year, saying  "I am not at all convinced that this particular experiment is the best idea".
> ?



OK, so maybe she's unsure whether the first step in the grand plan should have been disconnecting Coldharbour Lane from all roads to the south of it, rather than from all roads to the north.
Also, the experiment as it stands doesn't quite achieve the latter.
But the ultimate goal is still as stated.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 18, 2015)

bimble said:


> Seems a really unfortunate quote there:
> _"we are having a lot of fun with community engagement in Loughborough Junction. "_
> What's the opposite of good comic timing..



Well, if you want a good example of someone who is either completely detached from reality or taking the piss, there it is.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

irf520 said:


> But the ultimate goal is still as stated.


Me personally I don't think that this particular road closure experiment is part of a grand plan for modal shift or a city-wide cyclist agenda. 
The stated goals are all about 'public space ' and 'LJ as a destination in its own right'. They make no sense either I admit (as the thing is implemented) but I honestly don't think this thing here is about cyclists or pollution.Call me a fringe conspiracy theorist.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 18, 2015)

CH1 said:


> 7 Bridges



a senior member of the community was asked to help with a bit of pr for the 7 bridges
she obliged but was a little confused by the name because in her opinion there are 9 bridges.....


----------



## irf520 (Oct 18, 2015)

bimble said:


> Me personally I don't think that this particular road closure experiment in Lj is part of a grand plan for modal shift or a city-wide cyclist agenda. The stated goals are all about 'public space ' and 'LJ as a destination in its own right'. They make no sense either I admit but I don't think this thing here is about cyclists or pollution.Call me a fringe conspiracy theorist.



But she says it in her post:



Haya87 said:


> We London Cycling Campaign transport planning and infrastructure headbangers, talk about cells. That is where you can walk and cycle and take buses through an area, so strictly speaking roads aren't closed, and drive in and out, but through motor traffic is filtered out. It is what, I understand, the Dutch do.
> 
> *The cell* I have gone on about at LJAG meetings and elsewhere for years,  *is bounded by* the TLRN (Transport for London Road Network) in this area, *Denmark Hill, Herne Hill,  Dulwich Rd, Effra Rd, Brixton Rd, Camberwell New Rd. Yes filtering out through motor traffic from CHL, not buses.*



The ultimate goal is that you can't drive through that area, but are forced to go round the perimeter.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2015)

irf520 said:


> But she says it in her post:
> The ultimate goal is that you can't drive through that area, but are forced to go round the perimeter.


I'm not denying that she is an extremist, cycling-wise. As said before I was struck by her comment at the meeting I went to (it'll only take 2 minutes for the ambulance crew to stop, drag those roadblocks out of the way and put them back before carrying on to the emergency) .

But if she - even she - might have reservations and questions about this particular scheme,  i just thought that was worth drawing out, instead of just attacking her .
Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Angellic (Oct 19, 2015)

Set of rubber cables on Villa Rd - think they've been there for a few weeks.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 19, 2015)

bimble said:


> Call me a fringe conspiracy theorist.



Maybe not a conspiracy but an odd series of collaborations:
LJAG's public space scheme 'dead in the water until the cyclists came', cyclists happy with their bit of "Space for Cycling" (forget the public space) and Cllr Jenny Brathwaite at the Call-in desperate for support for her 'LJ as destination' -- even mistakenly hugging one supposed cyclist there to protest the road closures!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 19, 2015)

Saw a motorcyclist beat the closure this morning. He got off his motorbike by Ridgeway Road, then walk it on the pavement by Wyck Gardens, then once at the other side of the pedestrian area he got back on again. Bit of a faff but no doubt still a lot quicker than going all the way around


----------



## LadyV (Oct 19, 2015)

Does anyone know if there are actually fixed cameras now on the CHL/LR pedestrian zone? The reason I ask is that despite there now being clear signage, I'm still seeing a decent amount of cars go through. If Lambeth are only issuing fines when the CCTV cars are there, I would say that it's a further example of their negligence with this project, I saw about 15 cars just this morning but no car there so if no fines were issued to those cars that's potentially almost £2000 not collected, which to me is negligent of a council that's making cuts elsewhere due to a shortfall.

I know it might seem hypocritical of me to say that when I'm in favour of removing the closures, I am still in favour of removing them but if the scheme if going to fail I want it to fail because it's a bad idea not because Lambeth can't do it properly. And in the meantime while we have it in place, I want drivers to observe it properly and be penalised appropriately if not.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 19, 2015)

Camera on Loughborough road attached to a pole next to farm.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I know it might seem hypocritical of me to say that when I'm in favour of removing the closures, I am still in favour of removing them but if the scheme if going to fail I want it to fail because it's a bad idea not because Lambeth can't do it properly. And in the meantime while we have it in place, I want drivers to observe it properly and be penalised appropriately if not.



Not hypocritical at all.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 19, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Camera on Loughborough road attached to a pole next to farm.



That's not new though, that's been there the whole 6 years I've lived in LJ, it's a general CCTV rather than a traffic camera, maybe they can re-purpose them but if so why the need for the car expect to annoy people?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 19, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Camera on Loughborough road attached to a pole next to farm.


This belongs to the Loughborough/Angell and Hertford estate's cctv system,  paid for weekly by residents and is NOT for fining or even watching traffic!!!


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 19, 2015)

If people want to d/l and print off the paper petition you may but please do not gather signatures of those who have signed the Lambeth Council: Reverse the Loughborough Junction Road Closures Now!   this is for those who do not have internet access. Thx.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 19, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> This belongs to the Loughborough/Angell and Hertford estate's cctv system,  paid for weekly by residents and is NOT for fining or even watching traffic!!!



Thought it was something like that, which brings me back to my original question, is there new one especially for the traffic? I thought there was one lurking on the top of the traffic lights but that seems to be for the traffic lights rather than the pedestrian zone


----------



## critical1 (Oct 19, 2015)

bimble said:


> The stated goals are all about 'public space ' and 'LJ as a destination in its own right'.



I'm sat here wondering if Loughborough Junction is not already a destination in its own right being we already have a train station here, then my thoughts wander to the bigger picture about what would I get on a train to LJ to make it a destination in its own right! The farm NO, the Horses NO, the Park NO, the businesses NO, my home YES, my Community YES... 

Maybe others who are pro closures are more enlightened as to clarify the ambiguity of what a destination is! If it is already meaningful.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 19, 2015)

LadyV said:


> That's not new though, that's been there the whole 6 years I've lived in LJ, it's a general CCTV rather than a traffic camera, maybe they can re-purpose them but if so why the need for the car expect to annoy people?



It's a new one on the kirb side.


----------



## MrM (Oct 19, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Maybe others who are pro closures are more enlightened as to clarify the ambiguity of what a destination is! If it is already meaningful.


I don't see a connection between the meaning of 'destination' and your position on closures, but I think they just mean 'is it a place people would want to visit?' (i.e. attracting people for reasons other than work, school, home etc.)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I'm sat here wondering if Loughborough Junction is not already a destination in its own right being we already have a train station here, then my thoughts wander to the bigger picture about what would I get on a train to LJ to make it a destination in its own right! The farm NO, the Horses NO, the Park NO, the businesses NO, my home YES, my Community YES...
> 
> Maybe others who are pro closures are more enlightened as to clarify the ambiguity of what a destination is! If it is already meaningful.



I can only offer you my own interpretation of what a "destination" means.

To me it is pretty simple, just somewhere where you go to do stuff.

That might be to do basic shopping. If there are more shops in LJ where I can get stuff, I'm more likely to do my food shopping in LJ instead of going to Camberwell or Brixton. Since the co-op opened I go to Camberwell less regularly, for example. Last time I needed some repairs to my bike, I took it to Harbour Cycles instead of somewhere else.

Also social stuff. At the moment, if I want to meet a friend for a pint, my options are in Brixton or Camberwell (or the Cambria, but it's not in the central part of LJ). People have rightly bemoaned the loss of all the pubs in central LJ. Making it a "destination" for me would include trying to reverse that.

If I want to meet someone for a coffee, then more recently some options have appeared. The place under the station or the Blue Turtle place. However, the fact that they are right next to a busy road detracts a bit from their appeal. On a nice summer's day I might opt to go somewhere else where I can sit outside with less noise and pollution.

So making somewhere a "destination" is about trying make it somewhere that people want to go, firstly because there are services (ie shops etc) there in the first place, but also by making it somewhere that people want to go, by making the general environment more attractive and for many people that means reducing the dominance of motor traffic. Hence the proposals to reduce it and to provide more pedestrian public space.

To me it's about making it a "destination" for people who live in the general area who might otherwise tend to go to other local centres. And the more people that use central LJ as their local "destination" the better it is for the businesses that are there, and potentially the nicer it is for everyone to use, including when they are just doing basic things like going to the local shop or walking to and from the train station or waiting for the bus.


I expect you're going to come back with stuff about gentrification and how you don't want LJ full of Hipster cafes. Fair enough. Neither do I actually. But if you reject the whole idea on that basis, then nothing can ever be changed and it'll continue to be a town centre dominated by road traffic, with no pubs, little social space, vacant units and flytipped rubbish left there because people think of it as a desolate dumping ground. If you'd prefer it to stay like that rather than risking any kind of change because it might involve some changes that you don't like then also fair enough. I'd rather try and make things better whilst doing everything possible, via planning policy if possible (hence importance of, and my interest in, the masterplan) to try and make sure those changes are beneficial for people already living here rather than just being about servicing more moneyed residents and facilitating developers' desire to capitalise to the maximum extent.

In my opinion, prioritising access for private cars is not beneficial for most local residents. It's beneficial for those with the money to own and run a car, and it's beneficial for those from outside the immediate locale who want to use the area as a convenient transit route on journeys, the majority of which could be made by other modes of transport which would be much less disruptive.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 19, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I can only offer you my own interpretation of what a "destination" means.
> 
> To me it is pretty simple, just somewhere where you go to do stuff.
> 
> ...



I echo the thoughts and the desire for change in your post, you're right we do have to have make baby steps to make people have more pride in their area and make the area nicer for everyone, the two feed off eachother. However I don't believe this closure has achieved that. Yes Loughborough Road is relatively empty and I imagine some people will probably start to see an improvement in air quality along the road, but closing the road hasn't made LJ a nicer place, so far it's just increased the traffic on CHL and made it even more of a thoroughfare than it was before, it's made it easier to ignore than before, somewhere to get through as quickly as possible. 

I know I keep on harping back to a document that has since been superseded but a lot of the original masterplan ideas were great and had thought about how to make people notice the area as the travelled through, whatever method of transport they used, maybe make them think "oh I'll come back here" or "I'll get off the bus and go there". That's what we need to go back to.  

Sadly I can't see how we will ever have some of the things you mention, a pub, cafe with outside space etc, where would they go with the current space available? But we can live in hope. If the grant for the re-development of the space the area that the farm currently occupies is won then there is potential for change due the influx of people in the area, more people working/travelling in the area naturally brings more trade and would hopefully encourage more businesses to open which in turn hopefully locals would use too and support.

I went to Vauxhall yesterday to see the new Newport Street Gallery (beautiful space if you're interested!). Vauxhall has had quite a few million spent on it and parts of it, mostly closest to the station, do look a heck of a lot better than it did when I used to work there but on a Sunday when none of the businesses are there, it was dead, no life whatsoever. People were going to the gallery but then leaving the area without spending money there. I mention this as I think this is part of the problem with using the word 'destination', it's misleading, Vauxhall is now a destination because of the gallery but does it bring in money to local businesses? Not that I saw. A destination is somewhere you want to go and visit, not necessarily somewhere you want to stay and spend money. That's why I prefer the idea of a mini town centre or village atmosophere, businesses working together to generate trade for each other and the town/road planning assisting with that.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 19, 2015)

Um, this is a massive aside, but I think Vauxhall has been a destination (for a lot of people for a variety of reasons) for a long time.

The latest frou frou changes are just to appeal to the new property incomers and embassy staff.

That he's decided to build his gallery in the only cheap Z1 space which was already used for theatre stage sets, and didn't take much conversion doesnt mean that the numerous local businesses shouldn't benefit. 

The gallery has apparently been terrible at engaging with them.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 19, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Saw a motorcyclist beat the closure this morning. He got off his motorbike by Ridgeway Road, then walk it on the pavement by Wyck Gardens, then once at the other side of the pedestrian area he got back on again. Bit of a faff but no doubt still a lot quicker than going all the way around


I anticipate there will be more of those in due course. Pizza delivery drivers, couriers, and people with motor scooters who can mount the pavement and walk their vehicle across the pavement as pedestrians pushing along their two wheels for a while.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 19, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I'm sat here wondering if Loughborough Junction is not already a destination in its own right being we already have a train station here, then my thoughts wander to the bigger picture about what would I get on a train to LJ to make it a destination in its own right! The farm NO, the Horses NO, the Park NO, the businesses NO, my home YES, my Community YES...
> 
> Maybe others who are pro closures are more enlightened as to clarify the ambiguity of what a destination is! If it is already meaningful.


Mrs Moneypenny (Financial Times 18th June 2011) took a train journey - and didn't like what she found. Better to be stuck in traffic on the M25 she thought.

_"Four stops later, London Bridge had still not appeared and I had arrived at somewhere called Loughborough Junction. Don’t even bother looking it up. At this stage I called EG’s housekeeper and apologised profusely. Fortunately many other guests were stuck in traffic on the M25. Even that would have been preferable to Loughborough Junction."_

Could Mrs Moneypenny see into the future?  Or maybe this article inspired LJAG and Lambeth Council.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 19, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Um, this is a massive aside, but I think Vauxhall has been a destination (for a lot of people for a variety of reasons) for a long time.
> 
> The latest frou frou changes are just to appeal to the new property incomers and embassy staff.
> 
> ...




Destination yes, always has been, especially for the night life, town centre like, not so much, beyond the clubs opening times and lunchtime rushes, it doesn't have much life. The new Embassy is a bit too far down Nine Elms Lane to really take advantage of the Vauxhall revamp but I guess it will bring in more people which might help.

Doesn't surprise me that they've been unhelpful when dealing with the local community and businesses, they probably don't think they need to. I did like the space, the shop however I found odd, it's weird seeing painted skulls being sold for £36,000 each when just 5 minutes away you might have some families trying to exist on a teeny tiny fraction of that for the whole week.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I echo the thoughts and the desire for change in your post, you're right we do have to have make baby steps to make people have more pride in their area and make the area nicer for everyone, the two feed off eachother. However I don't believe this closure has achieved that. Yes Loughborough Road is relatively empty and I imagine some people will probably start to see an improvement in air quality along the road, but closing the road hasn't made LJ a nicer place, so far it's just increased the traffic on CHL and made it even more of a thoroughfare than it was before, it's made it easier to ignore than before, somewhere to get through as quickly as possible.
> 
> I know I keep on harping back to a document that has since been superseded but a lot of the original masterplan ideas were great and had thought about how to make people notice the area as the travelled through, whatever method of transport they used, maybe make them think "oh I'll come back here" or "I'll get off the bus and go there". That's what we need to go back to.
> 
> ...



*If* the long term effects of this scheme are proven to include a significant increase in traffic along CHL, then I agree that this could have a negative effect on LJ centre and outweight the benefits of removing the traffic turning onto LR.

As I keep saying, I want the experiment to be given enough time such that we can see whether or not this really is the case. I think you agree with me on that.

If, given time, the traffic on CHL settles to something like it was previously, then I do think that reducing the traffic turning into LR could help to provide a better public space, and a setting where people might more willingly choose to sit outside, for example. It's not just about the "pedestrianised" portion but the bit on the S side of the railway bridge too. Those criticising the idea on the basis of it not being a pedestrianised space because of the buses, cyclists etc still being allowed through, are I think missing the point a bit. I don't think that's really the intention. Much benefit can be gained simply by vastly reducing the amount of vehicles passing through. Removes noise and pollution but also, it makes crossing the road easier and quicker.

I can see there could be an argument that that particular space is not necessarily the best location for a central public space. The probably-nevr-going-to-happen compulsory purchase demolition scheme by the station would be much better for example. I'd also be interested in the idea of pedestrianising the bottom bit of Herne Hill Road instead. (I have selfish motivation for that because reducing traffic down herne hill rd would make things much nicer where I am)

But the rationale behind this scheme isn't just about the public space for LJ. It's also part of a strategy to reduce motor traffic generally in the wider area/city and make life easier for pedestrians and cyclists.

Would a closure of HHR/Hinton Rd still achieve these aims? Maybe. I'm certainly open to that as an alternative (although like I've said before, I bet if that was the initial proposal, people would be complaining that LJAG etc were doing all the nice stuff on the S side of LJ and ignoring Loughborough estate, etc etc)


----------



## LadyV (Oct 19, 2015)

teuchter said:


> As I keep saying, I want the experiment to be given enough time such that we can see whether or not this really is the case. I think you agree with me on that.



Indeed I do, well to a point, I'd like to see some improvement on the implementation but I'm happy to see the trial out, tbh by the looks of things, I think that'll end up happening anyway by the time all relevant parties have got their act together we won't be far off the end of the Feb, which is the 6 months.



teuchter said:


> I can see there could be an argument that that particular space is not necessarily the best location for a central public space. The probably-nevr-going-to-happen compulsory purchase demolition scheme by the station would be much better for example.



Agreed, to make a focus of the area by the station would be a good addition but like you say unlikely to happen due to cost.



teuchter said:


> (although like I've said before, I bet if that was the initial proposal, people would be complaining that LJAG etc were doing all the nice stuff on the S side of LJ and ignoring Loughborough estate, etc etc)



Quite possibly, depends how much they noticed or were inconvenienced


----------



## CH1 (Oct 19, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Would a closure of HHR/Hinton Rd still achieve these aims? Maybe. I'm certainly open to that as an alternative (although like I've said before, I bet if that was the initial proposal, people would be complaining that LJAG etc were doing all the nice stuff on the S side of LJ and ignoring Loughborough estate, etc etc)


No - the garage at Hinton Road would have protested vigorously. And you would have had the same bitter arguments in the Herne Hill Ward part of LJAG - except I doubt that the senior ward councillor for the area would have stood for it. [and of course many of LJAG members are card-carrying so would have dropped it]

Which is why we are where we are.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 19, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Mrs Moneypenny (Financial Times 18th June 2011) took a train journey - and didn't like what she found. Better to be stuck in traffic on the M25 she thought.
> 
> _"Four stops later, London Bridge had still not appeared and I had arrived at somewhere called Loughborough Junction. Don’t even bother looking it up. At this stage I called EG’s housekeeper and apologised profusely. Fortunately many other guests were stuck in traffic on the M25. Even that would have been preferable to Loughborough Junction."_
> 
> Could Mrs Moneypenny see into the future?  Or maybe this article inspired LJAG and Lambeth Council.



She doesn't appreciate the charms of the car breakers on Rathgar Road then? Or the high rises in Loughborough Estate?
I guess she'd prefer it if everywhere looked like Holland Park or Maida Vale. What a boring world that would be.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 19, 2015)

irf520 said:


> She doesn't appreciate the charms of the car breakers on Rathgar Road then? Or the high rises in Loughborough Estate?
> I guess she'd prefer it if everywhere looked like Holland Park or Maida Vale. What a boring world that would be.


She took the wrong train to Sevenoaks in fact. So it was more a case of being stuck in the middle of nowhere - which is what LJAG etc are complaining about. Isn't it?


----------



## Beasley (Oct 19, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So making somewhere a "destination" is about trying make it somewhere that people want to go, firstly because there are services (ie shops etc) …… but also …… by making the general environment more attractive and for many people that means reducing the dominance of motor traffic.



But… just take a look at Dulwich Village on a sunny weekend day -- pavement cafés, shops, pub (normally), park, art gallery, churches, a definite sense of pride in the place -- and all achieved without closing the through roads.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2015)

I don't know Dulwich village very well but from memory i think there is loads more pavement/green space to the side of the main road is there not? That's what LJ lacks and what this scheme tries to address.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 19, 2015)

There is a wide pavement on one side of Dulwich Village separated from the carriageway by trees and small grassed over areas. The corresponding space on Loughborough Road contains Wyck Gardens, the open area in front of the Hero of Switzerland and the small parade of shops next to it and forecourts or grassed over areas outside the estate blocks. There is quite a bit of green space along Loughborough Road.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 19, 2015)

teuchter said:


> ……a central public space. The probably-never-going-to-happen compulsory purchase demolition scheme by the station would be much better for example.


The station yard of the LJ plan may have been a good idea but like everything else in that plan was published without preliminary consultation. Everything in that plan came as a surprise to the people who were affected.  


teuchter said:


> But the rationale behind this scheme isn't just about the public space for LJ. It's also part of a strategy to reduce motor traffic generally in the wider area/city and make life easier for pedestrians and cyclists.


This scheme was said to have been developed to meet needs expressed in earlier consultations but in reality the rationale of the scheme was developed on the fly -- it was not declared in advance so it too came as a surprise to those affected.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 19, 2015)

LadyV said:


> a lot of the original masterplan ideas were great and …… That's what we need to go back to.


As I understand it the original plan was not a "master" plan so it did not have any legal standing and it was full of proposals for development without consulting the people who lived in, owned, rented or worked in the sites affected. No proposal for road closures though and that's why the present scheme came as such a shock just one year later!


----------



## Beasley (Oct 19, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I don't know Dulwich village very well but from memory i think there is loads more pavement/green space to the side of the main road is there not? That's what LJ lacks and what this scheme tries to address.


Dulwich Village is pretty much a continuation of the route through LJ formed by Loughborough Road but being further out of London (and originally a private estate) Dulwich was apparently developed along more spacious lines. No doubt, an argument could be made for closing Dulwich Village to through traffic forcing drivers from farther south onto other routes but it seems to have been getting along fine without doing that yet.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 19, 2015)

teuchter said:


> *If* the long term effects of this scheme are proven to include a significant increase in traffic along CHL, then I agree that this could have a negative effect on LJ centre......
> As I keep saying, I want the experiment to be given enough time such that we can see whether or not this really is the case. I think you agree with me on that.



NO


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 19, 2015)

NO


----------



## critical1 (Oct 19, 2015)

critical1 said:


> NO


Awaiting a response, I can hear it from here over the car horns...


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

that thing is really disturbing. Glad I didn't see it before going to sleep last night.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

irf520 said:


> There is a wide pavement on one side of Dulwich Village separated from the carriageway by trees and small grassed over areas. The corresponding space on Loughborough Road contains Wyck Gardens, the open area in front of the Hero of Switzerland and the small parade of shops next to it and forecourts or grassed over areas outside the estate blocks. There is quite a bit of green space along Loughborough Road.


The relevant comparison is Coldharbour Lane, not Loughborough Rd.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 20, 2015)

bimble said:


> that thing is really disturbing. Glad I didn't see it before going to sleep last night.


Yep it is disturbing and to see such a short reply on this occasion... They must be learning how to condense. Huff n Puff....


----------



## CH1 (Oct 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The relevant comparison is Coldharbour Lane, not Loughborough Rd.


Why is that then?

I thought the object of the present exercise was to create a village type environment with "public space". This could only occur on Loughborough Road. Not much space on Coldharbour Lane - unless you are going to close the railway and engage in wholesale demolition.

The only similarity between Coldharbour Lane and Dulwich Village is they are both curvy.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 20, 2015)

Coldharbour Lane = East Dulwich Grove  Loughborough Road = Dulwich Village


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Loughborough Road = Dulwich Village


Now I'm really confused.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Why is that then?
> 
> I thought the object of the present exercise was to create a village type environment with "public space". This could only occur on Loughborough Road. Not much space on Coldharbour Lane - unless you are going to close the railway and engage in wholesale demolition.
> 
> The only similarity between Coldharbour Lane and Dulwich Village is they are both curvy.






teuchter said:


> reducing the traffic turning into LR could help to provide a better public space, and a setting where people might more willingly choose to sit outside, for example. It's not just about the "pedestrianised" portion but *the bit on the S side of the railway bridge too*.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)




----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

I think I can see the pool table in the back garden of Barney's cafe in that picture. 
That's a nice bit of outdoor public space, with budgies and everything.


----------



## Beasley (Oct 20, 2015)

Was not that space left open to allow access to Ridgeway and Rathgar roads?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 20, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Was not that space left open to allow access to Ridgeway and Rathgar roads?



Yes, but once all those dirty, nasty garages have been booted out and replaced with nice upmarket trendy coffee bars or £5 cornflake bars then maybe they can just pedestrianise the whole thing?


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Yes, but once all those dirty, nasty garages have been booted out and replaced with nice upmarket trendy coffee bars or £5 cornflake bars then maybe they can just pedestrianise the whole thing?


you mean like in the pink & white vision of the future from the plan... ? No car mechanics here, but no overpriced cornflakes either, just empty spaces. Which I think is quite likely to be what we get: LJ can't sustain rows and rows of artisanal cupcake shops, so even if Network rail find them and get them to agree to pay 6 months high rent, I think that after a short time we'll be left with not much.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 20, 2015)

I don't know what this obsession is with creating a faux 'village' atmosphere in places. If you want to live in a village, go and live in a village. Inner London is never going to resemble a village. And not everywhere can be a 'destination'. Some places are just places you go through to get somewhere else. That's just the way it is - it's an unavoidable fact of geometry.
Also if you have a big problem with traffic, London is not a place you're likely to be happy.
And who the hell thinks fluorescent pink is a good colour for anything?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 20, 2015)

irf520 said:


> And who the hell thinks fluorescent pink is a good colour for anything?


Could be quite good for attracting trade from Vauxhall?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 20, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Awaiting a response, I can hear it from here over the car horns...


So that's what trolls look like  aha


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 20, 2015)

As for the Pedestrian Zone created between Wyck Gardens and the Loughborough Farm (soon to possibly become an Industrial Estate and more than likely be called Pop Loughborough) what happens then to the "space" with lorries and all sorts of traffic driving across it daily to access the Industrial Estate??? We should really enjoy our cups of tea and coffee with them all roaring amongst us!!!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I don't know what this obsession is with creating a faux 'village' atmosphere in places. If you want to live in a village, go and live in a village. Inner London is never going to resemble a village. And not everywhere can be a 'destination'. Some places are just places you go through to get somewhere else. That's just the way it is - it's an unavoidable fact of geometry.
> Also if you have a big problem with traffic, London is not a place you're likely to be happy.



London is pretty much the only place in the UK where it's possible to live without a car and not have your freedom of movement substantially restricted. It's the place in the UK where there's least justification for "needing" to make car journeys. So it's the best place to start, if we want to show that we don't have to live in a car-dependant society.

London is a great place to live in lots of ways. But one of its least desirable features is the congestion and heavy motor traffic. So let's try and get rid of it. Not just accept it as an inevitable feature of living in a big city. It absolutely isn't. It is not an unavoidable fact of geometry that we have to have heavy motor traffic everywhere, it's a consequence of policies and decisions that we can change if we want to. 

LJ does not have to be "just a place you go through to get somewhere else, and that's just the way it is". That must be one of the most backward, narrow-minded and idiotic statements on this thread, and that's saying something.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 20, 2015)

I like fluorescent pink.  But on a bridge and a cafe   no	on my nails   yes


----------



## CH1 (Oct 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> London is pretty much the only place in the UK where it's possible to live without a car and not have your freedom of movement substantially restricted.


True if you are lucky enough to have a freedom pass or similar benefit.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 20, 2015)

LJ needs to be a place that the local community can utilise, shop at, not some "village" sit at roadside cafes eating and drinking oh and using ones ipads. It's a junction.  A JUNCTION.  Blocking a road and thinking people want to sit in the road drinking coffee  is backward, narrow minded and idiotic.
The whole of London cannot be gentrifryed to look the same throughout. Yes I mean FRYED. The Spirit of places are being destroyed one by one turned into the abode of white middle class eateries and art galleries. Ask the real people in the area what they want.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

irf520 said:


> And who the hell thinks fluorescent pink is a good colour for anything?


It's a good colour for something i'm sure but if I see anyone coming near the bridges with bright pink shiny PVC cladding I'll be chaining myself to the victorian ironwork.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 20, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> As for the Pedestrian Zone created between Wyck Gardens and the Loughborough Farm (soon to possibly become an Industrial Estate and more than likely be called Pop Loughborough) what happens then to the "space" with lorries and all sorts of traffic driving across it daily to access the Industrial Estate??? We should really enjoy our cups of tea and coffee with them all roaring amongst us!!!



No, there won't be any lorries allowed. Lorries are nasty evil polluting things. Any goods deliveries will have to be made like this:






or maybe like this:


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> LJ needs to be a place that the local community can utilise, shop at, not some "village" sit at roadside cafes eating and drinking oh and using ones ipads. It's a junction.  A JUNCTION.  Blocking a road and thinking people want to sit in the road drinking coffee  is backward, narrow minded and idiotic.
> The whole of London cannot be gentrifryed to look the same throughout. Yes I mean FRYED. The Spirit of places are being destroyed one by one turned into the abode of white middle class eateries and art galleries. Ask the real people in the area what they want.


FYI Loughborough Junction is called Loughborough Junction because of the railway junction, not the road junction.
Its significance on the railway network is as a junction.
Its history at street level is one of a local shopping centre - a destination if you like - not just a junction, which is what it has come to feel like.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 20, 2015)

irf520 said:


> No, there won't be any lorries allowed. Lorries are nasty evil polluting things. Any goods deliveries will have to be made like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Will they all be minimum wage??? How will they afford to live in London?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> True if you are lucky enough to have a freedom pass or similar benefit.


If you have a freedom pass in London you have massively more mobility than you would having a similar pass anywhere else in the UK.
If you don't, but still have to rely on public transport, you still have massively more mobility than you would anywhere else in the UK.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> FYI Loughborough Junction is called Loughborough Junction because of the railway junction, not the road junction.
> Its significance on the railway network is as a junction.
> Its history at street level is one of a local shopping centre - a destination if you like - not just a junction, which is what it has come to feel like.


Loughborough Junction is ancient way before trains were there?? so please get your facts right.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

Show me a map or anything else with a reference to a place called "Loughborough Junction" pre-railways, then.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 20, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Loughborough Junction is ancient way before trains were there??


No, it's not.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 20, 2015)

Crispy said:


> No, it's not.



Oh yes it is.... I will not get bogged down in semantics... Clearly a Junction is there.
http://loughborough-junction.org/
Loughborough Junction





John Rocque's map of 1745.




“The Architect” 7 September 1872


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 20, 2015)

Not sure that map or text helps your assertion tbh.

Wikipedia has this to say



> The name "Loughborough Junction" relates to the railway junction immediately to the north of the station of the same name



....although teuchter probably wrote that article


----------



## CH1 (Oct 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Its history at street level is one of a local shopping centre - a destination if you like - not just a junction, which is what it has come to feel like.


Isn't this a view of the shops/dwellings which the more agrarian amongst us did not want reinstated?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Show me a map or anything else with a reference to a place called "Loughborough Junction" pre-railways, then.



You're right, it became known as Loughborough Junction because of the railways but Loughborough Road and it's junction with Coldharbour Lane seems to have been there before the railways as was a little collection of properties


----------



## LadyV (Oct 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Isn't this a view of the shops/dwellings which the more agrarian amongst us did not want reinstated?


It's where the new block of flats is going to be built and also Zest of India, estate agents, Station Road etc. Did some of us not want that to be reinstated? I know I've commented that I wouldn't mind the area by the entrance to the station opened up but as you and others have pointed out, that would cost a fortune in compulsory purchases so not feasible


----------



## CH1 (Oct 20, 2015)

LadyV said:


> It's where the new block of flats is going to be built and also Zest of India, estate agents, Station Road etc. Did some of us not want that to be reinstated? I know I've commented that I wouldn't mind the area by the entrance to the station opened up but as you and others have pointed out, that would cost a fortune in compulsory purchases so not feasible


That spot was being gardened very nicely by LJAG for a couple of years - but seems that it is a privately owned site (though I haven't checked on ownership or history of ownership - ironically now the Land Registry is computerised and cheaper to access, it no longer gives back history in the sense that "the deeds" did).

Had it turned out to be council land it could perhaps have been expanded to a bigger open space - but the same arguments apply as to outside the station.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 20, 2015)

The way businesses are been destroyed by road closures there will soon be loads of space at Loughborough Junction for it's own square without needing Loughborough Road!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Oh yes it is.... I will not get bogged down in semantics... Clearly a Junction is there.
> Loughborough Junction
> 
> 
> ...



You have simply proven yourself wrong. The map refers to no such place as "Loughborough Junction". 
It wasn't even called "Loughborough Junction" when the first railway lines were built in the 1860s. As the article mentions the station was called "Loughborough Road" at that point.
The first appearance of the name "Loughborough Junction" is the renaming of the station in 1872, when platforms opened on the three diverging lines thus marking it as a junction station as far as rail passengers were concerned.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

LadyV said:


> You're right, it became known as Loughborough Junction because of the railways but Loughborough Road and it's junction with Coldharbour Lane seems to have been there before the railways as was a little collection of properties


One of any number of road junctions across london. critical1 was trying to dismiss the notion that LJ might host some local town-centre functions by saying that LJ's primary function is A JUNCTION (sic). It's no different to a zillion other road junctions in London. Brixton town centre is A JUNCTION.  Stockwell centre is A JUNCTION. Herne Hill centre is A JUNCTION. LJ has no special JUNCTION status other than on the rail network.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

I keep wanting to look at this one again..
The special Value In White Shirts shop must be the last shop before Rathgar Road arches - where touch of difference is now. Looks like a large bit of raised pavement there, with a dapper young man leaning against a giant bollard. I think that's the exact spot currently occupied by the digital £130 fine sign?


----------



## AlexH (Oct 20, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> As for the Pedestrian Zone created between Wyck Gardens and the Loughborough Farm (soon to possibly become an Industrial Estate and more than likely be called Pop Loughborough) what happens then to the "space" with lorries and all sorts of traffic driving across it daily to access the Industrial Estate??? We should really enjoy our cups of tea and coffee with them all roaring amongst us!!!


Exactly, how are these artisanal shops etc to be supplied without vehicular deliveries - loading bays - rubbish bins for shops etc?


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

AlexH said:


> rubbish bins for shops etc?


The rubbish thing is a mystery.. Are bin & recycling trucks allowed to go across the no entry signs at the moment?


----------



## lefteri (Oct 20, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Exactly, how are these artisanal shops etc to be supplied without vehicular deliveries - loading bays - rubbish bins for shops etc?


horse and cart of course


----------



## goldengraham (Oct 20, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Exactly, how are these artisanal shops etc to be supplied without vehicular deliveries - loading bays - rubbish bins for shops etc?



Drones


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

Of course! I'm old enough to remember the horse & cart scrap metal man. So that solves the scrap yard bloke on Gordon Grove's problem too.


----------



## lefteri (Oct 20, 2015)

The people on my estate are not at all happy about the no entries - they see it as an attempt to further ghettoise the area which includes the large council estates (loughborough and myatts field south) it certainly makes life difficult for car drivers and business owners within this area


----------



## critical1 (Oct 20, 2015)

.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> One of any number of road junctions across london. critical1 was trying to dismiss the notion that LJ might host some local town-centre functions by saying that LJ's primary function is A JUNCTION (sic). It's no different to a zillion other road junctions in London. Brixton town centre is A JUNCTION.  Stockwell centre is A JUNCTION. Herne Hill centre is A JUNCTION. LJ has no special JUNCTION status other than on the rail network.



Don't tell me what I was saying or not saying... (putting words into my mouth eh Cheeky B&^&*£$@) The map speaks the truth, junction, crossing, road, whatever it was a Junction non the less.

And please don't go editing Wikipedias definition of a "JUNCTION"
.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

lefteri said:


> The people on my estate are not at all happy about the no entries - they see it as an attempt to further ghettoise the area which includes the large council estates (loughborough and myatts field south) it certainly makes life difficult for car drivers and business owners within this area


Hello. If you have time to express your concerns to the people who will decide whether or not to make this permanent.. you could use these addresses (if you haven't already, or if you feel like doing it again)

bpoulter@lambeth.gov.uk

RMistry@lambeth.gov.uk

JBrathwait@lambeth.gov.uk

lpeck@lambeth.gov.uk

GWright@lambeth.gov.uk

Steve@stockwell.org.uk


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

View attachment 78317[/QUOTE]



critical1 said:


> Don't tell me what I was saying or not saying...



I said



teuchter said:


> FYI Loughborough Junction is called Loughborough Junction because of the railway junction, not the road junction.
> Its significance on the railway network is as a junction.
> Its history at street level is one of a local shopping centre - a destination if you like - not just a junction, which is what it has come to feel like.



to which you responded



critical1 said:


> Loughborough Junction is ancient way before trains were there?? so please get your facts right.



I then demonstrated that my facts were indeed straight - it's called Loughborough Junction because of the railway junction.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)




----------



## LadyV (Oct 20, 2015)

If memory serves, at the meeting last week the Stockwell Partnership people said that they would have some form of consultation out this week, has anyone seen anything yet?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Exactly, how are these artisanal shops etc to be supplied without vehicular deliveries - loading bays - rubbish bins for shops etc?


I understand that the proposals include opening one of the arches through from Rathgar Road so it may well be that the intention will be to direct deliveries that way. But, in the finest traditions of this thread everyone seems happy to leap to judgements based on speculation rather than reality.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> London is pretty much the only place in the UK where it's possible to live without a car and not have your freedom of movement substantially restricted. It's the place in the UK where there's least justification for "needing" to make car journeys. So it's the best place to start, if we want to show that we don't have to live in a car-dependant society.
> 
> London is a great place to live in lots of ways. But one of its least desirable features is the congestion and heavy motor traffic. So let's try and get rid of it. Not just accept it as an inevitable feature of living in a big city. It absolutely isn't. It is not an unavoidable fact of geometry that we have to have heavy motor traffic everywhere, it's a consequence of policies and decisions that we can change if we want to.
> 
> LJ does not have to be "just a place you go through to get somewhere else, and that's just the way it is". That must be one of the most backward, narrow-minded and idiotic statements on this thread, and that's saying something.


Teuchter, I think your agenda is clear now: you want to ban cars/other motor vehicles from LJ (and possibly throughout the borough). You are likely to be in a tiny minority. I suspect most residents in this borough, including those of the 3000 who have already signed the petition online to end the closures would disagree. For many, particular those unable to cycle safely, or with families particularly those who are unable to walk far having a vehicle is essential: one only need look down at the parked cars/vans/minicabs along LR itself, and the myriad residential streets around LJ and HH to see this is the case. It would be great of course if the public transport system were sufficiently capable to transport everyone safely to their many destinations that obviously will never be the case. It is idealistic nonsense to think one can turn back the clock and close roads or that by doing that at LJ you will achieve the aim: the function of LJ is essentially a junction for traffic with adjacent residences, and businesse, and traffic flow before closures was just fine, now it is far worse and will continue to be so. You cannot wish away 10,000 vehicles that use the area.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Teuchter, I think your agenda is clear now: you want to ban cars/other motor vehicles from LJ (and possibly throughout the borough). You are likely to be in a tiny minority. I suspect most residents in this borough, including those of the 3000 who have already signed the petition online to end the closures would disagree. For many, particular those unable to cycle safely, or with families particularly those who are unable to walk far having a vehicle is essential: one only need look down at the parked cars/vans/minicabs along LR itself, and the myriad residential streets around LJ and HH to see this is the case. It would be great of course if the public transport system were sufficiently capable to transport everyone safely to their many destinations that obviously will never be the case. It is idealistic nonsense to think one can turn back the clock and close roads or that by doing that at LJ you will achieve the aim: the function of LJ is essentially a junction for traffic with adjacent residences, and businesse, and traffic flow before closures was just fine, now it is far worse and will continue to be so. You cannot wish away 10,000 vehicles that use the area.


Read the thread.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

LadyV said:


> If memory serves, at the meeting last week the Stockwell Partnership people said that they would have some form of consultation out this week, has anyone seen anything yet?


Not as yet personally. They must be frantically busy at it though, clipboards swarming all over the place given the timeframe that changed on them unexpectedly like that.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

AlexH : I think when Mr T says 'read the thread' what he might mean is that to understand where he's coming from you should also study the theory of 'modal shift' by reading appetising stuff like this   Principles of Modal Shift
As far as I understand him I think that's the way he is viewing this issue (not at all what I personally think this road closure is about but).


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2015)

What I mean is that every half-baked point raised in his/her post has already been answered multiple times in this thread.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

Is there anyone left who thinks weight of traffic & pollution on CHL has not been adversely affected by this ?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 20, 2015)

No rubbish trucks not exempt


----------



## MrM (Oct 20, 2015)

bimble said:


> Is there anyone left who thinks weight of traffic & pollution on CHL has not been adversely affected by this ?


Weight of traffic & pollution on CHL have been bad recently. Traffic lights have not been working properly. Road closures have occurred. Is it possible to be certain that it's all down to one rather than the other?
The other thing to consider is that it's not good practice to assess the impact of a change while people are still adjusting to the new regime. It's once everyone's settled into new routes that you can reasonably judge it. 
By all means make your voice heard, but it'll be more effective if it looks like you've given it a fair crack of the whip rather than condemning it out of preconceived opinion.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

When's a fair crack of the whip would you say?
It's my honest impression that my walks down to brixton have been significantly stinkier, to the point of it being really unpleasant which I don't remember it being before. 
And yes I know, other factors have coincided but then they will won't they and continue to do do periodically.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 20, 2015)

LadyV said:


> If memory serves, at the meeting last week the Stockwell Partnership people said that they would have some form of consultation out this week, has anyone seen anything yet?


Nothing on Lambeth site for Loughborough Junction.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 20, 2015)

bimble said:


> Is there anyone left who thinks weight of traffic & pollution on CHL has not been adversely affected by this ?



Probably not, but some people think that if the beatings continue, morale will eventually improve.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

Its


concerned1 said:


> Nothing on Lambeth site for Loughborough Junction.


 a week now since Mr misty said that would be fixed, the details of the ongoing consultation added to the Lambeth site. I reminded him this morning , no answer as yet.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 20, 2015)

It's been 7 weeks now, that is more than a crack of the whip to know it is NOT working, it is seriously affecting many peoples lives, it is not meant to make things worse for thousands and thousands but IMPROVE things. Well it has NOT. What more do Lambeth Council want? A death  maybe even then they will polish it over to say "well that could have happened anyway".......  how dare powers that are meant to be SERVING the people are trying to kill them if not seriously disrupt their everyday lives every day! And all for what? A meaningful Town Centre? A space on a road? All that they have achieved is a nightmare for most people in the areas affected and further afield.


----------



## MrM (Oct 20, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> It's been 7 weeks now


I don't mean to be an apologist for the closures, but let's be fair: the scheme hasn't really been operational for anything like 7 weeks. No judgement can be made while people were still driving through the closures, dumping rubbish/'art', doing u-turns and so on, as well as having other traffic aberrations masking the results. 
I think we're getting to the end of the beginning (i.e. people are settling into their preferred alternatives) rather than the beginning of the end. 
Having said that they may decide it isn't worth progressing with the experiment, but in that case it's really an unfinished experiment rather than one that failed. 

I don't agree with your assertion that the council is implementing this scheme in order to kill people. It's annoying, yes, but murderous...?


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 20, 2015)

let's not forget the Experiment was brought in on the back of a very dubious consultation
this thread has shown that there was a form of ballot stuffing by parties from outside the area
is it really surprising that local people have got the hump at being guinea pigs......
if someone was running a business struggling along on narrow margins then a six months experiment
might be enough to close them down or at least force them to chuck in the towel before they go bankrupt
considering the publicised intentions of the council, ljag and network rail this looks very convenient
not least because businesses closing before the threatened evictions ( as in the case of A&C deli) would avoid the expense of compensation packages......I wouldn't rate the chances of a mechanic whose unit is at the arse end of a 1/2 mile cul de sac and who's passing trade suddenly. vanished, I wonder if compensation will be paid to any business failures within a certain timespan of the closure period.....


----------



## CH1 (Oct 20, 2015)

MrM said:


> Weight of traffic & pollution on CHL have been bad recently. Traffic lights have not been working properly. Road closures have occurred. Is it possible to be certain that it's all down to one rather than the other?
> The other thing to consider is that it's not good practice to assess the impact of a change while people are still adjusting to the new regime. It's once everyone's settled into new routes that you can reasonably judge it.


We on the thread did suggest earlier that there was an interaction between the traffic lights at the bottom of Herne Hill Road, the closure of Loughborough Road and traffic on Coldharbour Lane. And that it was difficult to discern what was precisely what.

However when you are dealing with road mending contractors who seem to be paid on the basis of how many days they can disrupt the road for traffic, and Lambeth bureaucrats who only implement decisions made by committee on the basis of flawed assumptions there seems little hope of arriving at a rational or scientific conclusion.

Especially when they don't talk to each other.


----------



## deadringer (Oct 20, 2015)

Slightly off topic but when the Elephant and Castle works started it caused absolute havoc trying to get through it. Eventually through trail and error, trying new things and back routes I've managed to work out a great way around that I'll probably use forever as it's quicker than the route through it before it started. In fact I love it so much I do it by bicycle sometimes, and joke with my girlfriend that my back route has saved our relationship as I couldn't sit in those jams for much longer!

Point is eventually the traffic may well disperse and new routes will be found, possibly to the benefit of all


----------



## irf520 (Oct 20, 2015)

deadringer said:


> Slightly off topic but when the Elephant and Castle works started it caused absolute havoc trying to get through it. Eventually through trail and error, trying new things and back routes I've managed to work out a great way around that I'll probably use forever as it's quicker than the route through it before it started. In fact I love it so much I do it by bicycle sometimes, and joke with my girlfriend that my back route has saved our relationship as I couldn't sit in those jams for much longer!
> 
> Point is eventually the traffic may well disperse and new routes will be found, possibly to the benefit of all



I wouldn't get too attached to your new route. If it gets too popular they'll probably close it to 'stop rat running' or 'reduce pollution'.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2015)

deadringer said:


> Point is eventually the traffic may well disperse and new routes will be found, possibly to the benefit of all



Some of it might do that (might happily find other routes that don't involve CHL) but surely most things that have to go from Camberwell to Brixton haven't got that much choice of scenic alternatives . I don't know. It's true that as a pedestrian I've started walking the long way when I can (barrington to brixton station road) to avoid the fumes along colhdharbour lane.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 21, 2015)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 78317


I said
to which you responded
I then demonstrated that my facts were indeed straight - it's called Loughborough Junction because of the railway junction.[/QUOTE]

Does the word Pedantic come to mind...


----------



## critical1 (Oct 21, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> It's been 7 weeks now, that is more than a crack of the whip to know it is NOT working, it is seriously affecting many peoples lives, it is not meant to make things worse for thousands and thousands but IMPROVE things. Well it has NOT. What more do Lambeth Council want? A death  maybe even then they will polish it over to say "well that could have happened anyway".......  how dare powers that are meant to be SERVING the people are trying to kill them if not seriously disrupt their everyday lives every day! And all for what? A meaningful Town Centre? A space on a road? All that they have achieved is a nightmare for most people in the areas affected and further afield.



Let it bed in, then you'll see the real disaster....


----------



## critical1 (Oct 21, 2015)

Mobile CCTV now in front of laundrette on CHL facing towards Brixton, Moved from infront of the improvised farm...
Monitoring traffic today I noticed that evening traffic was going very fast down Hinton Road toward Herne Hill.


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

Before my account with the website expires, please take 30 seconds to complete this tiny survey on the experimental road closures if you haven't done so yet. 
It's worded in a totally non partizan way and I'd like submit it to relevant people soon. 

Survey is here: Loughborough Junction Experimental Road Closures Survey

Results so far are here: Loughborough Junction Experimental Road Closures


----------



## LadyV (Oct 21, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Mobile CCTV now in front of laundrette on CHL facing towards Brixton, Moved from infront of the improvised farm...
> Monitoring traffic today I noticed that evening traffic was going very fast down Hinton Road toward Herne Hill.



Firstly, outside the launderette? Really? I wouldn't have thought that there would be room for it without blocking the road, also wouldn't have thought it would be an overly effective place to catch people.

Secondly if the car is there, obviously there are no fixed cameras on the CHL/LR junction, so it's as I thought, the council are being negligent in the one thing that you would think they would be eager to do, collect money. Whether you like the closure or not, the signage is now very clear and most locals are now observing it. So the people still going through are just not reading the signs and for that lack of observance they should really be fined. 

But for the fact that I don't want to risk a £130 fine, I'd almost be tempted to drive through when the car isn't there and see what happens because if you only get snapped when the car is there, that could completely undermine the whole experiment. Another possible example of Lambeth's inability to organise anything properly, I'm sure a troop of chimpanzees could do a better job of it!


----------



## leanderman (Oct 21, 2015)

Has anyone actually received a penalty notice?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 21, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Has anyone actually received a penalty notice?


Someone a while ago on here had a warning letter but not seen any fines, most people don't want to risk it but I see quite a few cars going through who haven't noticed signs or don't care


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

.


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Another possible example of Lambeth's inability to organise anything properly, I'm sure a troop of chimpanzees could do a better job of it!


----------



## Belushi (Oct 21, 2015)

European Cities planning to go (partially) car free

6 Big European Cities With Plans to Go Car-Free


----------



## critical1 (Oct 21, 2015)

Belushi said:


> European Cities planning to go (partially) car free
> 
> 6 Big European Cities With Plans to Go Car-Free


They already have or are planning the infrastructure to go with it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 21, 2015)




----------



## CH1 (Oct 21, 2015)

Belushi said:


> European Cities planning to go (partially) car free
> 
> 6 Big European Cities With Plans to Go Car-Free


Which are they? That link doesn't work (at least for me)


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 21, 2015)

Oslo, Paris, Madrid, Brussels, Dublin, Milan.


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

I think that stuff is very interesting and positive (the sort of things in the article above, major infrastructure change to reduce pollution, encourage alternatives to private car use and so on).
Just have to repeat, though I know people think I'm paranoid or maybe just wrong:

This particular experiment - if it was lets say a pilot project, a vanguard part of a considered city wide agenda to achieve those things, it would look very different.

It would for instance (just one point) have included some methodology to see whether or not pollution levels got better after the closures.
Instead we get the opposite, an evaluation plan which goes to great lengths to NOT show any change in pollution in the area, apart form on one single (closed) road.

How please does that make sense, if this is part of a clean air agenda in London ?


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

This is interesting: It shows you the ratio of chicken shops to artesanal coffee shops in different parts of London, so you can work out where's "up and coming". 
How to know if where you live is “up and coming”: fried chicken vs. coffee shops

But the really funny bit is .. Guess where I got the link?  An email from Lambeth Council!  (true story)


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

This is in todays 'newsletter' from Lambeth too.. 

I see (again) absolutely no mention of any motives / goals apart from 'to revolutionise the public space in LJ':


----------



## Belushi (Oct 21, 2015)

bimble said:


> This is interesting: It shows you the ratio of chicken shops to artesanal coffee shops in different parts of London, so you can work out where's "up and coming".
> How to know if where you live is “up and coming”: fried chicken vs. coffee shops
> 
> But the really funny bit is .. Guess where I got the link?  An email from Lambeth Council!  (true story)





> Currently in the pipeline, are studies of the ratio of *£1 stores: bicycle repair shops*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I don't know what this obsession is with creating a faux 'village' atmosphere in places. If you want to live in a village, go and live in a village. Inner London is never going to resemble a village. And not everywhere can be a 'destination'. Some places are just places you go through to get somewhere else. That's just the way it is - it's an unavoidable fact of geometry.
> Also if you have a big problem with traffic, London is not a place you're likely to be happy.
> And who the hell thinks fluorescent pink is a good colour for anything?



As swathes of London get "de-industrialised" - especially including the changing use being envisioned for even non street-facing railway arches - and some of the so-called "reclaimed" space used for housing development, the marketing requirement for creating an ambience around such developments will increase, and the attribution of a "village" vibe to a development helps do that for the developers and their shills.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 21, 2015)

Often it's just the new word for 'Estate'


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Often it's just the new word for 'Estate'


like hipster is the new word for yuppie?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 21, 2015)

bimble said:


> like 'hipster' is the new word for yuppie?



Hipsters are like Santa, they don't really exist.

Whereas I really do live on an estate that claims to be a village :thumbs :


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

This email from Lambeth Council is a strange joy. Regard: "What you really think", revealed:


----------



## LadyV (Oct 21, 2015)

bimble said:


> This email from Lambeth Council is a strange joy. Regard: "What you really think", revealed:
> 
> View attachment 78371



I got that email too, haven't had time to fully digest it, I have a feeling it will annoy me so I might not bother!


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I got that email too, haven't had time to fully digest it, I have a feeling it will annoy me so I might not bother!


I think you're wise Lady V. It has left me with a bit of a tummy ache.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 21, 2015)

Belushi said:


>


LJ does reasonably well on this, we don't have lots of chicken shops, we have a couple of coffee shops and we have a bike repair shop rather than a £1 store, can't comment on the price of coriander bunches, never buy the stuff but we definitely fail on the quinoa front, still haven't been able to find it in local stores which should keep us safe from certain groups of people for a while! God help us if we get a Little Waitrose though, who knows who will move in!


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

LadyV said:


> LJ does reasonably well on this, we don't have lots of chicken shops, we have a couple of coffee shops and we have a bike repair shop rather than a £1 store, can't comment on the price of coriander bunches, never buy the stuff but we definitely fail on the quinoa front, still haven't been able to find it in local stores which should keep us safe from certain groups of people for a while! God help us if we get a Little Waitrose though, who knows who will move in!



The price of coriander bunches.. I haven't got much of a clue what to do with it (bit like aubergines) but really don't want to live in a place where it's only available in pre-packed plastic pouches with brand names on.

3 bunches for a pound I think, like spinach, for now, up and down electric avenue, freshly sprinkled with water to keep it from wilting.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 21, 2015)

LadyV said:


> we have a bike repair shop


LJAG partly responsible for that. Mounted a vigorous campaign when someone applied for planning permission to turn it into a fast food outlet. Not sure what they did when the next prospect wanted a Tatoo Parour - but as we know they went to more macho part of LJ - hence we now have the cycle shop!


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> more macho part of LJ


wait.. where's this?


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> LJAG partly responsible for that. Mounted a vigorous campaign when someone applied for planning permission to turn it into a fast food outlet.


It's true, I remember my neighbour the LJAGing one mentioning something about an effort to resist the shop on the corner being fried chicken.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 21, 2015)

bimble said:


> wait.. where's this?


Oh - the appropriately named Wellfit Street


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

I'm off for a stroll see you later.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 21, 2015)

bimble said:


> It's true, I remember my neighbour the LJAGing one mentioning something about an effort to resist the shop on the corner being fried chicken.



What they got against fried chicken?


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

irf520 said:


> What they got against fried chicken?


Not sure. 
How to know if where you live is “up and coming”: fried chicken vs. coffee shops


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

...


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

Just to clarify: me personally I like the artwork on the left.   Not the thing on the right.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 21, 2015)

irf520 said:


> What they got against fried chicken?



Doubt they've got anything against it personally but it's an indicator of a low income area as they're often cheap and apparently appeal to a certain demographic. After living right behind a chicken shop and having grease practically drip down my windows, I must admit I'm not a lover of them, I think the two we have is quite enough.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 21, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 78364


Is that the new Town Hall?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 21, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Is that the new Town Hall?


Well it looks more organised than I imagine the current one is!


----------



## CH1 (Oct 21, 2015)

irf520 said:


> What they got against fried chicken?





bimble said:


> Not sure.
> How to know if where you live is “up and coming”: fried chicken vs. coffee shops


They are merely pointing out council policy (contained in the draft local plan - I don't know if this is currently legally effective):
The draft Lambeth Local Plan contains a policy – ED9 Hot Food Takeaways near
Schools, which attempts to prevent the establishment of hot food takeaways if
they are within 400 metres of a primary or secondary school. The reasoning
behind this is the concern over the health of school pupils and easy access to
unhealthy food options at lunchtime and straight after school. This paper has
been produced by the Lambeth Public Health Team (NHS Lambeth) to provide
supporting evidence to the policy. Public Health has examined the evidence in
relation to diet, fast food consumption, the location of hot takeaway outlets and
the ensuing relationship to the health and wellbeing of children and young people
in Lambeth
Of course this is once again a case of "do gooders" trying to save people (in this case obese school kids) from themselves. But if you had a stroll down Coldharbour Lane between the Brixton Cake Shop and Morleys Fried Chicken when the Evelyn Grace Academy turns out you might have some sympathy for their view. I sometimes wonder whether we're going to get some cracked paving stones.
Full document here: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/TheImpactofFastFoodOutletsonHealthMarch2013.pdf


----------



## bimble (Oct 21, 2015)

Interesting. 
I do see sometimes in the afternoon a lot of people in school uniform eating the £1.29 chicken and chips things. But I have no idea if there's anyone at home waiting to cook them a wholesome quinoa supper.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 21, 2015)

bimble said:


> Interesting.
> I do see sometimes in the afternoon a lot of people in school uniform eating the £1.29 chicken and chips things. But I have no idea if there's anyone at home waiting to cook them a wholesome quinoa supper.


also worth pointing out that kids enjoy cake and sugary drinks but I don't imagine that a branch of Starbucks or Nero's would have met with much opposition......


----------



## Angellic (Oct 22, 2015)

More double sets of rubber lines on Fyfield St and Angell Park Gardens. I found this on the worldwideweb:

1 strip = monitoring traffic volume
2 strips = monitoring traffic volume and/or average speed
3 strips = speed enforcement (usually a car or van parked nearby with camera and/or Police)


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

Angellic said:


> More double sets of rubber lines on Fyfield St and Angell Park Gardens. I found this on the worldwideweb:
> 
> 1 strip = monitoring traffic volume
> 2 strips = monitoring traffic volume and/or average speed
> 3 strips = speed enforcement (usually a car or van parked nearby with camera and/or Police)



oh the wordwideweb, its good isn't it. 
I do reckon these lines around Lambeth now are about the introduction of the 20mph next month.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 22, 2015)

bimble said:


> oh the wordwideweb, its good isn't it.
> I do reckon these lines around Lambeth now are about the introduction of the 20mph next month.



They'll probably use them to work out where to put the cameras to get the most tax money rolling in.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 22, 2015)

irf520 said:


> They'll probably use them to work out where to put the cameras to get the most tax money rolling in.



Good! If that means that people travel at a reasonable speed then what's wrong with that? I'd rather have roads open and people driving at a slower safer speed. It's not as if you can drive around most places fast anyway, there's usually too much traffic and in residential areas there's no need to travel faster than 20 mph


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Good! If that means that people travel at a reasonable speed then what's wrong with that? I'd rather have roads open and people driving at a slower safer speed. It's not as if you can drive around most places fast anyway, there's usually too much traffic and in residential areas there's no need to travel faster than 20 mph


It should be 20mph throughout all residential areas of London, although that would upset the boyracers and high revving bikers.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 22, 2015)

Residential areas fair enough. When they do it on main roads is when it gets OTT.


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

editor said:


> It should be 20mph throughout all residential areas of London, although that would upset the boyracers and high revving bikers.



Lembit will be back.


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Residential areas fair enough. When they do it on main roads is when it gets OTT.


I guess that depends on the definition of 'main road.' I'd like to see a 20mph maximum introduced on Coldharbour Lane (although recent traffic changes have made it more like 5mph anyway!).


----------



## critical1 (Oct 22, 2015)

editor said:


> It should be 20mph throughout all residential areas of London, although that would upset the boyracers and high revving bikers.



Do you think boyracers and high revving bikers will respect 20mph zones.... I doubt it, same as most speeders, do it till you crash.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 22, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Do you think boyracers and high revving bikers will respect 20mph zones.... I doubt it, same as most speeders, do it till you crash.



Hence the need for cameras, mostly people don't like points on their licence and fines. Actually a very effective tool is those little signs that flash up the speed you're doing and a sad or smiley face, there used to be one on CHL which slowed people down but then they took it away, combine that with some cameras and people might just get the message. Until there is a incentive to slow down, ie it'll cost you if you don't, people won't.


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

Anybody spotted the Stockwell Partnership research people? They said their work would take them 2 weeks. I am still wondering about those 10,991 letters that are supposed to go out during the closures too.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 22, 2015)

bimble said:


> Anybody spotted the Stockwell Partnership research people? They said their work would take them 2 weeks. I am still wondering about those 10,991 letters that are supposed to go out during the closures too.



Nope not at all, maybe drop them an email? I seem to remember you having an address for them


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

I do (and will ask what's up).

Stockwell Partnership (paid a few thousand to do the qualitative research on this by Lambeth):
Steve@stockwell.org.uk,
John@stockwell.org.uk,
Aga@stockwell.org.uk


----------



## Angellic (Oct 22, 2015)

Interesting article on the Dutch and cycling. Even more interesting comments.
What I learnt from a month cycling in the Netherlands


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Do you think boyracers and high revving bikers will respect 20mph zones.... I doubt it, same as most speeders, do it till you crash.


The snap'n'fine'n'ban the dangerous fuckers if they can't stop themselves. I've already seen far too many accidents on CHL.


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

Nice lively exchange with Cllr Jenny Braithwaite here:

LJ Road Madness - Please read this fantastic reply to Cllr... | Facebook


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

Here's the answer from Stockwell Partnership.


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

This is very exciting. 
George Wright wrote to me. He says 11,000 flyers are on their way..


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2015)

bimble said:


> Nice lively exchange with Cllr Jenny Braithwaite here:
> 
> LJ Road Madness - Please read this fantastic reply to Cllr... | Facebook


His assertions seem surprisingy evidence-free for a QC.


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> His assertions seem surprisingy evidence-free for a QC.


I'm not sure what sort of evidence would satisfy you, to my mind its more of an issue of logic. Unless you think most of the vehicles that used to use Loughborough Road have just vanished, then its reasonable to assume they are to a large extent the ones currently clogging up CHL.

An hour ago for instance I saw an ambulance, sirens on, lights flashing, moving down coldharbour lane at a snails pace. No place of course for the cars to go to get out of its way.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 22, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm not sure what sort of evidence would satisfy you, to my mind its more of an issue of logic. Unless you think most of the vehicles that used to use Loughborough Road have just vanished, then its reasonable to assume they are to a large extent the ones currently clogging up CHL.
> An hour ago for instance I saw an ambulance, sirens on, lights flashing, moving down coldharbour lane at a snails pace. No place of course for the cars to go to get out of its way.



You know what he thinks. He thinks if you leave the roads closed long enough people will give up and stop driving and then the traffic will all disappear, sorry, _evaporate._ No doubt he can give you lots of papers with lots of statistics in them to justify that point of view. Of course, in the interim things will be much worse and some number of people might suffer adverse consequences up to and including death on account of ambulances being delayed. But in his world that is "collateral damage" and worth it. The end justifies the means, remember. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2015)

An official statement from the Ambulance Service saying that the current congestion is putting people's lives significantly more at risk than before the closures would convince me that this is a serious concern.

Of course that woudn't necessarily prove that the congestion is all down to the LR closure.

And in any case it woud have to be examined in a wider context. Are there other routes that are now faster for ambulances? Has the average response time in the wider area worsened?


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> An official statement from the Ambulance Service saying that the current congestion is putting people's lives significantly more at risk than before the closures would convince me that this is a serious concern.


I would like to know how "official' it should be to satisfy you. Would headed ambulance paper do it for you or would you require the official statement to be officially reproduced by the official Lambeth review?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> His assertions seem surprisingy evidence-free for a QC.



And technically incorrect. For someone who is a QC this is quite shocking. I wouldn't want him defending me. There is no junction of Coldharbour Lane and Milkwood Road.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2015)

irf520 said:


> You know what he thinks. He thinks if you leave the roads closed long enough people will give up and stop driving and then the traffic will all disappear, sorry, _evaporate._ No doubt he can give you lots of papers with lots of statistics in them to justify that point of view. Of course, in the interim things will be much worse and some number of people might suffer adverse consequences up to and including death on account of ambulances being delayed. But in his world that is "collateral damage" and worth it. The end justifies the means, remember. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.


Every time you get in your car and turn the ignition, you increase the chance that someone's going to die. That's the collateral damage you cause. What's the long-term benefit that outweighs that risk?


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

In a way, for people who support this scheme thinking that it's part of a wider air pollution reduction strategy and all, it must just be really annoying that Kings Hospital is so close to the site.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Every time you get in your car and turn the ignition, you increase the chance that someone's going to die. That's the collateral damage you cause. What's the long-term benefit that outweighs that risk?



Pretty much everything you buy generated pollution during its production and will generate more during its disposal. Every time you turn on a light switch, put something in the refrigerator, take an aeroplane trip - it all generates pollution. The pollution might not be local to you, but it's there. If you want to eliminate pollution you need to go back to the stone age.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 22, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> And technically incorrect. For someone who is a QC this is quite shocking. I wouldn't want him defending me. There is no junction of Coldharbour Lane and Milkwood Road.



That doesn't really affect what he's saying though, does it? He's a barrister, not a black taxi driver.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Pretty much everything you buy generated pollution during its production and will generate more during its disposal. Every time you turn on a light switch, put something in the refrigerator, take an aeroplane trip - it all generates pollution. The pollution might not be local to you, but it's there. If you want to eliminate pollution you need to go back to the stone age.


And?


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Pretty much everything you buy generated pollution during its production and will generate more during its disposal. Every time you turn on a light switch, put something in the refrigerator, take an aeroplane trip - it all generates pollution. The pollution might not be local to you, but it's there. If you want to eliminate pollution you need to go back to the stone age.


I don't think teuchter buys things that have been on lorries, I think he survives on wild berries and rainwater and knits his own shoes.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What I mean is that every half-baked point raised in his/her post has already been answered multiple times in this thread.


Oh dear Teuchter, I have been following the thread quite carefully, thanks. The points I make are shared by many others.  To describe them as half-baked is silly, and to say they have been 'answered' multiple times is unfounded.  The many reasoned views expressed by those opposing the road closure are not 'jumping to conclusions' or based on speculation: they are grounded in the reality of how the closure is affecting those of us who live in, and travel through the locality. I can't see that getting better in the future by continuing what is a speculative experiment that so far has not worked.  Has there been an increase in pedestrians enjoying the benefit of the road closure in the area? The evidence suggests not. And if not, why not? There are some questions for you. Please answer.


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Please answer.


Don't think T likes answering direct questions. When he says ' all objections have already been answered" i think all he means is that they've failed to convince him personally that this experiment is not an unbridled success.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 22, 2015)

bimble said:


> An hour ago for instance I saw an ambulance, sirens on, lights flashing, moving down coldharbour lane at a snails pace. No place of course for the cars to go to get out of its way.


Saw the same thing yesterday with what I assumed to be an unmarked police car (flashing) which had to pull over opposite the Domino Club to get instructions on how to get out of there - having turned out of Barrington Road into total gridlock on CHL.


----------



## Aeryn (Oct 22, 2015)

irf520 said:


> You know what he thinks. He thinks if you leave the roads closed long enough people will give up and stop driving and then the traffic will all disappear, sorry, _evaporate._ No doubt he can give you lots of papers with lots of statistics in them to justify that point of view. Of course, in the interim things will be much worse and some number of people might suffer adverse consequences up to and including death on account of ambulances being delayed. But in his world that is "collateral damage" and worth it. The end justifies the means, remember. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.



Given that a couple of years ago he was arguing that cycling should be banned altogether because it was far too dangerous, while simultaneously asking for people's recommendations for the fastest driving routes through London in rush hour, I think he actually just likes arguing with people. Either that or he ran somebody over.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 22, 2015)

bimble said:


> This is very exciting.
> George Wright wrote to me. He says 11,000 flyers are on their way..
> View attachment 78415


Braithewaite said that 11,000 people had already been consulted in her email quoted on Facebook (above)

_*Consultation prior to the road closures was comprehensive, with around 11,000 residents and businesses contacted and our officers are in on-going dialogue with Transport for London, the emergency services and community representatives.Following feedback from residents and local councillors, Lambeth council will bring forward its planned review of the experimental road closures in Loughborough Junction.*_

I doubt that is true - as I understtand truth.


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2015)

Yes, there's that word comprehensive again.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Every time you get in your car and turn the ignition, you increase the chance that someone's going to die. That's the collateral damage you cause. What's the long-term benefit that outweighs that risk?


That is hyperbole. Every time you turn your electric kettle on you increase the chance someone's going to die by that logic.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Oh dear Teuchter, I have been following the thread quite carefully, thanks. The points I make are shared by many others.  To describe them as half-baked is silly, and to say they have been 'answered' multiple times is unfounded.  The many reasoned views expressed by those opposing the road closure are not 'jumping to conclusions' or based on speculation: they are grounded in the reality of how the closure is affecting those of us who live in, and travel through the locality. I can't see that getting better in the future by continuing what is a speculative experiment that so far has not worked.  Has there been an increase in pedestrians enjoying the benefit of the road closure in the area? The evidence suggests not. And if not, why not? There are some questions for you. Please answer.



Lets remind ourselves what you were saying in your previous post:



AlexH said:


> Teuchter, I think your agenda is clear now: you want to ban cars/other motor vehicles from LJ (and possibly throughout the borough). You are likely to be in a tiny minority. I suspect most residents in this borough, including those of the 3000 who have already signed the petition online to end the closures would disagree. For many, particular those unable to cycle safely, or with families particularly those who are unable to walk far having a vehicle is essential: one only need look down at the parked cars/vans/minicabs along LR itself, and the myriad residential streets around LJ and HH to see this is the case. It would be great of course if the public transport system were sufficiently capable to transport everyone safely to their many destinations that obviously will never be the case. It is idealistic nonsense to think one can turn back the clock and close roads or that by doing that at LJ you will achieve the aim: the function of LJ is essentially a junction for traffic with adjacent residences, and businesse, and traffic flow before closures was just fine, now it is far worse and will continue to be so. You cannot wish away 10,000 vehicles that use the area.



The points in this post essentially outline your reasons for believing that the whole exercise is pointless and that the basic concept of trying to change people's travel habits is infeasible. These points have been addressed earlier in the thread. 

You are now focussing on something different which is the situation at the moment. In response to your questions about the situation at the moment, no there is no objective evidence that demonstrates an increase in pedestrians enjoying the benefit of the road closure. Why not? Because the experiment has only been running for a couple of weeks and it is too soon to expect all benefits to be apparent. As I and others have already stated approximately a zillion times on this thread in response to variations on that same question.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2015)

CH1 said:


> That is hyperbole. Every time you turn your electric kettle on you increase the chance someone's going to die by that logic.


It woud have been more precise of me to say "release the handbrake and press the accelerator" instead of "turn the ignition".
Everything we do has consequences. 
Some people are making a big thing about a supposed increase in risk of death as a consequence of the implementation of this experiment. That increased risk is not quantified and might not exist at all. In my opinion, based on evidence currently available, it's outweighed by the potential long term benefits of a wider implementation of these kinds of measures.
I was asking if the small chance of killing someone each time you make a car journey is outweighed by the benefits of making that journey. And i was wondring if irf520 weighs up that cost/benefit ratio using the same reasoning he is applying to this experiment which seems to be to speculate about the risks and dismiss the evidence of the potential benefits.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Everything we do has consequences.


Using kettles contributes to pollution, yes. Pollution costs lives, yes?
Your idea of cause and effect is very all embracing. Maybe you might care to comment on this major pubic transport issue:

In 2011, figures for the decade were released by TfL. The rate had gone up to 80 per year, as compared with 46 in the year 2000, and this was attributed to the financial crisis. The worst-affected station was King's Cross St. Pancras while the numbers for the decade by line were:[12]
[from Wikipedia Suicide on the London Underground - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - which is replete with statistics]

In your Extreme Moral Maze mode would you
a - close the London Underground because it is too dangerous
b - psychological test before passengers are allowed to use the underground
c-  implement safety doors on all stations like on the Jubilee Line Extension (from London Bridge to Stratford) meanwhile closing all stations other than those on the Jubilee Line Extension whilst these measures are put in hand
d- install a Samaritan hotline phone on all platforms (as has been done on the Orwell Bridge in Suffolk - a rural suicide hotspot)

Meanwhile you are advocating closing a local road in LJ without citing any accident statistics at all as far ass I can see.

There was a popular rock album when I was a school boy. I dedicate to you:

I haven't even had a drink (yet).


----------



## critical1 (Oct 22, 2015)

bimble said:


> I do (and will ask what's up).
> 
> Stockwell Partnership (paid a few thousand to do the qualitative research on this by Lambeth):
> Steve@stockwell.org.uk,
> ...









*
"Feed back to officers at regular points" *this stinks of non-consultation... as SP are only doing one consultation not a series, so why on earth would they say that its an ongoing thing and looking for "Buy in"

Strange wording indeed...


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Using kettles contributes to pollution, yes. Pollution costs lives, yes?
> Your idea of cause and effect is very all embracing. Maybe you might care to comment on this major pubic transport issue:
> 
> In 2011, figures for the decade were released by TfL. The rate had gone up to 80 per year, as compared with 46 in the year 2000, and this was attributed to the financial crisis. The worst-affected station was King's Cross St. Pancras while the numbers for the decade by line were:[12]
> ...




a,b,c: I would not do because the costs would outweigh the benefits
d: seems like a reasonable idea as the costs would be small and the benefits could be significant. In fact this is already what's done on many overground stations.

Regarding the LJ closures, I don't see much evidence to suggest that the risk to life resulting from the experiment is significant. On the other hand there is lots of precedent for other similar schemes having been implemented and having led to improvements in road safety and other things, as has already been discussed on the thread.

As every situation is different and complex, it can't be guaranteed that the LJ scheme will bring enough benefits to outweigh disbenefits. The point of an experiment is to find out what happens when you change something. We've started that experiment, so I think we should carry it through. Then we should look at the results and make a decision about whether it should be made permanent.

That's it. There is no "extreme moral maze".

This is also not "blind faith".


----------



## CH1 (Oct 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> a,b,c: I would not do because the costs would outweigh the benefits
> d: seems like a reasonable idea as the costs would be small and the benefits could be significant. In fact this is already what's done on many overground stations.
> 
> Regarding the LJ closures, I don't see much evidence to suggest that the risk to life resulting from the experiment is significant. On the other hand there is lots of precedent for other similar schemes having been implemented and having led to improvements in road safety and other things, as has already been discussed on the thread.
> ...


So to recap:
You will be satisfied if the experiment runs its course and the road closure is then scrapped (or retained)
You do not accept this closure is being done by a foot in the door method
You are satisfied with the council's methods in assessing the results of the experiment (whatever they may be)
You do not think it reasonable for residents to object to day to day problems caused by the experiment no matter how serious.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 22, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Regarding the LJ closures, I don't see much evidence to suggest that the risk to life resulting from the experiment is significant. On the other hand there is lots of precedent for other similar schemes having been implemented and having led to improvements in road safety and other things, as has already been discussed on the thread.
> 
> As every situation is different and complex, it can't be guaranteed that the LJ scheme will bring enough benefits to outweigh disbenefits.
> That's it. There is no "extreme moral maze".
> This is also not "blind faith".



WOW I always thought "Every Life Matters"


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 22, 2015)

Have to wonder who teuchter is as teuchter says "we've started that experiment"  certainly know it is a very few individuals who started it.
Well for one I do not think the "we" should carry it through".
Too many people are suffering way too much due to this ill thought out scheme.
It should be halted now and look at alternative measures.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 22, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Have to wonder who teuchter is as teuchter says "we've started that experiment"  certainly know it is a very few individuals who started it.
> Well for one I do not think the "we" should carry it through".
> Too many people are suffering way too much due to this ill thought out scheme.
> It should be halted now and look at alternative measures.



Hmmm good question who is teuchter in light of the above...


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2015)

CH1 said:


> So to recap:
> You will be satisfied if the experiment runs its course and the road closure is then scrapped (or retained)


I will be satisfied if it runs its course and the decision on scrapping/retention is based on an as objective as reasonably possible review of the best available information on its effects.



CH1 said:


> You do not accept this closure is being done by a foot in the door method


Depends what you mean exactly by "foot in the door method".



CH1 said:


> You are satisfied with the council's methods in assessing the results of the experiment (whatever they may be)


Incorrect statement.



CH1 said:


> You do not think it reasonable for residents to object to day to day problems caused by the experiment no matter how serious.


Incorrect statement.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 22, 2015)

I and thousands of others object to these road closures and it is a mere handful who agree to seeing it through the duration.
It will do untold damage, irreversible in some cases to continue this crazy scheme on.
It is unbelievable that one person, a Councillor can agree to such a ludicrous proposal.

What is the role of a Councillor?
According to The role of a local government councillor

Councils are made up of members – called councillors - who together represent the people in their jurisdiction. Councillors are directly elected to represent the people and therefore have to consider not just the interests of their local electorate, but those throughout the whole area to create a harmonious local environment.
"To create a harmonious local environment."  

Clearly NOT being created at Loughborough Junction and surrounding areas by Cllr Brathwaite.

Role of councillors - Good Governance Guide

strategic planning for the whole municipality and a sustainable future 
facilitating community participation
liaising and coordinating with other levels of government, non-government, community groups and the private sector

It is disgraceful for Lambeth Council to allow this to take place.
Cllrs sat and listened to facts that some were clearly  not correct at a Call In. 
They also went along with this scheme and allowed it.
They have all failed and brought  bad publicity on many levels to Lambeth Council, failed a lot of their constituents, businesses, public bodies, emergency services, old, vulnerable, disabled, impoverished families the list goes on.
And all for what?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 22, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> What is the role of a Councillor?
> According to The role of a local government councillor
> Role of councillors - Good Governance Guide


These references are outmoded and outdated, unfortunately.
There are no more committees or ratepayers.
There is currently a two tier Bairite democratic structure here in Lambeth [the three tier full monty would be topped by an elected executive mayor]  

The ordinary councillors are looking for a role, frankly. To be fair the Coldharbour Ward councillors have highlighted the Loughborough Road issue and asked for residents objections to be taken more seriously.

The top table - the CABINET MEMBERS - exist to manage the plebs, working with the executive officers of the council.

That is what Janet Brathwaite (who according to her own party's ward propaganda was elected with 15% of the vote) is doing now.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> These references are outmoded and outdated, unfortunately.
> There are no more committees or ratepayers.
> There is currently a two tier Bairite democratic structure here in Lambeth [the three tier full monty would be topped by an elected executive mayor]
> 
> ...


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You are satisfied with the council's methods in assessing the results of the experiment (whatever they may be)





teuchter said:


> Incorrect statement.



This is important, right? I mean..   
How can a person say they want to judge an experiment by its officially published  results, if they are not convinced that the results are going to be meaningful, because they are concerned that the methodology of gathering results is flawed ?


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

For instance... Nobody will answer, at all, my numerous emails asking why CHL is being used as the 'control' in the air pollution assessment , why the only road they will measure is LR, before & after closure, so the only result their tests will show is that a closed road is better for you than one with traffic on.
If that gets included in the official assessment as a positive outcome I just hope people will be informed enough to laugh.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

I can't be satisfied with something that I haven't seen yet.

Don't know why you are pretending to be interested in the methods of assessment when you've already written the scheme off anyway.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I can't be satisfied with something that I haven't seen yet.
> 
> Don't know why you are pretending to be interested in the methods of assessment when you've already written the scheme off anyway.



I'm very interested in the methods of assessment, not pretending, honest.
I think it's fascinating to see how appallingly this whole thing is being managed and also feel that the methods of assessment reveal a lot about the scheme, for instance (my opinion) I  think the methodology proves quite clearly that this is not about improving air quality for residents.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I can't be satisfied with something that I haven't seen yet.
> Don't know why you are pretending to be interested in the methods of assessment when you've already written the scheme off anyway.


Maybe we too might be satisfied with it when we knew what it was and had confidence in it.
Meanwhile we now have the situation where most likely the traffic measuring equipment only relates to the 20 mph zone - which apparently ignores any effecct on Coldharbour Lane (he says "CHOKE CHOKE").
As for the pollution measuring equipment I don't even know where it is or when it will measure. Again will it include Coldharbour Lane do you know (choke choke)?


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> As for the pollution measuring equipment I don't even know where it is or when it will measure. Again will it include Coldharbour Lane do you know (choke choke)?



I did try to post up the document explaining how the pollution will be measured.
It's simple:
Before the closure two people with equipment walked up and down Loughborough Road for two hours and noted the pollution levels. They also walked up and down coldharbour lane for two hours, doing the same.

During the closure, again two people will walk for two hours down Loughborough Road (with no vehicles on it) and down Coldharbour Lane, measuring the air quality.

Then, _the  measurements they get on Coldharbour Lane will be used as 'the control'. meaning any changes to pollution there will be attributed to the weather, or some other outlying factor : 
Any increase in pollution on CHL will NOT be linked to the closure and will not be part of the assessment of the scheme._

The only measurement they will be making therefore, it's very clear, will show that a road which is closed is less polluted than one with traffic on.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> Then, _the  measurements they get on Coldharbour Lane will be used as 'the control'. meaning any changes to pollution there will be attributed to the weather, or some other outlying factor :
> Any increase in pollution on CHL will NOT be linked to the closure and will not be part of the assessment of the scheme._
> 
> The only measurement they will be making therefore, it's very clear, will show that a road which is closed is less polluted than one with traffic on.


Not sure I agree with that. If all this current pollution on Coldharbour Lane is caused by the weather then any improvement on Loughborough Road will be magnified by the X factor.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)




----------



## CH1 (Oct 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 78437


Is that part of a longer report on the Lambeth website? For reference is there a link? I can read that above on 150% magnification - but any background would be interesting.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Meanwhile we now have the situation where most likely the traffic measuring equipment only relates to the 20 mph zone - which apparently ignores any effecct on Coldharbour Lane (he says "CHOKE CHOKE").



The Lambeth guy at the meeting said (the bits I could hear between people behind me shouting and jeering) the traffic was being monitored at 20 locations for the puropses of assessing this scheme. 

Not sure why you're saying it likely only relates to the 20mph zone. Or that it ignores CHL, given that I can see the traffic measuring wires on CHL.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Not sure why you're saying it likely only relates to the 20mph zone. Or that it ignores CHL, given that I can see the traffic measuring wires on CHL.



Re ignoring CHL, that is about the air quality assessment of the road closure scheme, see above.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Not sure why you're saying it likely only relates to the 20mph zone. Or that it ignores CHL, given that I can see the traffic measuring wires on CHL.


Where are they? At some times lately the speed has been approaching 0 mpg. Can they measure that? Or do they do their measurements at 2 am for example to make sure they get it "accurate"?


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Is that part of a longer report on the Lambeth website? For reference is there a link? I can read that above on 150% magnification - but any background would be interesting.



No. that is it in its entirety, that little word document. Far as I know there is nothing else.
And all my emails asking about it, as in 'am I reading this wrong, is that really what you're doing etc) have gone unanswered.
It was sent to me by someone who had done a freedom of information request.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Where are they? At some times lately the speed has been approaching 0 mpg. Can they measure that? Or do they do their measurements at 2 am for example to make sure they get it "accurate"?


The ones I've noticed on CHL are just outside LJ station.

As far as I know they measure number and type of vehicles, and speed. And it is measured continuously not at 2am.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

About the ongoing & comprehensive consultation..

It's two weeks since Raj Mistry at Lambeth said that they would fix their website so that if you go there you would see that there is an ongoing consultation happening here in LJ, and how to give your feedback. That still has not happened.

At the same time, Stockwell Partnership's qualitative evaluation will be completed by the end of next week.
So, there is no way for people to join in with the official qualitative evaluation at present, apart from loitering around in the streets hoping to bump into someone from Stockwell Partnership with a questionnaire.

from SP's email yesterday:
"We will be doing at least six 2-3 hour sessions of on-street surveys of passersby and businesses over the next 10 days, with two surveyors out at a time.
The aim is to get at least 100 paper surveys done. It’s not possible to tell you exactly where they’ll be at any given time as they will be roving about to find people, as well as going into businesses."


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

Arguably the evaluation will be more valid if they take a random-ish sample of people that happen to be around at the times they do the surveys. Otherwise it would be a self-selected group of people and less representative of the general population.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Arguably the evaluation will be more valid if they take a random-ish sample of people that happen to be around at the times they do the surveys. Otherwise it would be a self-selected group of people and less representative of the general population.



ok but .. Does that mean you think it is good practice in the interests of randomness to keep forgetting to make the consultation info and the questionnaire available online?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> from SP's email yesterday:
> "We will be doing at least six 2-3 hour sessions of on-street surveys of passersby and businesses over the next 10 days, with two surveyors out at a time.
> The aim is to get at least 100 paper surveys done. It’s not possible to tell you exactly where they’ll be at any given time as they will be roving about to find people, as well as going into businesses."


I imagine the surveyors will be avoiding the rush hour because of traffic.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

If it's six times 3 hours, that makes a total of .. 18 hours of 2 people with clipboards 'roving about to find people'. 
Stockwell Partnership have been paid £4,850 so far (scrutiny commitee doc) . Not bad really.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Arguably the evaluation will be more valid if they take a random-ish sample of people that happen to be around at the times they do the surveys. Otherwise it would be a self-selected group of people and less representative of the general population.




I assume they will be using this service to provide a random sample
RANDOM.ORG - True Random Number Service






*What's this fuss about true randomness?*
Perhaps you have wondered how predictable machines like computers can generate randomness. In reality, most random numbers used in computer programs are _pseudo-random_, which means they are generated in a predictable fashion using a mathematical formula. This is fine for many purposes, but it may not be random in the way you expect if you're used to dice rolls and lottery drawings.

RANDOM.ORG offers _true_ random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs. People use RANDOM.ORG for holding drawings, lotteries and sweepstakes, to drive online games, for scientific applications and for art and music. The service has existed since 1998 and was built by Dr Mads Haahr of the School of Computer Science and Statistics at Trinity College, Dublin in Ireland. Today, RANDOM.ORG is operated by Randomness and Integrity Services Ltd.

As of today, RANDOM.ORG has generated 2.12 trillion random bits for the Internet community.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

critical1 said:


> _pseudo-random_, which means they are generated in a predictable fashion .


Think this consultation is more this other sort of random, not the genuine sciencey sort.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The Lambeth guy at the meeting said (the bits I could hear between people behind me shouting and jeering) the traffic was being monitored at 20 locations for the puropses of assessing this scheme.
> 
> Not sure why you're saying it likely only relates to the 20mph zone. Or that it ignores CHL, given that I can see the traffic measuring wires on CHL.


They are traffic counting at 21 locations compared to 71 before closures.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

Attempt number 178 just sent to all likely inboxes .. waiting most eagerly for the link.

Dear all, 
I was told that the online version of the questionnaire which Stockwell Partnership are using to carry out their qualitative assessment of the road closure experiment would be available online by the end of yesterday (this was told to me by Steve Griffin at SP in an email). 

I understand that the research they are carrying out will be concluded by the end of next week. 
Therefore, it does seem rather urgent that people who may wish to participate in the consultation are able to do so without delay. 

I have been asking for two weeks for the consultation to be added to lambeth’s website and was assured by Mr Mistry that it would be. This is now urgent as I am sure you’ll agree. 

Please do reply at your earliest convenience to let me know where the online version of the official consultation questionnaire is to be found.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 23, 2015)

The pollution count that was performed at Loughborough School  by a University student monitored a portion of children.
Only one child showed high measures of pollution.
Of all the children this was the only one who had to cross Brixton Road every day!
But they took the measurements without putting that factor into their equation.
Thus a false count of the pollution levels  on Loughborough Road.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

Slightly irrelevant but wow: I just heard that my neighbour received TWO £80 fines the other day, in the post, for two bags of recycling (neatly tied, not overfull or anything) that were put out on the wrong day of the week. Beware. Think twice before trying to recycle anything. Love Lambeth.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 23, 2015)

Half way through the 2 week's review period and no online questionnaire, still I suppose 100 random people WALKING within the closed roads areas is a good consultation method to ascertain whether the roads should stay closed or be opened!!!
What is it?  Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery!


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

Not one of them have responded at all so far to the email above (the one asking where the official consultation questionnaire is to be found). 0/8. and of course now its the weekend.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Lets remind ourselves what you were saying in your previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Teuchter while I appreciate your tenacity, you are reluctant to engage with the facts. I think you may need reminding of your post to which mine was a response. You weren't talking about an experiment but expressing the view that closing the road was the right way to start to achieve the aim of a car-free London - which to me at least sounded like you weren't really interested in awaiting the evidence from the experiment but really wanted a permanent closure. My answer was to say your position was unfeasible being both unrealistic and because your view was not shared by the majority of people (probably no more than a few). I highlighted that with evidence from the current situation which is based on nearly two months of the experiment not a 'couple of weeks' as you suggest, which is enough to indicate the evidence to date: well over 3100 people  (who are cyclists, residents, hospital users, motorists, public transport users and pedestrians) have signed a petition calling for the closure and their comments on their experience with it - which are coherent and consistent - repay careful consideration. Remember the Council said that if the evidence from the experiment was that it was not working it would bring the experiment to an end, not run it through to the full 6 months: the overwhelming evidence to date shows that it is not working.  If the milk is off when you sip it, you don't need to drink the whole bottle just to make sure!

The evidence of complaints represents one side of the equation - what about the other side, namely evidence of the benefits from the scheme? There is no counter-balancing evidence of any benefit being enjoyed by pedestrians and local residents, quite the contrary - you accept there is no evidence of this but say that this is only because it is too soon (based on your erroneous assertion that the experiment has been going for a couple of weeks). The Council has not attempted to do anything to improve the public space to demonstrate any benefit. Risibly they suggested some time back there might be a street party and other events but nothing has been arranged 2 months in: I doubt that they will do anything for the duration of this experiment. This is not surprising: I wouldn't fancy the responsibility of having a street party under the bridge next to a traffic jam on CHL and the high probability of some poor pedestrian being mown down by a cyclist/bus fighting to get through. So my question is where will be the evidence of public benefit to the pedestrian space at the end of this experiment? Are you able to answer?  Or is it just your immutable belief that it would be better to have a world without cars?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

I don't have time at the moment to respond to all of the wrongness contained in your post.

But for now I'll pick out the claim that the experiment has been running for nearly two months. It has not been being enforced for nearly two months. The first real enforcement started around the beginning of October. Previous to that large numbers of vehicles were completely ignoring the closures. This is all recorded within this thread. So at best the experiment has been running for about 3 weeks. In those three weeks I've continued to see people ignoring the closure on LR. Additionally during this period the lights at the bottom of Herne Hill Road have been in various kinds of disfunctionality, including all being red simultaneuosly and all being entirely inactive.

The suggestion that we have had nearly two months of the experiment running in any meaningful or consistent way is simply wrong.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> .... two months of the experiment running in any meaningful or consistent way is simply wrong.



*Well better to cancel the closures then, as it sure ain't  working out right as you say innit...*


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 23, 2015)

Talk about in denial that this scheme is a complete fiasco and should be scrapped immediately.
If every single vehicle obeyed the road signs there would be a worse nightmare on CHL, Brixton Road and Camberwell New Road.
All the small side roads that are now F1 mini circuits would be at a standstill.
People like you teuchter are rare  thank goodness.
In fact I have changed my mind about you being in LJAG.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

Specifically which side roads are the F1 mini circuits?


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

This looks.. exactly how you'd expect it to look (this is what's coming to the corner of Rathgar Rd. )
Nice convenient 3 hour 'consultation' coming up on Monday, ending 6pm..


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

I have a new teuchter theory:
Maybe teuchter is actually a computer algorithm, a simulation, quite simple in its programming but effective in its function (ie to doggedly repeat that the results of the official process must be awaited and to respond to any assertions with a request for official evidence). It gets stuck when direct questions are asked but resets to automatic after an hour or so.
Could it be that Lambeth council's IT department - whilst unable to upload a simple questionnaire to their website - have managed to construct a fairly convincing AI chat machine?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> I have a new teuchter theory:
> Maybe teuchter is actually a computer algorithm, a simulation, quite simple in its programming but effective in its function (ie to doggedly repeat that the results of the official process must be awaited and to respond to any assertions with a request for official evidence). It gets stuck when direct questions are asked but resets to automatic after an hour or so.
> Could it be that Lambeth council's IT department - whilst unable to upload a simple questionnaire to their website - have managed to construct a fairly convincing AI chat machine?



Or maybe he's one of them there gentrificators ...


----------



## Angellic (Oct 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> This looks.. exactly how you'd expect it to look (this is what's coming to the corner of Rathgar Rd. )
> Nice convenient 3 hour 'consultation' coming up on Monday, ending 6pm..
> View attachment 78461



LJAG have requested an extension till to 9pm and another consultation at the weekend.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> It gets stuck when direct questions are asked



Which direct questions remain unanswered?


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

Angellic said:


> LJAG have requested an extension till to 9pm and another consultation at the weekend.


That's good. I hope the architects agree to that, I'd go have a look. But in truth can't imagine what difference it would make how many people get to see & comment on the plans, I mean there will be flats and there will be plate glass on the bottom and balconies above etc?


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which direct questions remain unanswered?


hello. I don't feel like scrolling back through everything just now but.. an example:
You've said that it's an "incorrect statement' to say you are happy with the methods being used by the council to compile their evaluation report. At the same time you still appear to maintain that nothing but the official report should be given any credence when trying to judge whether this scheme is a success or a failure. How does this work?

Fake Captian Kirk VHost(tm) Bot


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 23, 2015)

There will be more people wanting to drink coffee whilst sitting at table and chairs on Loughborough Road just like Stockwell space


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> There will be more people wanting to drink coffee whilst sitting at table and chairs on Loughborough Road just like Stockwell space


That's not coffee.. that's a can of Polish lager.

oh,  which reminds me: Had another chat with local police today, and one them said the public space idea is all nice and everything but his personal feeling was that (HIS words not mine ) it depends whether its local residents or drug dealers who decide to make use of it. He was not pro the closures, as none of the officers I have met have been so far.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 23, 2015)

Those flats should have a good view of all the railway lines. And the car breakers, although presumably the latter will have been expelled from the area by the time the flats are built.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Specifically which side roads are the F1 mini circuits?


Between Harris and Howard House on Loughborough Estate, St James's Crescent, Angell Road, Fyfield Road, Minet Road.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 23, 2015)

I wonder why "the views of the community that lives and work in the local area" should be "important to them". I can't really see why those views would make any difference. They build a block of flats, sell them for an extortionate price, job done.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 23, 2015)

More congestion for CHL with all the extra transport to supply the building of the new flats!


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I wonder why "the views of the community that lives and work in the local area" should be "important to them". I can't really see why those views would make any difference. They build a block of flats, sell them for an extortionate price, job done.


Of course. The views of the local community being important to them is probably some sort of a legal thing you have to do, preferably in 3 hours tops.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 23, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> More congestion for CHL with all the extra transport to supply the building of the new flats!



Absolutely. And don't forget the Higgs development as well.


----------



## prunus (Oct 23, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I wonder why "the views of the community that lives and work in the local area" should be "important to them". I can't really see why those views would make any difference. They build a block of flats, sell them for an extortionate price, job done.



Yeah you're right. The best thing for you to do would be to not engage with them at all, then gripe post about the results. Ffs.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> hello. I don't feel like scrolling back through everything just now but.. an example:
> You've said that it's an "incorrect statement' to say you are happy with the methods being used by the council to compile their evaluation report. At the same time *you still appear to maintain that nothing but the official report should be given any credence when trying to judge whether this scheme is a success or a failure*. How does this work?



This is not a direct question. This is a misrepresentation of my position, specifically the bit in bold. Would you like to apologise?


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

prunus said:


> Yeah you're right. The best thing for you to do would be to not engage with them at all, then gripe post about the results. Ffs.


Those flats, those architects, yes people should try to engage if they can of course.

The problem I'm having at the moment is the complete failure of anybody at the cooperative council to engage back to me, who is trying really really hard, with numerous polite emails requesting the most simple of things, ie. where please is the official qualitative consultation questionnaire, given that we are halfway through the research period now and one week to go.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is not a direct question. This is a misrepresentation of my position, specifically the bit in bold. Would you like to apologise?



You emboldened it for me? thanks.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> You emboldened it for me? thanks.


No apology then?


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is not a direct question. This is a misrepresentation of my position, specifically the bit in bold. Would you like to apologise?



ok, can't resist. It's like pushing the frontiers of human AI romance:

So, please explain Mr T: Apart from the official assessment of the experiment which will be published by Lambeth Council, what evidence would you admit as valid or worthy of consideration, when trying to ascertain whether this particular scheme is a success according to the criteria that matter to you?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> ok, can't resist. It's like pushing the frontiers of human AI romance:
> 
> So, please explain Mr T: Apart from the official assessment of the experiment which will be published by Lambeth Council, what evidence would you admit as valid or worthy of consideration, when trying to ascertain whether this particular scheme is a success according to the criteria that matter to you?


You want me to give you a full specification of all types of acceptable evidence that could possibly arise and the weighting I'd give each of them? 

You said direct questions, not open-ended ones.

Why no apology? There's a direct question for you.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

poor response, disappointed, your wires are showing.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

ok. Give me ONE type of evidence (not "official") which you'd find worthy of a 37% weighting? x


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2015)

The petition might be somewhere in that region.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Specifically which side roads are the F1 mini circuits?


Don't know about that - but I was assisting someone this afternoon making deliveries. They picked me up in their car at my house - to make a first call at the Minet Library, then on to other points south (but not in LJ area).

I was passenger/postman and my driver local - but Stockwell side of Brixton not local to the arcane rules of the Loughborough Junction traffic exclusion zone.

I, a pedestrian/public transport user of more than 60 years standing, warned my driver friend to avoid the Loughborough road turning, which his pre-planned route was indicating.

We next tried Flaxman - me having forgotten bimble's comment in an earlier post that Flaxman is also blocked off. No indication of alternative routes at this junction - the only way is Eastlake - back onto Coldharbour Lane.

So we tried Lilford - again no entry by the former Robin Hood pub corner - have to go right into Kenwyn then Coldharbour Lane again.

Final try - Denmark Road, half in Southwark of course - but the only safe course. Proceed until under the railway bridge then travel the length of Paulet Road before turning again into Lilford Road (west of the railway) and then into Knatchbull Road for the Minet Library.

What a ludicrous performance. How "user friendly" is this? The Loughborough Estate area *is well and truly kettled *as people are complaining. Everyone keep out. Solidarity with Hungary. Victor Orban to speak at next LJAG GM.

I just felt frustrated that 10-15 minutes of our time was wasted because we hadn't taken an advanced course in teuchternomics!

Bahh humbug. Bastards. Bastards. Bastards. No heart attack, death in ambulance, but very very irritated.



_
_


----------



## CH1 (Oct 23, 2015)

Re above - there were oodles of measuring wires across all roads teuchter will be glad to hear.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 23, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> There will be more people wanting to drink coffee whilst sitting at table and chairs on Loughborough Road just like Stockwell spaceView attachment 78464


We've got it like that at Harbour Place (outside the crack clinic). The are plans for outside the Brixton nick. It will be coffee and chairs on all pavements soon.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The petition might be somewhere in that region.


Blimey. Ok! The 3,148 peope's observations/ findings there get 37% credibility.

Am I allowed one more specific question please?

Q: When the official assessment announces that air quality has improved in LJ as a result of the experiment, what percentage weighting will you give that finding please?


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> We've got it like that at Harbour Place (outside the crack clinic). The are plans for outside the Brixton nick. It will be coffee and chairs on all pavements soon.


Those chairs, the single ones that are positioned to point all in opposite directions whilst being concreted into the floor, they make me sad.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> We next tried Flaxman - me having forgotten bimble's comment in an earlier post that Flaxman is also blocked off. No indication of alternative routes at this junction - the only way is Eastlake - back onto Coldharbour Lane.
> 
> So we tried Lilford - again no entry by the former Robin Hood pub corner - have to go right into Kenwyn then Coldharbour Lane again.
> 
> Bahh humbug. Bastards. Bastards. Bastards. No heart attack, death in ambulance, but very very irritated.



That sounds like the internal voice of every driver I've seen round here (my window is above 7 No Entry signs) .
They usually get out of the car/ van and shout things for a while before continuing.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> What a ludicrous performance. How "user friendly" is this? The Loughborough Estate area *is well and truly kettled *as people are complaining. Everyone keep out. Solidarity with Hungary. Victor Orban to speak at next LJAG GM.



Correct. Only ways into the estate from the south are Gresham Road/Wiltshire Road, Barrington Road and then St James's Crescent to bypass the no entry, or Denmark Road.

Also, the roads off Coldharbour Lane from Flaxman to Kenbury are now an isolated pocket only accessible via Coldharbour Lane. So when that's jammed solid no-one from that area is going anywhere or getting home from anywhere else.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Victor Orban to speak at next LJAG GM.



“We cannot avoid to speak about the quality of our democracies,” said Orban. 
(presume you mean it in that sort of way, the good intentions way, not the lets build a giant metal fence 
way? 
Refugees 'look like an army', says Hungarian PM Viktor Orban


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 23, 2015)

Public Space Plans for Brixton Police Station  sit and watch who's nicked whilst drinking coffee  or beer as the case at Stockwell


----------



## CH1 (Oct 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> “We cannot avoid to speak about the quality of our democracies,” said Orban.
> (presume you mean it in that sort of way, the good intentions way, not the lets build a giant metal fence
> way?
> Refugees 'look like an army', says Hungarian PM Viktor Orban


Funnily enough Viktor Orban seems like a hyper-successful Nick Clegg gone to the bad (if you study his background)
Viktor Orbán - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But it was the fence I had in mind.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 23, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Between Harris and Howard House on Loughborough Estate, St James's Crescent, Angell Road, Fyfield Road, Minet Road.



Lets not forget Loughborough road for the boy racers doing their WHEELIES...


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 23, 2015)

Anyone heard the rumour Cllr Brathwaite is out at rattray road, mervan road corner tomorrow at midday?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 23, 2015)

Some video footage of the October 1st public meeting has now been put up on YouTube:


----------



## irf520 (Oct 23, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Lets not forget Loughborough road for the boy racers doing their WHEELIES...



I saw a couple of guys doing wheelies on Angell Road about two weeks after the closures went in. Particularly risky with the traffic coming out of St James's Crescent.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 23, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Anyone heard the rumour Cllr Brathwaite is out at rattray road, mervan road corner tomorrow at midday?


What for. Is it anything to do with Winfred Attwell (who I think lived somewhere round there somewhere)? 
A Black History Month do at Brixton Advice Centre up-coming mentioned her name (Winifred Attwell that is).


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Anyone heard the rumour Cllr Brathwaite is out at rattray road, mervan road corner tomorrow at midday?


Noted. Will try to be there at noon and just ask her politely for a link to the official questionnaire.


----------



## bimble (Oct 23, 2015)

From 10.20 minutes in this video :The ambulance man's view on the closures.(only a couple of minutes to watch - no headed paper though)


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2015)

This is my Friday night..

Here in full is the above ambulance worker's speech on 1st October, faithfully transcribed into typed words. 

Note how he never says "I" only 'we'. (I've no clue if this could be considered as part of the official consultation with the emergency services but,  its quite a good speech, and he read it from notes he'd bought.

"Good evening , My name is John Rice (?)
*We are the emergency response for this area.*

*I would say firstly as a public body and a public service organisation we support any and all attempts to improve the health and wellbeing of all the members of the community that we serve. *
But we are also a reactive emergency service and we attend patients in situations where a timely response is obviously critical.

The concerns that we have locally as an emergency service stem mainly from the Loughborough Junction Reform produced by the council which specifically states in section 3.8 that Emergency Response will have full access through the area.
Which is further reinforced again in the Q & A section saying that roads will remain open to emergency vehicles.
There have been numerous instances  - I have got evidence here [_holds up document with photos on it] _where that is not the case, they are physically blocked, and that is one concern.

*Another concern is the increase in traffic* which again restricts our movements around.

*Local feedback from paramedics and other ambulance staff is that the road closures have resulted in greatly increased traffic around the Coldharbour Lane *area and traffic is now being forced into small side streets [inaudible few seconds] and is also being forced out into congested areas which are already congested.

The closure of Calais Street now forces emergency vehicles to take far longer routes through the area in & around Myatts Fields .

T*hat again, combined with the increased traffic on Coldharbour Lane , Brixton Road and Camberwell New Road, results in delayed responses to patients and members of the community in their hour of need. And that is of great concern to us. *

We’d also say we are an employer in the area, a reasonable sized one, and we have a duty to our staff. Staff as I think someone has already mentioned have reported greatly increased times of work, sometimes double or even 3 times . *Unfortunately the amount of personal issue kit that some staff have to carry to work means that public transport, or cycling, is not an option. *

*We’re also concerned at the increase in pollution that we generate* *either or the way to work or whilst the ambulance is sat in the gridlocked traffic .*

I’m really conscious of time …*Again we stress we are really committed to anything that makes the community better and improves the lives and the wellbeing of the community.*

Locally we feel that* in order to protect the response to our patients, this current system of road closures is likely to cause delays in reaching ill members of the community who have called for our help.

We would instead of the current situation support less restrictive traffic calming measures such as speed cameras which allow vehicles to make progress whilst they do provide a more pedestrian and cycle friendly environment*.
"
 

* the end.*


----------



## AlexH (Oct 24, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Some video footage of the October 1st public meeting has now been put up on YouTube:



 This has direct oral evidence from John Rice of the Ambulance Service and a nurse (I think) from King's College Hospital, plus numerous others that the closure is putting lives at risk. Direct questions for you Teuchter: (1) do you accept this evidence? (2) Do you have any evidence to suggest it is a wrong statement?  and (3) if so please identify what it is. That latter question is a direct (but open) question - the two are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2015)

Hows this for paranoid conspiracy theory fodder..
I just thought that maybe I could go to Stockwell Partnership HQ at their place in Stockwell wherever it is and ask for a paper copy of the official questionnaire (seeing as nobody is able to make it available online and there's only a week left). Looked for their website for the address opening times etc but it's currently down, you just get a hosting error message if you go to stockwell.org. uk


----------



## CH1 (Oct 24, 2015)

bimble said:


> Hows this for paranoid conspiracy theory fodder..
> I just thought that maybe I could go to Stockwell Partnership HQ at their place in Stockwell wherever it is and ask for a paper copy of the official questionnaire (seeing as nobody is able to make it available online and there's only a week left). Looked for their website for the address opening times etc but it's currently down, you just get a hosting error message if you go to stockwell.org. uk


i) looks like they let the meter run out. Easily done
ii) with all this roving reporting, are you not in danger of being taken for Michael Crick (or depending on age Roger Cook)?

Are you still planning to visit the Effra street champion event with Jennifer Bratihwaite?
Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite Street Champion visit on Sat 24 Oct


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2015)

i'm flattered (i think).I see myself more as Daphne from the scooby doo gang. 
Not going to make it to meet Jenny today sadly.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2015)

teuchter saw this & thought of you
Liberal Insult Generator - Funny Random Insult Generator


----------



## LadyV (Oct 24, 2015)

bimble said:


> Hows this for paranoid conspiracy theory fodder..
> I just thought that maybe I could go to Stockwell Partnership HQ at their place in Stockwell wherever it is and ask for a paper copy of the official questionnaire (seeing as nobody is able to make it available online and there's only a week left). Looked for their website for the address opening times etc but it's currently down, you just get a hosting error message if you go to stockwell.org. uk


I contacted them on Twitter and Facebook, they're still saying that the council are doing the online stuff. Also politely emailed all the usual suspects for an update, not expecting an answer till Monday though. I also told them about their website. 2 of them are on leave at the mo.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 24, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I contacted them on Twitter and Facebook, they're still saying that the council are doing the online stuff. Also politely emailed all the usual suspects for an update, not expecting an answer till Monday though. I also told them about their website. 2 of them are on leave at the mo.



I looks like the last time that site was online was in Feb this year...
News | Stockwell Partnership | Improving the quality of life in the Stockwell neighbourhood


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2015)

SP's site was up & working a couple of days ago (lots of stuff about Polish community outreach & things like that.  I'm sure they just forgot to pay their hosting or whatever right?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 24, 2015)

bimble said:


> SP's site was up & working a couple of days ago (lots of stuff about Polish community outreach & things like that.  I'm sure they just forgot to pay their hosting or whatever right?


I think that is what you get if you don't re-register your domain after the 2 years are up (or whatever the contract is).

I just downloaded a report from the website (via Google) called "Community Buldings in Stockwell - a report" by Sean Crichton (111 pages)
http://www.stockwell.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Final-Community-Buildings-Report.pdf

So that much is working. It's gotta be an oversight. These fees are normally only £10
or so.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2015)

Yes, agreed. It's just that when you get so many oversights all snowballing and colliding together it can make a person feel kind of despondent.

Like for instance (as far I understand it) there's now, if you count from Monday, either 4 or 5 days left for people to participate in the official qualitative evaluation process being carried out by SP and the questionnaire is nowhere to be found, with nobody either there or at Lambeth able to say when or where it will be put online.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 24, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, agreed. It's just that when you get so many oversights all snowballing and colliding together it can make a person feel kind of despondent.
> 
> Like for instance (as far I understand it) there's now, if you count from Monday, either 4 or 5 days left for people to participate in the official qualitative evaluation process being carried out by SP and the questionnaire is nowhere to be found, with nobody either there or at Lambeth able to say when or where it will be put online.


And of course they cannot put it online in the normal way if their website is down. Doesn't look like they will be able to do it either in the time left.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 24, 2015)

Does the cabinet have an "Urgency procedure" whereby the council waves through the dispersal of funds - whether the grant conditions are met or not?

That's what they used to do in the old days (meaning pre 1994 Appelby).

Maybe it now all depends on the flutter of Lib Peck's (or Jenny Brathwaite's) eyelash in Thornton or Gypsy Hill to effect a bank transfer to Stockwell?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 24, 2015)

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their abilities if they can't even remember to renew their own web domain on time.


----------



## bimble (Oct 24, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Maybe it now all depends on the flutter of Lib Peck's (or Jenny Brathwaite's) eyelash in Thornton or Gypsy Hill to effect a bank transfer to Stockwell?


No idea how those things work. Obviously it seems they haven't exactly earned their fee but seriously, if it turns out that people are unable to take part in the survey unless they happen to bump into a SP surveyor on the street before Friday, surely that is not reasonable, the results of those (max 100 street surveys expected steve from stockwell said) can't be taken seriously and turned into another set of "comprehensive consultation results"?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 24, 2015)

bimble said:


> No idea how those things work. Obviously it seems they haven't exactly earned their fee but seriously, if it turns out that people are unable to take part in the survey unless they happen to bump into a SP surveyor on the street before Friday, surely that is not reasonable, the results of those (max 100 street surveys expected steve from stockwell said) can't be taken seriously and turned into another set of "comprehensive consultation results"?



I would say in my official capacity that 78% from our indicative random consultation are in fact in favour of the road closures.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 24, 2015)

Tenants Conference  note Tenants NOT Residents, Leaseholders Conference in December.
Very poor turnout from both Tenants and Lambeth Officers/Cllrs.
Overall whole experience was a waste of time.

The theme  was  all about the New engagement Programme. 
In the handout Priority 4 states: "It was clear from consultation and the STAR survey that the way we engage with residents isn't working."
Oh so they do know that.
In the Q's and A's at the end a tenant asked Why does Lambeth Council not have a Consultation Policy.
The response was basically they didn't know if they had one but they follow Goverment legislation etc etc  blah blah.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 24, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Tenants Conference  note Tenants NOT Residents, Leaseholders Conference in December.


Do you mean October?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 24, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Do you mean October?


Cllr Bennett announced the Leaseholders Conference would be in December.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 24, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, agreed. It's just that when you get so many oversights all snowballing and colliding together it can make a person feel kind of despondent.
> 
> Like for instance (as far I understand it) there's now, if you count from Monday, either 4 or 5 days left for people to participate in the official qualitative evaluation process being carried out by SP and the questionnaire is nowhere to be found, with nobody either there or at Lambeth able to say when or where it will be put online.



Well Steve doesn't work Mondays according to his out of office and Aga is out of the office until Wednesday so maybe she is out surveying people


----------



## LadyV (Oct 24, 2015)

CH1 said:


> And of course they cannot put it online in the normal way if their website is down. Doesn't look like they will be able to do it either in the time left.



Apparently it's never been part of the deal that the online survey goes on the Stockwell Partnership website, they write the questions and do the report but the survey goes on the Lambeth website. 

This was the reply I got on Facebook when I asked about the survey 

"Thanks for your post. Unfortunately the online element is not something we have control over, our role is the face to face surveys. The online survey is being handled by the council."

I just don't see how there can be any sort of constructive conclusion to all of this with another poorly implemented survey, this is not going to help things


----------



## critical1 (Oct 24, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Apparently it's never been part of the deal that the online survey goes on the Stockwell Partnership website, they write the questions and do the report but the survey goes on the Lambeth website.
> 
> This was the reply I got on Facebook when I asked about the survey
> 
> ...



We wait and see... Was actually waiting for our enlightened teacher "R" teuchter to add some insight as they seemed so knowledgeable, but as yet no comments as to this shambles.
"


----------



## bimble (Oct 25, 2015)

Email from the LJ neighbourhood planning forum this morning has this attached - someone put quite some time into it you can see..

It shows all the car accidents that have happened over the past decade on Loughborough Road, rated by their seriousness and shown as blobs of different sizes & colours. No accidents classed as more than 7 out of 10 for seriousness, which I found surprising, and only 4 of those.
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...ages/ee7127e0-ab73-45f1-8bda-465b633779ed.jpg

EDIT: just noticed the list they've attached which was used to make the coloured blobs. It includes incidents such as 'passenger fell over on bus'. 
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c678366a8fc275dc2daf27f88/files/LJAGCollisiondata_1_.pdf


----------



## bimble (Oct 25, 2015)

Also, here are the official minutes of the meeting on 15th October. 
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...es/LJAGLJNeighbourhoodPF15_10_2015minutes.pdf


----------



## critical1 (Oct 25, 2015)

bimble said:


> Email from the LJ neighbourhood planning forum this morning has this attached - someone put quite some time into it you can see..
> 
> It shows all the car accidents that have happened over the past decade on Loughborough Road, rated by their seriousness and shown as blobs of different sizes & colours. No accidents classed as more than 7 out of 10 for seriousness, which I found surprising, and only 4 of those.
> 
> just noticed the list they've attached which was used to make the coloured blobs. It includes incidents such as 'passenger fell over on bus'.




From what I have quickly glanced it looks like Loughborough Junction should be shut and Brixton Road... It was interesting to note that a lot of passengers on buses got injured and that most are due to CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY... the dates also give a clue so in 2005 till about 2010  period a lot 2014-15 on the last 2 pages a lot less accidents or reports and I notice FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY 

LOL thats so funny I know the person who fell off the bus at LJ, apparently she was so drunk and went home with a broken arm, woke up in agony the next morning after the drink induced pain killer wore off... Broken rotator pretty painful by all accounts.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 25, 2015)

bimble said:


> Also, here are the official minutes of the meeting on 15th October.
> https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...es/LJAGLJNeighbourhoodPF15_10_2015minutes.pdf


Liked this bit:
Councillor Rachel Heywood said that she and Councillor Parr would continue to ask the
leader of the council and the cabinet member responsible, Councillor Brathwaite, for a quick
decision and there had been no proper consultation before the scheme was implemented.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 25, 2015)

bimble said:


> Email from the LJ neighbourhood planning forum this morning has this attached - someone put quite some time into it you can see..
> 
> It shows all the car accidents that have happened over the past decade on Loughborough Road, rated by their seriousness and shown as blobs of different sizes & colours. No accidents classed as more than 7 out of 10 for seriousness, which I found surprising, and only 4 of those.
> https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...ages/ee7127e0-ab73-45f1-8bda-465b633779ed.jpg
> ...


Haven't gone through it all yet - but it looks as though half the accidents are at Brixton Road/Loughborough Road and the associated nightmare stretch of Loughboroiugh Road unaffected buy the experiment.

Most of the remainder appear associated with the junction between Hinton Road and Coldharbour Lane.

Seems like the solution to accidents is to close the least affected part.


----------



## bimble (Oct 25, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Liked this bit:
> Councillor Rachel Heywood said that she and Councillor Parr would continue to ask the
> leader of the council and the cabinet member responsible, Councillor Brathwaite, for a quick
> decision and there had been no proper consultation before the scheme was implemented.




This bit not so good:

" Councillor Matt Parr asked what the decision-making process would be once the information was gathered."

"Ian Baker explained that the decision on the road closures would be taken by Councillor Jenny Brathwaite alone, unless there was a call-in by councillors to the Overview and Scrutiny committee"

Is that happening? Does it have to be called in all over again?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 25, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Liked this bit:
> Councillor Rachel Heywood said that she and Councillor Parr would continue to ask the
> leader of the council and the cabinet member responsible, Councillor Brathwaite, for a quick
> decision and there had been no proper consultation before the scheme was implemented.



Motion was passed Ben Gaskell (owner of Belinda Road business)put the following motion to the meeting: “This meeting wishes the road closure scheme to be stopped tomorrow”. The motion was carried almost unanimously with one person voting against and no apparent abstentions.

I wonder if LJ neighbourhood planning forum will press for this if Anthea Masseys organisation is representative etc..


----------



## critical1 (Oct 25, 2015)

bimble said:


> This bit not so good:
> 
> " Councillor Matt Parr asked what the decision-making process would be once the information was gathered."
> 
> ...



Well the previous call-in was a sham with several Cllrs stating for the record that they thought the consultation was flawless and they cant see anything that was wrong with it. (they forget that there are only so many seats in the cabinet)  as for Matt Parr stating another call-in.. it just stinks a little of not much we can do.


----------



## bimble (Oct 25, 2015)

critical1 said:


> it just stinks a little of not much we can do.


 don't say that! If another Call In is the only way to make this be anything apart from a decision made by Jennifer B all by herself then surely another call in is what should be happening, maybe Rachel Heywood can do one?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 25, 2015)

Cllr Parr did say the Call In would be longer......  a whole evening!


----------



## critical1 (Oct 25, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Cllr Parr did say the Call In would be longer......  a whole evening!


Why not just reverse the decision and open the roads up!


----------



## bimble (Oct 25, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Cllr Parr did say the Call In would be longer......  a whole evening!


ok confession: I don't really have a clue what a call in actually is, how they work etc. Do you know where i can find out?


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 25, 2015)

This is the form for the one Cllr Parr put in. Cllr can make a Call In to the Scrutiny Panel when there are objections to a Council or Cllr decision.


----------



## bimble (Oct 25, 2015)

ok I see. And the result of that was.. basically nothing at all, none of the questions in there have been answered.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> ok I see. And the result of that was.. basically nothing at all, none of the questions in there have been answered.



Yep thats why I thought our eminantly enlightened teacher "R" teuchter might add some insight as they seemed so knowledgeable, but as yet no comments, very strange!


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

stop trying to forcefeed the troll critical1!


----------



## critical1 (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> stop trying to forcefeed the troll critical1!


The feeding tube was getting in the way... Thought teuchter had an answer for everything... except the facts.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2015)

AlexH said:


> This has direct oral evidence from John Rice of the Ambulance Service and a nurse (I think) from King's College Hospital, plus numerous others that the closure is putting lives at risk. Direct questions for you Teuchter: (1) do you accept this evidence? (2) Do you have any evidence to suggest it is a wrong statement?  and (3) if so please identify what it is. That latter question is a direct (but open) question - the two are not mutually exclusive.


(1) Yes, it should certainly be taken into consideration
(2) No
(3) N/A

HTH


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

Just sent another email asking for the questionnaire to be put up on Lambeth's website today, so that people can take part in the official qualitative evaluation before it finishes at the end of the week. I have not given up hope.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 26, 2015)

*Amazing* that's the most succinct reply ever from teuchter... & he agrees with AlexH


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

!


----------



## critical1 (Oct 26, 2015)

[QUOTE="bimble, post: 14179096, member: 68113"![/QUOTE]


Did they say online where?


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

No, that's the whole of the email up there (apart from dear bimble. 
Have written back with a grovelly thanks and asking to please be advised when its done & where to find it.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 26, 2015)

critical1 said:


> View attachment 78555 [QUOTE="bimble, post: 14179096, member: 68113"!


Did they say online where?[/QUOTE]
Surely they said before - on Lambeth's website


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

Yes, I'm going to assume it will appear on the 'live consultations' page, where I'd been told the LJ road scheme would be added weeks ago. I'm amazed Cllr J B her very self replied.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, I'm going to assume it will appear on the 'live consultations' page, where I'd been told the LJ road scheme would be added weeks ago. I'm amazed Cllr J B her very self replied.


You're lucky, she didn't answer my tweet or my email but then neither has anyone else from the council


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

LadyV said:


> You're lucky, she didn't answer my tweet or my email but then neither has anyone else from the council


Exactly (hence the astonishment) - it's definitely not the first time I've tried..


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 26, 2015)

So we will have 4 days in which to find it and fill it in  that's very good	NOT
And so far 68 of the onstreet questionnaires of businesses and individuals they meet have been filled in.
NO leaflet has arrived either informing us of the review!
11000 supposed to be sent out by Lambeth just like the last 10991


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> So we will have 4 days in which to find it and fill it in  that's very good	NOT
> And so far 68 of the onstreet questionnaires of businesses and individuals they meet have been filled in.
> NO leaflet has arrived either informing us of the review!
> 11000 supposed to be sent out by Lambeth just like the last 10991


filed in the canal.


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

Look, George promised that it's all happening (last week) they are busy handprinting the 11,000 flyers right now and will be sure to get one through every door before the invisible online questionnaire expires.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Look, George promised that it's all happening (last week) they are busy handprinting the 11,000 flyers right now and will be sure to get one through every door before the invisible online questionnaire expires.


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

They will be frantic in there surely, all manically striving to press the 'upload' button seeing as jenny B herself said the thing would be online by 5.


----------



## bolgerp (Oct 26, 2015)

I *think* someone may have posted this already but can't seem to find it now... the search function throws up a link to a video back in September. Anyway, there seems to be a lot of similarities with the LJ closures... Hundreds protest over ‘Mini-Holland’ cycle-friendly scheme


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

Look! Here is is .. the official qualitative questionnaire :

Loughborough Junction Temporary Road Closure Consultation Survey

It has just been put online and will apparently close on Friday 6 November.


(it appears embedded halfway down his page : Loughborough junction - what you need to know | Lambeth Council, not on the consultations page )


----------



## LadyV (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Look! Here is is .. the official qualitative questionnaire :
> 
> Loughborough Junction Temporary Road Closure Consultation Survey
> 
> ...



Completed. Wouldn't say it's the best survey I've ever filled in and why that took them two weeks to sort out I don't know, I put up surveys like that in about 30 mins. Doesn't invite much comment with the teeny tiny boxes and the questions aren't that great either imo. But better than nothing I suppose.

Thanks for finding it Bimble


----------



## LadyV (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Look! Here is is .. the official qualitative questionnaire :
> 
> Loughborough Junction Temporary Road Closure Consultation Survey
> 
> ...



Have given it to LJ Road Madness and various councillors to circulate, I imagine LJAG will do the same so that it can hopefully have a balance of opinions on there


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

It's laughable. I just completed the thing too, with its mean skinny boxes.

The last page was possibly the worst of all though, the 'what's your ethnicity' bit.
I mean where on earth are they coming from with their restrictive but specific multiple choices, I was forced to choose 'i don't know' because I'm neither Polish nor Portugese.


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Thanks for finding it Bimble


was sent to me by someone who got an email direct from the council.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Between Harris and Howard House on Loughborough Estate, St James's Crescent, Angell Road, Fyfield Road, Minet Road.


Observations from opportunistic fact finding expedition this afternoon (around 4.30pm):

Traffic on Angell Rd, St James's Crescent, Fyfield Rd - quiet, was quite possible to photograph these roads empty of cars (except parked ones) for as far as the eye can see.

Saw a couple of cars ignore the Barrington Rd closure.

I now understand what the cut-through through the estate car park is. There's effectively a bypass to the Barrington Rd closure that runs parallel to it and past Harris/Howard Houses as described above. It's an estate road that serves the car park in between those two buildings. I could see that people were using it to cut through, and it's not at all a suitable road for through traffic. This seems an obvious flaw in the location of the closure point on Barrington Rd. I don't understand why that location was chosen.

I noted traffic count locations on St James Crescent, on Fyfield Rd and on Barrington Rd. Also noticed there's one within the "pedestrian" area on Lougborough Rd. Cars still ignoring that closure too, although not in great volume.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Oct 26, 2015)




----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

Spotted on way to tescos just now: 
Gridlock on CHL at the junction with Loughborough Road. 
Police car sirens blazing wants to get into Loughborough Road is sirening away like mad, sat there, but impossible, because of the solid line of vehicles none of which can move out of the way, so it decided to carry on down CHL instead.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Spotted on way to tescos just now:
> Gridlock on CHL at the junction with Loughborough Road.
> Police car sirens blazing wants to get into Loughborough Road is sirening away like mad, sat there, but impossible, because of the solid line of vehicles none of which can move out of the way, so it decided to carry on down CHL instead.



Good luck to him trying to find a way through. Still, I suppose no-one's going to nick a police car for going through a no entry.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Observations from opportunistic fact finding expedition this afternoon (around 4.30pm):
> 
> I now understand what the cut-through through the estate car park is. There's effectively a bypass to the Barrington Rd closure that runs parallel to it and past Harris/Howard Houses as described above. It's an estate road that serves the car park in between those two buildings. I could see that people were using it to cut through, and it's not at all a suitable road for through traffic. This seems an obvious flaw in the location of the closure point on Barrington Rd. I don't understand why that location was chosen.



Yes, how silly of them to leave one way through for people who need to get in or out of the estate.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> It's laughable. I just completed the thing too, with its mean skinny boxes.
> 
> The last page was possibly the worst of all though, the 'what's your ethnicity' bit.
> I mean where on earth are they coming from with their restrictive but specific multiple choices, I was forced to choose 'i don't know' because I'm neither Polish nor Portugese.



Surely if you're not one of the specified nationalities, you just fill in the box labelled "Any other white background (please specify)"?!!


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

SpamMisery said:


> Surely if you're not one of the specified nationalities, you just fill in the box labelled "Any other white background (please specify)"?!!


Didn't have that box - or did it? Thought I'd looked for that box.
EDIT: Oh you're quite right, it did have the box just not a button for 'any other' which threw me completely.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Didn't have that box - or did it? Thought I'd looked for that box.


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

you're right mr misery,  I was just confused by the bias towards nationalities beginning with P and because because no button.


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 26, 2015)

Yeah, the lack of button doesn't help


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2015)

Sounds like the ethnicity section is designed to filter out scatterbrains and disregard their opinions


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Sounds like the ethnicity section is designed to filter out scatterbrains and disregard their opinions


Could be, they saw me coming. Quite enjoyed clicking 'I don't know' though.


----------



## Angellic (Oct 26, 2015)

You ca also type more into the boxes provided. The text disappears so not great for reviewing. You could copy and paste. Not sure if there is a limit on text but i'm sure someone here will find one.


----------



## bimble (Oct 26, 2015)

Angellic said:


> You ca also type more into the boxes provided. The text disappears so not great for reviewing. You could copy and paste. Not sure if there is a limit on text but i'm sure someone here will find one.


Yes, you can, but when you make a survey using that (simple & free) survey writing program they've used, you can choose whether to give people one line or a nice box of whatever size to write in. They chose badly.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, you can, but when you make a survey using that (simple & free) survey writing program they've used, you can choose whether to give people one line or a nice box of whatever size to write in. They chose badly.



SP did bid for this and they WON... reputation at stake here.


----------



## prunus (Oct 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Look! Here is is .. the official qualitative questionnaire :
> 
> Loughborough Junction Temporary Road Closure Consultation Survey
> 
> ...



Thanks. Filled it in.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 26, 2015)

They chose "conveniently" to keep our concerns off there  they don't want to read huge sections of text.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 26, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> They chose "conveniently" to keep our concerns off there  they don't want to read huge sections of text.


Hmm does it state how many have completed the "SURVEY" I always find transparency is key in dealing with this sort of thing...


----------



## prunus (Oct 26, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Hmm does it state how many have completed the "SURVEY" I always find transparency is key in dealing with this sort of thing...



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 (Oct 26, 2015)

What a stupid place to run a survey means they can say  69% are in favour of keeping the roads closed!!!


----------



## critical1 (Oct 26, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> What a stupid place to run a survey means they can say  69% are in favour of keeping the roads closed!!!


----------



## CH1 (Oct 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Observations from opportunistic fact finding expedition this afternoon (around 4.30pm):
> 
> Traffic on Angell Rd, St James's Crescent, Fyfield Rd - quiet, was quite possible to photograph these roads empty of cars (except parked ones) for as far as the eye can see.
> 
> ...


I notice on Sunday late afternoon how un-naturally busy St James's Crescent was. I may enlarge on that.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 26, 2015)

prunus said:


> 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.


Does that sort of thing have official status? (other than  with TalkTalk, Plusnet customer satisfaction surveys etc)


----------



## critical1 (Oct 27, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Does that sort of thing have official status? (other than  with TalkTalk, Plusnet customer satisfaction surveys etc)



I assume that Lambeth has approved it, and that they are following official consultation guidelines. 
Cllr J B had said she was chasing it up!


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

prunus said:


> It's largely pointless.


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.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 27, 2015)

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 (Oct 27, 2015)

AlexH said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 27, 2015)

AlexH said:


> 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.


Are you on "certain types" of benefit? Otherwise £140 to file the form & £700 for a hearing. (as I read it)


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

Well found thank you.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 27, 2015)

AlexH said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

You know the judicial review being carried out by a resident at cressingham gardens, is there any news on how that's going?


----------



## prunus (Oct 27, 2015)

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.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 27, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Are you on "certain types" of benefit? Otherwise £140 to file the form & £700 for a hearing. (as I read it)



Plus lawyer fees of course.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

prunus said:


> the (apparent? It's difficult to know) failure to do proper before and after traffic assessments (or at least publicise them well).



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 (Oct 27, 2015)

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.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Don't know about that - but I was assisting someone this afternoon making deliveries. They picked me up in their car at my house - to make a first call at the Minet Library, then on to other points south (but not in LJ area).
> 
> I was passenger/postman and my driver local - but Stockwell side of Brixton not local to the arcane rules of the Loughborough Junction traffic exclusion zone.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 27, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)




----------



## critical1 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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....
> 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.



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.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> In relation to that, I keep getting stuck on the basics of the whole idea of a very local scheme like this. I mean, if everyone is driving a longer way round, how does that reduce pollution? confused of LJ.



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 ...


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

I know Teuchter, you believe that a significant proportion of the drivers will simply stop driving, and that's how it will improve air quality. Feel free to facepalm me as much as you like but I'm still not at all convinced by that in this very local instance.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 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.


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 (Oct 27, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Cue studies, statistics etc ...


That's right, the facts are there to show that it can work. But you prefer to disregard those inconvenient facts, right?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> I know Teuchter, you believe that a significant proportion of the drivers will simply stop driving, and that's how it will improve air quality. Is it ok that I am not convinced by that in this very local instance?


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 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> That's right, the facts are there to show that it can work. But you prefer to disregard those inconvenient facts, right?


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.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> That's right, the facts are there to show that it can work. But you prefer to disregard those inconvenient facts, right?



Well, yes, you could stop people driving. You could ban it altogether. Or you could fuck up the roads so badly that every car journey is a guaranteed nose to tail traffic jam from beginning to end. But then commercial vehicles will be stuck in the jams and there would be corresponding cost increases in goods and services, and general adverse effects on the economy.
I don't think adding a few minutes to car journeys here and there will stop people driving. I haven't reduced my car use as a result of this scheme. What it does do is annoy people and, I suspect, cause an increase in accidents due to frustration.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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.



It's not just residential areas. Every time there's a 'junction improvement' on a main road, the accompanying blurb states that it will increase journey time by a few minutes. If you keep on doing that it soon mounts up. Plus, as I've pointed out before, journey time is a nonlinear function of traffic volume, so reducing capacity will at some point have a catastrophic effect.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> I know Teuchter, you believe that a significant proportion of the drivers will simply stop driving, and that's how it will improve air quality. Feel free to facepalm me as much as you like but I'm still not at all convinced by that in this very local instance.



But there is also the possibility that this scheme is the thin edge of a very large (and non-local) wedge, as I've pointed out before. The cycling campaigners (who appear to have the ear of those in power) want wide area closures.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 27, 2015)

Amazingly I know there's not many jobs in Detroit. Maybe he should spend his days walking... His family life must be great Zzzzzzz

It also says a lot about how important transport infrastructure is.

A grass-roots online campaign far surpassed its $25,000 goal to provide a vehicle that lets Detroit tradesman James Robertson reach his Rochester Hills workplace without lengthy bus rides and walks.

The impromptu GoFundMe drive, kindled by a front-page Free Press article on Sunday, exceeds $43,000 in under one day as more than 1,300 people make small and large credit card donations.

Getting to and from his factory job 23 miles away in Rochester Hills, he'll take a bus partway there and partway home. And he'll also walk an astounding 21 miles. . . .

New Update: Online Crowd Gives $43,000+ For Car-Needing Commuter


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> 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.




You could read this:
www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf


> Altogether, evidence from over 200 transport professionals and about 150 published documents was collated to provide information on about 100 case studies from across the world. About 60 provided sufficiently detailed evidence for in-depth analytical review. The key findings were as follows.
> 
> 
> (a)  When roadspace for cars is reallocated, traffic problems are usually far less serious than predicted.
> ...



You also have a look at

www.ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf

Budapest example confirms that traffic restriction does not cause chaos (Hungary) | Eltis


----------



## critical1 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You could read this:
> www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf
> You also have a look at
> www.ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf
> Budapest example confirms that traffic restriction does not cause chaos (Hungary) | Eltis



Say it all really...

*"well-designed and well implemented schemes to reallocate roadspace away from general traffic can help to improve conditions for pedestrians, cyclists or public transport users, without significantly increasing congestion or other related problems."*

As opposed to the LJ road madness resulting from lack of consultation an implemented against the wishes of those who took the time to comment on it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

Thanks teuchter for the above will have a proper read a bit later, with  beady eye out for the answer to the question I asked, which was particularly about whether projects of this scale (ie one main rd & couple of adjoining ones) have been proven to move people to alternative transport


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You could read this:
> www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf
> 
> 
> ...



Teuchter, those reports are interesting - but nearly all of them are reports on schemes that were undertaken in the late 80's and 90's up til about 2001 (the Vauxhall scheme). Only the Budapest scheme seems to be newer. I would suggest that these examples are now a little dated. If the professionals in the traffic management "industry" are using schemes of 15 years ago to justify the concept of traffic "evaporation" can I suggest they come down to CHL in 2015 for a wake-up call.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 27, 2015)

I imagine the largest reduction in road carrying capacity in London was the introduction of bus lanes. There must be studies on the effect of that on overall traffic congestion.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

If I remember correctly, london's road capacity has been reduced by around 15-20% in the last decade, at least some of that to do with bus lanes, and amount of traffic appears to have adjusted to it, without significant increase in congestion (in fact I think there are signs that congestion has reduced slightly in the last few years). Would have to dig out relevant links to make sure I've got that tright.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> Teuchter, those reports are interesting - but nearly all of them are reports on schemes that were undertaken in the late 80's and 90's up til about 2001 (the Vauxhall scheme). Only the Budapest scheme seems to be newer. I would suggest that these examples are now a little dated. If the professionals in the traffic management "industry" are using schemes of 15 years ago to justify the concept of traffic "evaporation" can I suggest they come down to CHL in 2015 for a wake-up call.



They are up until 2001 because that's when that review was done. What do you think has changed to make findings from 15 years ago invalid? Has the basic nature of roads and cars changed in a way that means effects are going to be wildly different now? The Budapest example seems to suggest not.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Pedantry beats common sense - again.

I was with a driver and we needed to make a call on the Minet Library - starting at SW9 8SE if you want to check it on your Google Map find a route thingee.

With only partial knowledge on my part and no knowledge on the drivers part we got in a pickle.

Good job we weren't an ambulance.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

Some more reading
Taking Road Space Away From Cars Won't Create Traffic Jams


> Popular changes in recent years, like the part-pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square, the closure of side roads at one end through whole areas to stop rat running past people’s homes, and lots of smaller measures, have subtly but significantly changed London’s streets. TfL estimates that, in total since 2000, roads in central London have lost around a third of their traffic capacity and that inner London’s roads can carry a sixth fewer vehicles (PDF). Yet despite warnings that reduced capacity would be a disaster, average traffic speeds have largely been maintained.




End of the car age: how cities are outgrowing the automobile


This has some discussion about effects observed during major events, when special bus lanes are introduced, or other restrictions to private car travel. Generally the predicted chaos does not materialise. In some cases congestion is dramatically reduced (as in 1984 LA games). People change their travel habits. London's 2012 games lanes system is mentioned:

Easing traffic congestion may be most enduring Pan Am legacy


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Pedantry beats common sense - again.
> 
> I was with a driver and we needed to make a call on the Minet Library - starting at SW9 8SE if you want to check it on your Google Map find a route thingee.
> 
> ...



I don't get your point. Why do you say pedantry?

You didn't have the route knowledge and got in a pickle. Next time you will have the knowledge, and won't get in a pickle. Exactly the reason why things need to be given time.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Some more reading
> Taking Road Space Away From Cars Won't Create Traffic Jams
> End of the car age: how cities are outgrowing the automobile
> This has some discussion about effects observed during major events, when special bus lanes are introduced, or other restrictions to private car travel. Generally the predicted chaos does not materialise. In some cases congestion is dramatically reduced (as in 1984 LA games). People change their travel habits. London's 2012 games lanes system is mentioned:
> Easing traffic congestion may be most enduring Pan Am legacy


I'm reading a very interesting book on Monomania - would you like the reference?


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If I remember correctly, london's road capacity has been reduced by around 15-20% in the last decade..and amount of traffic appears to have adjusted to it, without significant increase in congestion (in fact I think there are signs that congestion has reduced slightly in the last few years). Would have to dig out relevant links to make sure I've got that tright.



I've only just started my studies of your documents teuchter but I note that congestion actually seems to be the key to evaporation theory? ;"

“The capacity of individual car users to change their travel behaviour in a range of creative ways, _*when faced with the problem of severe traffic congestion,*_ presents real opportunities for urban planners who seek to optimise the use of space and quality of life in the city”
?


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 27, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I'm reading a very interesting book on Monomania - would you like the reference?


 Your point was not a good one CH1. Obviously people get confused about routes when they first change. Over time they learn the new routes, googlemaps and satnavs get the new info and so on. You're talking about a temporary inconvenience, but seem under the impression that an inconvenience to you should be enough to condemn the scheme.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 27, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> Your point was not a good one CH1. Obviously people get confused about routes when they first change. Over time they learn the new routes, googlemaps and satnavs get the new info and so on. You're talking about a temporary inconvenience, but seem under the impression that an inconvenience to you should be enough to condemn the scheme.


My point was that even for me - a lifelong pedestrian - I can see why it's a pain in the ass. And for zero benefit to me, speaking as someone who has lived on Coldharbour Lane for 29 years and never known congestion or pollution worse.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You didn't have the route knowledge and got in a pickle. Next time you will have the knowledge, and won't get in a pickle. Exactly the reason why things need to be given time.


So you expect anyone driving in the affected zone to have done The Knowledge, whether it be Aunt Matilda from Bournemouth or the rookie Police Cadet answering  an emergency call?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

CH1 said:


> My point was that even for me - a lifelong pedestrian - I can see why it's a pain in the ass. And for zero benefit to me, speaking as someone who has lived on Coldharbour Lane for 29 years and never known congestion or pollution worse.


You are still ignoring the fact that we can't necessarily assume the current increased congestion on CHL is permanent. I am doing my best to provide lots of reference to research and precedent which shows that reducing road capacity does not necessarily lead to a long term increase in congestion and can often alleviate it, and to show why I want this experiment to be given a chance.

As I've said many times over, we can't know for certain what will happen in the very particular circumstances of this scheme. Which is why there is an experimental period to find out. It needs to be given a suitable amount of time before we jump to conclusions. And you along with other posters seem to be trying to ensure that we are not given the opportunity to find out what will happen.

If it becomes clear that this particular scheme creates problems that outweigh its benefits then I will agree that it should not be continued. And long term congestion on CHL that obstructs buses would qualify as one of those problems.


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 27, 2015)

A little anecdata with some additional research;

I had to head to Streatham this morning (by car, full-load inc 4 people if you want to judge) and was pleasantly surprised that the normal hell of Denmark road followed by the queue at the CHL/LR lights did not present a problem. Then it occurred to me. It's half-term. No school-run traffic - and I do think this is a significant component of the traffic volumes we see locally. This would also account for the somewhat "delayed reaction" of the chaos build-up - where the early days of the experiment didn't show much traffic impact. Things only became hellish from around the end of the first week in September, once all the schools were back.

I don't want to get into an education system debate here - but LJ sits immediately to the north of Dulwich- an area with an unusually high density of schools including state and private. These schools draw pupils from a wide catchment - including much of south and central London; from Bromley to Wimbledon, Kensington to Tooting. I think the main (largest) four; Dulwich College, Alleyns, JAGS and Charter, must have around 5000 pupils between them, and this doesn't include any of the Dulwich/Herne Hill primary schools, nurseries etc that probably add another 1500.

Trying to determine the effect on traffic - and how all these kids get to school is quite hard, but JAGS does have its recent (2014) "Travel Plan" available online (thank you Google) and maybe the others do to? http://www.jags.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/School_Travel_Plan_-_10_April_2014.pdf.

What's interesting is that this report does give some qualitative data for the numbers of pupils who travel to school by private car (or car share). I think it reasonable to assume (although Teuchter would probably disagree!) that one could extrapolate the percentages in the JAGS report and apply these for the other schools in the area. 23% travel by car (32% if you include car share). Assuming that a typical school-run generates 4 individual journeys (home-school; school-home, twice a day) that means in excess of 6000 car trips are being made to/from Dulwich each day during term time.

Not all through CHL/LJ of course, but even if it were only 15% of the total, that would by 900 trips - or 7% of the quoted CHL traffic volume of 13000. That's a significant chunk.

This isn't including staff numbers (JAGS 150 people). The JAGS report goes on to explain some of the reasons different travel methods are chosen and how they try to change/influence this behaviour away from car use.

All interesting stuff.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> I've only just started my studies of your documents teuchter but I note that congestion actually seems to be the key to evaporation theory? ;"
> 
> “The capacity of individual car users to change their travel behaviour in a range of creative ways, _*when faced with the problem of severe traffic congestion,*_ presents real opportunities for urban planners who seek to optimise the use of space and quality of life in the city”
> ?



Correct. Continue with your reading.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 27, 2015)

CH1 said:


> So you expect anyone driving in the affected zone to have done The Knowledge, whether it be Aunt Matilda from Bournemouth or the rookie Police Cadet answering  an emergency call?


 


> Obviously people get confused about routes when they first change. Over time they learn the new routes.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 27, 2015)

A true _*non sequitur*_ if ever I saw one.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

There are loads of similar closed-off roads, one-way systems or no-entry points all over London, many of which have been in operation for years without the world ending or everythng coming to a standstill. It's not like this is some new and untested concept


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If it becomes clear that this particular scheme creates problems that outweigh its benefits then I will agree that it should not be continued. And long term congestion on CHL that obstructs buses would qualify as one of those problems.



Excellent. To me that's the main point, I'm interested in the whole evaporation theory (will continue my studies later) but it is important, whatever lens you are viewing this particular scheme through, to try to evaluate it on its own de/merits, not to assume it must be a good or a bad thing according to whatever preconceptions.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 27, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 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.


Yes that's right. Once a decision is made to make it permanent in February 2016 (if that happens) that will be the time to consider a JR of that decision. One of the points of challenge can be the failure by the Council to engage in a 6 month consultation at all (because it has not really done much to consult since it started over 2 months ago), and it's unlikely to be able to rescue that position by sticking up a survey monkey questionnaire during a half-term week, but not publishing it on the Lambeth Consultations part of the website. Particularly if they ignore the 3300 petition signatures calling for stopping the closures along with the detailed comments posted on the reasons why. Will this really satisfy a High Court Judge?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> Excellent. To me that's the main point, I'm interested in the whole evaporation theory (will continue my studies later) but it is important, whatever lens you are viewing this particular scheme through, to try to evaluate it on its own de/merits, not to assume it must be a good or a bad thing according to whatever preconceptions.


I trust you will be opposing calls to terminate the experiment before it has had long enough for longer-term merits and de-merits to become apparent and allow a meaningful assessment of them, then.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 27, 2015)

I really struggle to see how local businesses who are suffering at the moment and will suffer closure will ever be compensated, not one mention by anyone! or is that the plan.. lets wait and see?

Silent Corporate Takeover


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I really struggle to see how local businesses who are suffering at the moment and will suffer closure will ever be compensated, not one mention by anyone!



It's not possible to respond to this without knowing the details of which businesses say they are affected and why.

As I have said before, these businesses should be listened to. Closer examination might reveal that some are overstating the effects. Some might have entirely valid complaints and in these instances attempts should be made to make adjustments to the scheme to reduce the impact on them. It might be that there are some cases where it would be fair to compensate.

At the same time, there will be some businesses which will benefit.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> At the same time, there will be some businesses which will benefit.


?


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

Yes- see the resounding evidence for this statement from one of teuchter's documents, the case study about the city in Finland which got a car-free central square(completely different story to ours but still)

" A survey of retailers* found that 52 % felt that the scheme had improved or would improve their business in the future. "

*In 2000, a questionnaire was circulated to all retailers (190 in total) occupying first floor shops in the city centre, 110 responses were received.

[& note that's from a place where the central (shopping) square has been turned into a  pretty properly pedestrian area.]


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

Safer Streets Pay Off for Businesses


----------



## critical1 (Oct 27, 2015)

Gentrification of LJ








Gentrification Lecture


----------



## CH1 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Safer Streets Pay Off for Businesses


I would just like to point out I took The Sun to the press council for comparing Brixton to Precinct 46 THe Bronx.

Say no more.


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Safer Streets Pay Off for Businesses


I'm disappointed teuchter. you're really going to apply a story about the dozens of pedestrian plazas in central NYC to Loughborough Road?

"One example was Columbus Avenue, a busy shopping boulevard on the city's affluent Upper West Side. There, the DOT had built a protected bike lane and pedestrian safety islands while narrowing travel lanes for motor vehicles. According to the tax data, revenue was up 20 percent over the baseline in the second year after bike lanes were implemented in the area."
This is relevant to LJ how? They didn't even close a road..


----------



## prunus (Oct 27, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> A little anecdata with some additional research;
> 
> I had to head to Streatham this morning (by car, full-load inc 4 people if you want to judge) and was pleasantly surprised that the normal hell of Denmark road followed by the queue at the CHL/LR lights did not present a problem. Then it occurred to me. Its half-term. No school-run traffic - and I do think this is a significant component of the traffic volumes we see locally. This would also account for the somewhat "delayed reaction" of the chaos build-up - where the early days of the experiment didn't show much traffic impact. Things only became hellish from around the end of the first week in September, once all the schools were back.
> 
> ...



Good points, and certainly this week so far the reduction in traffic is noticeable. It was also noticeable last week, hang on - don't some private schools have two week half terms, starting last week? Does anyone know if dulwich college and jags et al do?

Nb: charter is state, and has a strict entry by walking distance criterion (ok plus some siblings) - the maximum distance away one can be is about 3/4 mile so there will be very few charter kids being driven (I'd hope).


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

Yes, it's school holidays, this will surely be adjusted for in the traffic counting, I have faith.


----------



## prunus (Oct 27, 2015)

Jags and dulwich college have both been off since the 17th - is it possible that our CHL traffic is caused by coddled posh kids being chauffeured to school????

The traffic have been noticeably better (imo) mornings and evenings since about then... I'd attributed last week to the traffic lights being sorted out, as I didnt recall the 2 week holidays they get. 

So: testable hypothesis. Will it stay relatively light for the rest of this week, and get heavy again next week?  Stay tuned... (And your impressions welcome too).


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm disappointed teuchter. you're really going to apply a story about the dozens of pedestrian plazas in central NYC to Loughborough Road?
> 
> "One example was Columbus Avenue, a busy shopping boulevard on the city's affluent Upper West Side. There, the DOT had built a protected bike lane and pedestrian safety islands while narrowing travel lanes for motor vehicles. According to the tax data, revenue was up 20 percent over the baseline in the second year after bike lanes were implemented in the area."
> This is relevant to LJ how? They didn't even close a road..


Almost anywhere, if you propose a restriction to car traffic (whether that's pedestrianisation, closing off access points, implementing bike or bus lanes, or removing parking), there will be predictions about the devastating impact it's going to have on businesses in the immediate area. And yet in reality, usually these terrible effects fail to materialise - in fact often trade increases. This NYC story is just an example of that.

Of course, the particular nature of many of the businesses around LJ (car repairs, scrap yards etc) means that they are unlikely to benefit from an increase in passing pedestrians. And some will be particularly sensitive to ease of road access. So this is why it's important that they are listened to. I still think that it's very easy for people to over-estimate the negative effects though. Earlier in the thread someone commented about how certain businesses were going to suffer as a result of being left at the end of a dead-end route. I pointed out that both the examples given were already on dead-end roads.

Take as an example a scrap yard such as the one off Gordon Grove - I can see that if access becomes a lot more difficult, customers might be less likely to use it. But I'd want to look at how much extra difficulty was really involved. If it was a matter of an extra 5 minutes being added onto journeys which from their start points were generally an hour or two away, then I'd say the difference is not massive and it seems unlikely that it's really going to put customers off. Especially if changes in traffic flow might mean that from certain directions other journeys become quicker. On the other hand if the typical customer's journey is only from 20 minutes away and they make it several times a day, then adding 5 minutes is significant and i would accept that is likely to have an impact on business.

There are quite a few businesses (car-related) for whom the principal access is off CHL. I can see that an increase in congestion on CHL could cause them difficulties. This is another reason why as Ive already said, if it looks like the scheme is going to create a long-term, rather than temporary, issue of significantly increased congestion on CHL then that is a valid reason to argue against its continuation.

People are making various claims about the impact on business - including Mr facebook QC claiming that a large number of businesses "of all kinds' have seen a 50% decrease in turnover. That's a big claim to make without any supporting evidence. I want to know more detail if I'm going to find that convincing. So, in the absence of any detail on effects on business, about the best I can do for now is offer up examples from elsewhere that there is a familiar pattern of negative impact on business being wildly over-predicted.


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 27, 2015)

prunus said:


> Good points, and certainly this week so far the reduction in traffic is noticeable. It was also noticeable last week, hang on - don't some private schools have two week half terms, starting last week? Does anyone know if dulwich college and jags et al do?
> 
> Nb: charter is state, and has a strict entry by walking distance criterion (ok plus some siblings) - the maximum distance away one can be is about 3/4 mile so there will be very few charter kids being driven (I'd hope).



Yes two weeks from the 17th.

Good point on Charter. More anecdata, but I sometimes do travel through that way for work and I do see some Charter kids being dropped by car. Likely fewer than the JAGS percentage though. However, I  do know more than one family who has moved to rented accommodation close to Charter for a shortish time (maybe 12 months or so) while letting out their own house. Enough time to get a child into the school, before moving back to their own house further away at a later date. Subsequent children getting in on the basis of sibling policy. These kids then fall outside of your walking catchment. I think this sort of thing happens much more than you might think. This is probably one for the local education debate though!


----------



## irf520 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> People are making various claims about the impact on business - including Mr facebook QC claiming that a large number of businesses "of all kinds' have seen a 50% decrease in turnover. That's a big claim to make without any supporting evidence. I want to know more detail if I'm going to find that convincing. So, in the absence of any detail on effects on business, about the best I can do for now is offer up examples from elsewhere that there is a familiar pattern of negative impact on business being wildly over-predicted.



There's at least one instance of a small business proprietor claiming a 50% reduction in trade on that video of the public meeting (the car wash on Hinton Road).
I don't know what his finances are like, but I could imagine a 50% reduction in turnover for 6 months could be enough to drive a lot of small businesses into bankruptcy or to throw in the towel before going bankrupt.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Almost anywhere, if you propose a restriction to car traffic (whether that's pedestrianisation, closing off access points, implementing bike or bus lanes, or removing parking), there will be predictions about the devastating impact it's going to have on businesses in the immediate area. And yet in reality, usually these terrible effects fail to materialise - in fact often trade increases. This NYC story is just an example of that.



There are also examples where being able to park free results in increased trade:

Shoppers flood back to town centre after vandals smash up pay and display machines


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

irf520 said:


> There are also examples where being able to park free results in increased trade:
> 
> Shoppers flood back to town centre after vandals smash up pay and display machines


Except the truth of that story is that it's car dependancy that is what's really killing the town centre.


> "Instead of going out of town to Tesco or Aldi, people can stay in the centre for five or six hours without having to pay or worry about getting a ticket. They can go into shops then stop at a café or a restaurant without having to rush.



Those town centre businesses are having to compete with out-of-town shopping with free parking, shopping that is only really accessible to car owners. I expect there are people without cars who walk or use the bus to get to shops in town who may not benefit so much from a free-for-all parking scheme and the increased levels of traffic it might bring.

But that's rural Wales. The changes to planning and transport policy that would be necessary to really decrease car dependency in rural areas are much more radical than what's needed in urban areas, especially urban areas such as Zone 2 London where we already have a pretty good public transport network.

Your example is pretty much irrelevant to what we're talking about here.


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 27, 2015)

Teuchter, I am a local resident and small business owner. We are a service business. Our business doesn't have / need retail premises so arguments relating to footfall and passing trade are not relevant to us. What we care about is being able to move around freely. To get from customer site to customer site or back to the office in the shortest time possible. 
The more calls we can do in a day, the more profitable we can be, the more we can grow, the more people we could employ. All better for the local economy.

Time spent travelling is dead time. Unproductive.

Personally, where I can use public transport, I do. Sometimes I'll be on my bike. Frequently, because of the need to carry equipment, tools etc - or just because the customer may be further afield, I will be in a vehicle. Denmark Road and Flodden Road are now virtually my only entry/exit points to the Myatt's Fields area where we are based. I estimate I make around 30 vehicle movements through CHL/LJ per week (average 6 per day). therefore every 5 minute increase in journey times costs me an extra 2.5 hours per week. 
I haven't yet calculated the time lost for other staff and contractors.

Obviously all this has a direct financial cost. I reckon it would cost us around £15,000 if the current conditions were to last for a year. 
If it continues we either end-up having to pass the cost on to customers (inflationary - not good.) or we expand more slowly and cant re-invest / create the same job opportunities we might have been able to do otherwise. 

I can completely understand that for some businesses a 6 month "experiment" could force them to close.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> Teuchter, I am a local resident and small business owner. We are a service business. Our business doesn't have / need retail premises so arguments relating to footfall and passing trade are not relevant to us. What we care about is being able to move around freely. To get from customer site to customer site or back to the office in the shortest time possible.
> The more calls we can do in a day, the more profitable we can be, the more we can grow, the more people we could employ. All better for the local economy.
> 
> Time spent travelling is dead time. Unproductive.
> ...



Two questions before I answer more fully -

- You say you make about 6 vehicle movements through CHL/LJ a day. Taking a guess from your description of roughly where you are based, assuming you make journeys to a variety of locations in all directions, maybe 1/3 of them would involve (prior to closures) a route through a location where there's now a closure. So as well as those 6 movements there would be about 12 that don't go through those locations. Would that be about right or is there some reason that your journeys are predominantly in a south-westerly direction?  
- How do you arrive at the £15,000 per year figure?


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 27, 2015)

Groningen in the 1970s: Groningen businesses lobby to ministers and the King to reverse road closures claiming that sales had declined 30%

2014 Cycle mode share: 38%. Email exchange with Groningen Chamber of Commerce.

What is the attitude of the chamber and its members towards traffic management in the city centre today?

"Nowadays our members and the entrepreneurs in the city centre are happy that traffic is banned. The number of visitors has increased, the centre of Groningen is the number one shopping centre of the Northern Netherlands and Groningen is the city of cycling. The number of terraces in summer has increased and the city of Groningen is the place to be."

Do any businesses today advocate reopening the city centre to through traffic?

"No one. It is no issue"


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 27, 2015)

Cllr Brathwaite was clearly told at the beginning of this year by a group of businesses, residents and organisations that businesses would have to close down due to the loss of trade. She was clearly informed of the dire consequences to all traffic not just car owners.
She was at LJ yesterday speaking to businesses who told her their concerns and that their takings were down.

teuchter asked what has changed in the last 15 years with transport re road closures in towns etc	 ONLINE SHOPPING is one big thing!
More people work, less can go out and shop, more home businesses who still depend on various transport being able to reach their homes, better home visits from carers, doctors,  more people dependent on visitors, more people needing transport to and fro Hospitals, more use of public transport which is now seriously affected by buses that can no longer be depended on time wise due to the serious congestion, more companies which offer many services to homes etc, far more new builds of properties requiring a huge amount of transport, yes there have been a lot of changes to transport.
People on here keep droning on about cars, cars, cars.....  get out there and have a look at the amount of BUSINESS vehicles on the roads struggling through congested small side roads etc.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2015)

Some glossy propaganda through the mailbox today

No hyperbole -
"Today the ROADS
Tomorrow your HOMES"

 

I expect Lambeth will be pleased with the hijack of their "Do the right thing" slogan


----------



## critical1 (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Some glossy propaganda through the mailbox today
> 
> No hyperbole -
> "Today the ROADS
> ...


Gentrification of LJ







Gentrification Lecture


----------



## bimble (Oct 27, 2015)

Glad someone is putting leaflets through doors making sure people know whom to contact to express their views.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 27, 2015)

LOL Cyclists trying to get others who do not live in the area to fill in the survey what a joke


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Two questions before I answer more fully -
> 
> - You say you make about 6 vehicle movements through CHL/LJ a day. Taking a guess from your description of roughly where you are based, assuming you make journeys to a variety of locations in all directions, maybe 1/3 of them would involve (prior to closures) a route through a location where there's now a closure. So as well as those 6 movements there would be about 12 that don't go through those locations. Would that be about right or is there some reason that your journeys are predominantly in a south-westerly direction?
> - How do you arrive at the £15,000 per year figure?



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.


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2015)

Just saw a pizza delivery bike turn off Coldharbour Lane and ride on to the pavement along Loughborough Road before turning off. I guess that's one way to avoid being fined.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 28, 2015)

"Road changes such as these experimental closures always take time to ‘bed in’ and settle down – true reflections of their impact would take at least three weeks after the closures begin." <--- Lambeth

Lambeth need to open these roads up, pointless exercise for a pointless farm pop up experiment... The support LJAG had at their forum was abysmal and indicative of the level of community support they have failed to foster. Can LJAG do any better I cant see how, without radical rebranding of what they are about.

Soon to come is POP Loughborough watch this space...


----------



## bimble (Oct 28, 2015)

Without even talking about the whole gentrification issue at all..
I wonder what it will be like here during the construction of these 3 things,  all of them Coming Soon to the very centre of LJ. And then afterwards once they are filled with new residents and workers. All 3 of them directly on (or a few steps away from) Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> Without even talking about the whole gentrification issue at all..
> I wonder what it will be like here during the construction of these 3 things,  all of them Coming Soon to the very centre of LJ. And then afterwards once they are filled with new residents and workers. All 3 of them directly on (or a few steps away from) Coldharbour Lane.
> View attachment 78648


You have to get into current regen thinking.
Industrial sites are for housing.
Shipping containers are for yuppies.
And churches can go to hell (unless the developers are peculiarly pious like Parrit Leng)


----------



## prunus (Oct 28, 2015)

critical1 said:


> "Road changes such as these experimental closures always take time to ‘bed in’ and settle down – true reflections of their impact would take at least three weeks after the closures begin." <--- Lambeth
> 
> Lambeth need to open these roads up, pointless exercise for a pointless farm pop up experiment... The support LJAG had at their forum was abysmal and indicative of the level of community support they have failed to foster. Can LJAG do any better I cant see how, without radical rebranding of what they are about.
> 
> Soon to come is POP Loughborough watch this space...



You do seem very, indeed, critical of the closures. Can I ask: what results from the scheme would cause you to consider them a success?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 28, 2015)

prunus said:


> You do seem very, indeed, critical of the closures. Can I ask: what results from the scheme would cause you to consider them a success?



1: Have the a true consultation and act on them honestly. LJAG & Lambeth keep ignoring the 700+ part of the petition that said no to the closures(it was handed in on time and made part of an official deputation yet very little mention of it), they keep saying 68%(181) as a justification.
2: Stop LYING
3: Proper representation and engagement with the local community.
4: A democratically elected and accountable organisation.
5: The same could and should also apply to Lambeth, considering they are already supposed to be!!!

LJAG & Lambeth had a great opportunity to really make a difference yet this is what they do. On a broader point it seems indicative of Lambeth culture that the cockup everything they do.
I attended the Minet Library meeting and even Kate Hoey MP stated Lambeth Cllrs are only in it for the money especially the cabinet members and that they create posts for themselves to cream off even more. Cllr Paul Gatsby was even asked what his managerial qualifications were to which he went silent and could not respond, says it all for someone who is supposed to be an elected political representative.

I truly do wonder what LJAG is really representing by these closures and await the next step in the insidious  gentrification of LJ.

When will the Cllr responsible Jennifer Brathwaite make a decision to reverse these closures, will it be a death, serious accident, or business closures, this is one strange experiment with us being the guinea pigs. Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite has already being warned, yet refuses to do anything, not even giving straight answers, why?

There is no success on flawed implementation, the only thing that they can do is remove it, that is a successful conclusion. You cant make a silk purse out of a pigs ear.


----------



## bimble (Oct 28, 2015)

prunus said:


> Jags and dulwich college have both been off since the 17th - is it possible that our CHL traffic is caused by coddled posh kids being chauffeured to school????
> The traffic have been noticeably better (imo) mornings and evenings since about then... I'd attributed last week to the traffic lights being sorted out, as I didnt recall the 2 week holidays they get.
> So: testable hypothesis. Will it stay relatively light for the rest of this week, and get heavy again next week?  Stay tuned... (And your impressions welcome too).



On this , the observation that maybe school holidays have helped reduce traffic on CHL from 17th Oct till now :

Here's what I (finally!) got from George Wright as an answer to my questions about their absurd little air quality assessment plan.

You can see at the bottom he's saying that traffic counts on CHL have "juts (sic) been carried out ", the email was sent on 26th, as in Monday, which sounds like they've been done during this school holiday period to me.
Which would be some top quality really useful researching, again.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2015)

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


----------



## bimble (Oct 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2015)

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 (Oct 28, 2015)




----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 28, 2015)

bimble said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 28, 2015)

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 (Oct 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2015)

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 (Oct 28, 2015)

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 (Oct 28, 2015)

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


----------



## SpamMisery (Oct 28, 2015)

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


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 28, 2015)

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 (Oct 28, 2015)

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 (Oct 28, 2015)

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 (Oct 28, 2015)

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 (Oct 28, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> - 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 (Oct 28, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2015)

CH1 said:


> 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 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 (Oct 28, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> 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 (Oct 28, 2015)

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 (Oct 28, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> 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
> ...



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 (Oct 29, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2015)

well yes, of course. that would be nice.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

They did ask about the road width, so maybe everyone ticked the box?
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Proposed Zebra Crossing - WEB.pdf


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> They did ask about the road width, so maybe everyone ticked the box?
> http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Proposed Zebra Crossing - WEB.pdf



I missed that box ticking opportunity. Still don't understand why that sort of thing was not tried at Loughborough Road though, that plus lets see what 20mph does next month.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

What would have happened - just throwing this out there to show I'm not opposed to idealism and change - What would have happened if instead of shutting Loughborough Road they'd closed some of the most important central shopping & walking street and our existing version of a  'meaningful town centre' , (apart from buses emergency vehicles & bikes). Like some of this yellow bit, for instance .



EDIT. I know this is an impossible idea but it's fun just to imagine a change that would really transform LJ into a place not dominated by traffic.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> I missed that box ticking opportunity. Still don't understand why that sort of thing was not tried at Loughborough Road though, that plus lets see what 20mph does next month.


It was - they had a ballot box at the Angell Road place. Someone interviewed me as I was voting. At that time my main concern was they wanted to divert the P5 bus. I mentioned that on my ballot, and also to the student person filming. I don't think anyone else turned up to vote when I was there. 

The consultation result was written up/tabulated here: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/de...ments-consultation-report-2015-APPENDICES.pdf


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> What would have happened - just throwing this out there to show I'm not opposed to idealism and change - What would have happened if instead of shutting Loughborough Road they'd closed the most important central shopping & walking street and our existing version of a  'meaningful town centre' , (apart from buses emergency vehicles & bikes). Like this bit, for instance .
> 
> View attachment 78701


Not possible. No alternative route suitable for that volume of traffic.
Would make my bit of CHL much quieter - though not completely. You only get that (almost) on Christmas Day when there are no buses or trains.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It was - they had a ballot box at the Angell Road place. Someone interviewed me as I was voting. At that time my main concern was they wanted to divert the P5 bus. I mentioned that on my ballot, and also to the student person filming. I don't think anyone else turned up to vote when I was there.
> 
> The consultation result was written up/tabulated here: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/de...ments-consultation-report-2015-APPENDICES.pdf


I'm confused - what is the difference between what you've put up there and this thing? http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/doc...on_Public_Realm_Improvements_Report FINAL.pdf


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Not possible. No alternative route suitable for that volume of traffic.
> Would make my bit of CHL much quieter - though not completely. You only get that (almost) on Christmas Day when there are no buses or trains.


No, I understand it's an impossible idea. Just enjoyed imagining for a moment a change that would really transform central LJ into a place not dominated by traffic.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm confused - what is the difference between what you've put up there and this thing? http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s75937/03g Appendix E Loughborough_Junction_Public_Realm_Improvements_Report FINAL.pdf


I looking - but your one says the most frequently asked for activity was farmers market!!!!!!!!!!!! (page 10)


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I looking - but your one says the most frequently asked for activity was farmers market!!!!!!!!!!!! (page 10)


It certainly does. Don't mention the G word.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> It certainly does. Don't mention the G word.


Don't know what you mean.

The body of your report is written in council-style with numbered paragraphs, but seems to be a report of LJAG or written by them. The visuals are very LJAG. Can't see the usual council authorisation bit, e.g.:

*Report Authorised by: Helen Charlesworth–May, Strategic Director: Commissioning*

I think the appendices I put up is the bare info and your report contains the worked-up fully spinned version.

By the way the figures don't add up. In the appendices there were 299 respondents INSIDE the "consultation area" and 268 from outside.

Total = 567 yet in your version they also add in 66 people (or ghost voters) who did not declare where they lived).


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> By the way the figures don't add up. In the appendices there were 299 respondents INSIDE the "consultation area" and 268 from outside.
> Total = 567 yet in your version they also add in 66 people (or ghost voters) who did not declare where they lived).



You're right.
And the next step was to transform ALL the participants into "residents" , thus arriving at the handy quote "68% of residents in favour'.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> As for this - making house maintenance more difficult and expensive.


A few loading bays for service vehicles are justified. But bumper-to-bumper on-street parking on such a busy yet narrow road is madness.


----------



## colacubes (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> A few loading bays for service vehicles are justified. But bumper-to-bumper on-street parking on such a busy yet narrow road is madness.



And tradesmen and residents manage.  I lived until very recently on a road where there was no parking 8-6 Monday-Sunday.  You learn which roads are nearby with resident parking and trades just have to either drop off their equipment and park elsewhere, or carry it a short distance whilst you provide them with a visitors parking permit.  It's awkward sometimes but entirely manageable.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

The gordon grove scrapyard quandry continues. . are they going to do a U-turn once they attached the red wreck? I will keep you posted. (maybe they'll just evaporate)


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

I got out my OS maps of Brixton and measured the carriageway. Coldharbour lane is a 9-10m wide road, kerb-to-kerb, with the potential to grab another 1.5m from the pavements if they're narrowed to the 2m minimum. Here's an extract from TfL's own design guide:



Loading bays can be integrated into such a layout by narrowing the pavement to 2m and the cycle lane to 1.5m, thus gaining a whole extra 3m of width. The same applies to bus stops. Here's the bit just West of the first railway bridge, at the junction of Shakespeare Road.



Even the narrow bit the other side of the bridge can be made to work.



It just takes the will to remove car parking from this road.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

I can definitely see how that would help with the problem of people not being able to get out of the way of blue light vehicles when CHL is solid.


----------



## editor (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> It just takes the will to remove car parking from this road.


I'm all for that but where will they go?


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

They'd come here - to the side streets off CHL, and they'd have to pay to park and then carry their things down the road?


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

I can't find where I got it from now but I believe George Wright said he has £80,000 (!) that he needs to spend before the end of the year or lose it.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> I can't find where I got it from now but I believe George Wright said he has £80,000 (!) that he needs to spend before the end of the year or lose it.



God help us. Just think how many giant size flower pots and/or no entry signs he could buy with that ...


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> 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.



If such great lengths are required to stop inappropriate streets being overwhelmed by cut-through traffic, I'd ask what the fundamental problem is - and my answer would be that it's the traffic itself, not the attempts to calm it.

I get the basic principle of what you are saying - if a system needs ever more additions to make its central aim work, it's an indication that it's not a good system ("there was an old woman who swallowed a fly").

But from my viewpoint it's an indication that our system of giving motor vehicles assumed priority in urban residential areas is not a good one. Just look at the massive amount of infrastructure that's required to allow us to co-exist with motor traffic. All the road markings, rules of the road, testing, signage, traffic lights, complicated parking zones, emergency response systems, enforcement agencies etc. As Brixton Hatter said, roads haven't always been the domain of vehicles travelling at such a speed that they can kill you if you step out in front of them, and there's no reason they should remain so.

Does a laissez-faire approach where we just trust drivers to take into account the effects of their journeys on others work? No it doesn't. People ignore speed limits when they can get away with it, and they will take short cuts through small residential streets if it makes their journey a bit faster. This is the problem that these measures are trying to solve. To fight against this tide at a local level, it's currently necessary to implement complicated closure schemes. The other solution would be to try and move towards a city where motor traffic didn't dominate - where motor vehicles were only used where actually necessary. That would make it less necessary to be constantly fighting the traffic - with much-reduced levels of traffic and less of a presumption of priority, a more hands-off approach could work. I know plenty of people reading this will freak out at the idea of such a city, saying it's idealistic and completely inpractical, but other places have taken steps in that direction - and it works just fine, on the whole. 

It's a shame such an ideal is considered impossibly radical even on urban75.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> I got out my OS maps of Brixton and measured the carriageway. Coldharbour lane is a 9-10m wide road, kerb-to-kerb, with the potential to grab another 1.5m from the pavements if they're narrowed to the 2m minimum. Here's an extract from TfL's own design guide:
> 
> 
> Loading bays can be integrated into such a layout by narrowing the pavement to 2m and the cycle lane to 1.5m, thus gaining a whole extra 3m of width. The same applies to bus stops. Here's the bit just West of the first railway bridge, at the junction of Shakespeare Road.
> ...



Does their design guide give minimum dimensions for two-way traffic plus a bus lane in one direction?


----------



## irf520 (Oct 29, 2015)

Each lane should be at least 10' wide. Maximum standard vehicle width is 9'6" - anything over that is an abnormal.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Each lane should be at least 10' wide. Maximum standard vehicle width is 9'6" - anything over that is an abnormal.


 10' is 3048mm
3m lanes are standard.


editor said:


> I'm all for that but where will they go?


 


teuchter said:


> Does their design guide give minimum dimensions for two-way traffic plus a bus lane in one direction?


That'd be 9m minimum. 9.5m ideal.


----------



## editor (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> 10' is 3048mm
> 3m lanes are standard.
> 
> View attachment 78713
> ...


Job's a good 'un!


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

We'll need the Gordon Grove scrapyard to survive just a bit longer then.
(It's amazing in there, the cars get stacked vertically, good view from the top of the adventure playground)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> 10' is 3048mm
> 3m lanes are standard.
> 
> View attachment 78713
> ...


So, quite feasible for CHL.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So, quite feasible for CHL.


No problem at all. Although one-sided bus lanes are more appropriate for radial routes (where the morning peak is more concentrated than the evening one). CHL is orbital and equally busy in both directions.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 29, 2015)

If you look at the amazing ( NOT) planters built, I take it by LJAG'ers and that now reside along the front of the entrance to Loughborough Junction Station, they have in them assorted weeds amongst odd plants, black soot on their leaves, and most are in decay,  who is taking care of them? 
The ones at the front of the shops by the Hero of Switzerland, rubbish and weeds fill them, one is falling apart, the ones at the front of Loughborough Primary School,  huge array of very tall weeds and some very long thorns on some nasty looking thing.  You have to know projects like this can be maintained and by who and at what cost. These pop parks might seem a great idea to a few but they take working bodies to upkeep them. Free working bodies!  As for Acorn  well they had the feel of a suspicious sect from the USA. COMMUNITY ORGANISING FOR SOCIAL CHANGE	you have to pay to be a volunteer with them!


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

Got to admit, I watered a planter just the other day, here on Flaxman. I think that's the thing you look after them or they be bins.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> No problem at all. Although one-sided bus lanes are more appropriate for radial routes (where the morning peak is more concentrated than the evening one). CHL is orbital and equally busy in both directions.


Yes, but you can use short stretches of them upstream of traffic lights to allow buses to bypass queuing traffic. In which case they only need to be on one side at a time.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Yes, but you can use short stretches of them upstream of traffic lights to allow buses to bypass queuing traffic. In which case they only need to be on one side at a time.


Interesting. Are there any real world examples of such a layout?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> If you look at the amazing ( NOT) planters built, I take it by LJAG'ers and that now reside along the front of the entrance to Loughborough Junction Station, they have in them assorted weeds amongst odd plants, black soot on their leaves, and most are in decay,  who is taking care of them?
> The ones at the front of the shops by the Hero of Switzerland, rubbish and weeds fill them, one is falling apart, the ones at the front of Loughborough Primary School,  huge array of very tall weeds and some very long thorns on some nasty looking thing.  You have to know projects like this can be maintained and by who and at what cost. These pop parks might seem a great idea to a few but they take working bodies to upkeep them. Free working bodies!  As for Acorn  well they had the feel of a suspicious sect from the USA. COMMUNITY ORGANISING FOR SOCIAL CHANGE	you have to pay to be a volunteer with them!


I agree that these things need a long term maintenance plan in order to be successful. Not sure what this has to do with road closures though.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Interesting. Are there any real world examples of such a layout?


Fairly sure I see this around London quite a bit, unless I am imagining things.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 29, 2015)

editor said:


> Job's a good 'un!


yes, except modern cars are not easy to recycle, lots of plastic, electrics and silicon chips so all scrapping them does Ishift your problem elsewhere, in fact the need to keep people keeping buying cars is part of the whole capitalist ethos, as are most of the schemes designed to relieve congestion, dig beneath the pr and sooner or later you will find a hedge fund or multinational or both making money from it.....


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Fairly sure I see this around London quite a bit, unless I am imagining things.


Two examples between Camberwell and Peckham -

  

In fact looking at the stretch of road between C'well and Peckham (effectively a continuation of CHL) I realise it is free of parking, and has bike and bus lanes along its length. If it works there it ought to work for CHL.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> yes, except modern cars are not easy to recycle, lots of plastic, electrics and silicon chips so all scrapping them does Ishift your problem elsewhere, in fact the need to keep people keeping buying cars is part of the whole capitalist ethos, as are most of the schemes designed to relieve congestion, dig beneath the pr and sooner or later you will find a hedge fund or multinational or both making money from it.....


So schemes to diminish car use are actually designed to keep people buying cars. Makes complete sense. It's a false-flag operation by the cyclo-nazis, or something.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

Derp, I thought you were describing something much more complicated 
Yep, that'd work well on CHL. Although I'd prefer cycle lanes  (having cycled that road to Peckham, it's horrible).


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Derp, I thought you were describing something much more complicated
> Yep, that'd work well on CHL. Although I'd prefer cycle lanes  (having cycled that road to Peckham, it's horrible).


I think that cycling should be prioritised over private car use but not over public transport. So if there's an issue with buses being held up, then bus lanes are more important than cycle lanes.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

I like this idea. Only not sure about shaving bits off the pavement to make more road (some parts of CHL have reasonable width pavements but some are narrow as it is.
Don't get me started on the giant advertising billboards we have, placed right in the centre of the pavement taking up half the width of it.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I think that cycling should be prioritised over private car use but not over public transport. So if there's an issue with buses being held up, then bus lanes are more important than cycle lanes.


Yes, you're right of course.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> I like this idea. Only not sure about shaving bits off the pavement to make more road



Only necessary at bus stops and loading bays.
EDIT: Except at that pinch point under the bridge. Nasty one that.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 29, 2015)

So a question  where are the so called 11000 leaflets George Wright and Ian Baker said were going out last week as part of the review process ???


----------



## irf520 (Oct 29, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> So a question  where are the so called 11000 leaflets George Wright and Ian Baker said were going out last week as part of the review process ???



Probably in the same place as the 11000 letters supposedly sent out for the original "consultation".


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> So a question  where are the so called 11000 leaflets George Wright and Ian Baker said were going out last week as part of the review process ???


No answer at all to polite emails asking that question (sent Monday and again yesterday to all likely addresses).


----------



## critical1 (Oct 29, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> So a question  where are the so called 11000 leaflets George Wright and Ian Baker said were going out last week as part of the review process ???


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

I don't think laziness quite covers it, but maybe I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 29, 2015)

Another thing came to mind this morning about the survey on survey monkey   it goes by your IP address so most households, businesses etc share the same Internet provider therefore the same IP addresse  so once one person has filled it in no one else in the business, home etc  can fill it in.....  this means again Lambeth  NOT giving everyone who wants to take part to be able to do so.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 29, 2015)

so lies do grow noses


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

I don't know if it's lying or just incompetence on an industrial scale. It does drive me a bit mad that there is nobody at the cooperative council with a phone number you can call and ask such an important question to.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

Just wow. This is the response I just got from todays email to all known relevant people asking the same thing (where are the 11,000 leaflets) . This is the very first response I've had from anyone and it's this, from someone called Bulbulia, who doesn't even have an inbox.


----------



## irf520 (Oct 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Just wow. This is the response I just got from todays email to all known relevant people asking the same thing (where are the 11,000 leaflets) . This is the very first response I've had from anyone and it's this, from someone called Bulbulia, who doesn't even have an inbox.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 78724



I got a reply from the same person when I emailed in with my objections to the closure scheme.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

She must be in charge of the bottomless pit / recycling bin into which correspondence relating to this now gets diverted.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Only necessary at bus stops and loading bays.
> EDIT: Except at that pinch point under the bridge. Nasty one that.


LJAG & GW was overheard, I remember distinctly hearing them say that they would be installing a mirror at that blind spot.. Not seen that as yet.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> I got out my OS maps of Brixton and measured the carriageway. Coldharbour lane is a 9-10m wide road, kerb-to-kerb, with the potential to grab another 1.5m from the pavements if they're narrowed to the 2m minimum.


You are onto something here. You could abolish pavement altogether on my side. A rope walkway could run from the delapidated house at 316 Coldharbour eastwards round under the bridge as far as the de-licensed Brew shop near the corner of Lougborough Road. Tescos would have to relocate their entrance into Belinda Road - accessed via the closed arch on Ridgway Road.

The houses on Coldharbour could access the walkway at first floor level (as per the now demolished Angell Town walkway system). All wheelie bins would remain at ground level in the gutter - sharing spaces with parked cars and Tesco online service vehicles.

Additionally the situation on the south (posh) side should be reviewed. Much freehold land there is in council ownership. Many of the back gardens were confiscated to build Heritage Close. The front gardens should be used to widen the road - obviously with minimum compensation for entryists.

That would solve the problem of the £1.15 million house with 3 Mercs outside where they mount the pavement to access their garden for illegal parking purposes.

It would also solve editor's problem of the car wash outside the barrier bock. That could be reclaimed as part of the road widening scheme. 

All in all it could be back to the Abercrombie Ringway 1 scheme.

Now what were they going to do about the railways???


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

Has everyone done the online survey then? I notice that exactly half the 14 questions were about monitoring matters (meaning black/disabed etc).

I can't remember the questions - I should have printed it out. But wait - I have 2 computers on one router here and the second one is letting me into the survey, even though the first is saying "You have done this survey"

So you know now - go in and delete your cookies and you can take the survey over and over again.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You are onto something here. You could abolish pavement altogether on my side. A rope walkway could run from the delapidated house at 316 Coldharbour eastwards round under the bridge as far as the de-licensed Brew shop near the corner of Lougborough Road. Tescos would have to relocate their entrance into Belinda Road - accessed via the closed arch on Ridgway Road.
> View attachment 78726
> The houses on Coldharbour could access the walkway at first floor level (as per the now demolished Angell Town walkway system). All wheelie bins would remain at ground level in the gutter - sharing spaces with parked cars and Tesco online service vehicles.
> 
> ...



Or instead of that, we could just stick with Crispy's suggestion, which would work just fine.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

Although given the weight of bus traffic, alternating bus lanes might be a better use of space (and would require no pavement alterations)

EDIT: A decent alternative cycle route could be made via Ridgway, Millbrook, Barrington and Brixton Station Roads. If continuous lanes were marked and it was well signed, I think it could be quite popular.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Has everyone done the online survey then? I notice that exactly half the 14 questions were about monitoring matters (meaning black/disabed etc).
> 
> I can't remember the questions - I should have printed it out. But wait - I have 2 computers on one router here and the second one is letting me into the survey, even though the first is saying "You have done this survey"
> 
> So you know now - go in and delete your cookies and you can take the survey over and over again.



You dont really want to do that they call it "Honey Pot Trapping"
SystemDetails.com - Locate your IP Address, Web Browser, Operating System, Internet Connection, and Computer Information

Trace My IP | IP Address Tracker | IP Tracer | Computer Hardware IP Location Apps


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

critical1 said:


> You dont really want to do that they call it "Honey Pot Trapping"
> SystemDetails.com - Locate your IP Address, Web Browser, Operating System, Internet Connection, and Computer Information
> 
> Trace My IP | IP Address Tracker | IP Tracer | Computer Hardware IP Location Apps


Blood hell clocks your browser and everything! Can't be many people on Opera 12.16 these days.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Or instead of that, we could just stick with Crispy's suggestion, which would work just fine.


What put me off about that was the council just *narrowed the road *(or haven't you been paying attention?)

Now you both want them to widen the road.

I can't afford this type of profligacy. Or would you prefer me to move out and leave the place to you (who apparently don't even live here).


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So schemes to diminish car use are actually designed to keep people buying cars. Makes complete sense. It's a false-flag operation by the cyclo-nazis, or something.



the figures are in this posted earlier in the thread........

New 65-plate takes UK new car registrations to September record - SMMT



> Gains were made across all market sectors – private, fleet and business – while petrol, diesel and alternatively-fuelled vehicles all saw increased demand. In line with typical performance so far this year, registrations of diesel and petrol cars in September grew *4.1%* and *12.3%* respectively, and alternatively-fuelled vehicles (AFVs) recorded another strong month with volumes up *21.7%.* This puts total year-to-date growth at *3.1%* for diesel*, 9.5%* for petrol and *48.7% for AFVs*.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> 10' is 3048mm
> 3m lanes are standard.
> 
> View attachment 78713
> ...



Slight flaw in the


irf520 said:


> I got a reply from the same person when I emailed in with my objections to the closure scheme.



Ditto, generic copy and paste job, didn't address any of the other questions, I had asked. Probably got a temp into clear everything


----------



## LadyV (Oct 29, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> So a question  where are the so called 11000 leaflets George Wright and Ian Baker said were going out last week as part of the review process ???



None delivered to Styles Gardens as of today, we'll probably get them on Saturday 7th and then it's our fault that we missed the survey!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> What put me off about that was the council just *narrowed the road *(or haven't you been paying attention?)
> 
> Now you both want them to widen the road.
> 
> I can't afford this type of profligacy. Or would you prefer me to move out and leave the place to you (who apparently don't even live here).



Well without all the car users to pay road tax, tax on petrol, tax on insurance etc etc, they'll be bugger all money to do this kind of thing anyway. It's all very demonising car users but they keep a hell of a lot of people in work and they contribute a good amount to the economy but that gets forgotten.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 29, 2015)

Winston Churchill cancelled 'road tax'. 

The rest of road building is paid by general taxation.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2015)

Just leaving this here to enrage the petrol-heads










Now we can spend the next 400 pages arguing about how to put a cost on those externalities.


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 29, 2015)

Maybe LadyV is alluding to the fact that companies involved in the various motor trades (design / research / manufacturing / distribution / servicing / etc... etc...) also pay Corporation Tax. They also employ staff who pay Income Tax / NI etc... etc.... . Oh, and to fan the flames of this argument we could also take a view on the Oil industry and the taxes raised in the extraction and production of fuel.... and their employees.

That must be worth another 400 pages...


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Now you both want them to widen the road.



There's no need to widen it, just get rid of the parking. PS I used to live in the area, so know it pretty well.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

3 to 5 billion in Noise Amenity?


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Ditto, generic copy and paste job, didn't address any of the other questions, I had asked. Probably got a temp into clear everything


By clear do you mean throw in the bin?


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2015)

teuchter made me find this. It's an absolute gem. A film from 1945 explaining the Abercrombie Plan for redesigning London. 
If you have no patience, the bit about roads is at 19.30 but it's the best public information film i've ever seen. 

The Proud City - YouTube"


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> There's no need to widen it, just get rid of the parking. PS I used to live in the area, so know it pretty well.


When I moved here there were no restrictions on parking at all. That was brought in for the benefit of the lady at 306 (in the late 1980s) who wanted to park her MG outside HER house. The family moved to Southwark about 10 years later.

Now you want to abolish our parking and you don't even live in the area. When I moved here that was called fuckry!


----------



## Crispy (Oct 29, 2015)

*shrug* I lived in the area a few years ago. I didn't need parking then. I now live further away from a bus stop/station than I did, have a child and I still don't need parking. It's not hard.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2015)

Crispy said:


> *shrug* I lived in the area a few years ago. I didn't need parking then. I now live further away from a bus stop/station than I did, have a child and I still don't need parking. It's not hard.


Its not hard but people have territorial rights IMHO.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Its not hard but people have territorial rights IMHO.


Too many people here I think (using CHL) for a very few of them to assert territorial rights over such big chunks of it.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> teuchter made me find this. It's an absolute gem. A film from 1945 explaining the Abercrombie Plan for redesigning London.
> If you have no patience, the bit about roads is at 19.30 but it's the best public information film i've ever seen.
> 
> The Proud City - YouTube"



The LCC & GLC were a thing  " We must reduce the number of people and industries in the capitals congested areas" @22:50


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> The LCC & GLC were a thing  " We must reduce the number of people and industries in the capitals congested areas" @22:50


I know! Did you watch the bit at the beginning about how they did their research before coming up with the great big plan to tidy the whole place up?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Its not hard but people have territorial rights IMHO.


Nobody has territorial rights over the public highway IMHO. The clue being in the word "public".


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Nobody has territorial rights over the public highway IMHO. The clue being in the word "public".


On that basis Teuchter, the highway should open to all - for free passage using whichever (legal) mode of transport the individual chooses. You can't have it both ways.
That also means no road closures.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Nobody has territorial rights over the public highway IMHO. The clue being in the word "public".


If it is made illegal to park on a road anywhere in Brixton/London/UK/Europe I will agree with you.
Meanwhile you encourage the traffic engineers to "disrupt" traffic for the common good and when that causes mayhem you pick off vulnerable spots to tell them they can no longer have full and proper access to their properties.

Tell that to the the oligarchs in Bishops Avenue you Stalinist. Don't preach to me - and tell me I must give up the right to be visited by British Gas or whoever.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> If it is made illegal to park on a road anywhere in Brixton/London/UK/Europe I will agree with you.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> View attachment 78764


Look at the state of the road BTW


----------



## AlexH (Oct 30, 2015)

Walton Lodge planning application recommended for approval with 13 private flats and zero social or affordable housing

So, here we have the G word again. When the demolition and construction begins CHL will be gridlocked with lorries and plant etc. Not the peaceful country idyll imagined by some posters on this thread.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> On that basis Teuchter, the highway should open to all - for free passage using whichever (legal) mode of transport the individual chooses. You can't have it both ways.
> That also means no road closures.


If a road is pedestrianised, it is open to all, using whichever legal mode of transport the individual chooses. In that instance a motor vehicle is not a legal mode of transport. The road is not closed to the driver of the vehicle. It is only the vehicle which is restricted.

On the other hand a road with motor traffic is not, in reality, open to all. Unless they want to risk their life they have to wait at designated points to get from one side to the other.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> If it is made illegal to park on a road anywhere in Brixton/London/UK/Europe I will agree with you.
> Meanwhile you encourage the traffic engineers to "disrupt" traffic for the common good and when that causes mayhem you pick off vulnerable spots to tell them they can no longer have full and proper access to their properties.
> 
> Tell that to the the oligarchs in Bishops Avenue you Stalinist. Don't preach to me - and tell me I must give up the right to be visited by British Gas or whoever.


I'm not telling you you must give up the right to be visited by British Gas. It's already been explained that it's perfectly possible to provide designated loading bays for exactly this purpose. Your problem is an imaginary one.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 30, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> Maybe LadyV is alluding to the fact that companies involved in the various motor trades (design / research / manufacturing / distribution / servicing / etc... etc...) also pay Corporation Tax. They also employ staff who pay Income Tax / NI etc... etc.... . Oh, and to fan the flames of this argument we could also take a view on the Oil industry and the taxes raised in the extraction and production of fuel.... and their employees.
> 
> That must be worth another 400 pages...



Exactly! Look at some of the local business in LJ, car repair shops, petrol stations, car wash etc etc, without the cars on the road, these wouldn't survive


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'm not telling you you must give up the right to be visited by British Gas. It's already been explained that it's perfectly possible to provide designated loading bays for exactly this purpose. Your problem is an imaginary one.


Yesterday evening it got to no parking at all. 
IMHO the first priority is to sort out the Herne Hill Road traffic light situation. If the road maintenance contracts weren't on Cost Plus - as if building a nuclear power station - that would have been done weeks ago anyway.
Next evaluate the true impact of Loughborough Road closure.
And fuck off taking away parking outside my house.

Meanwhile I am still a true believer in free access to Loughborough Road. And I also believe that a proper referendum in Loughborough Estate on access to THEIR road would be overwhelmingly in favour of it being OPEN.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

This just in from Zuber Bulbulia: 

 


!


----------



## Crispy (Oct 30, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Exactly! Look at some of the local business in LJ, car repair shops, petrol stations, car wash etc etc, without the cars on the road, these wouldn't survive


Won't somebody think of the blacksmiths and saddle makers?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

Its all a plot by the shape shifting lizards that were in Lambeth Town Hall - before they closed it to make it more reptilian. Get David Icke on the case - he at least should appreciate the environmental aspects of the situation.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> This just in from Zuber Bulbulia:
> 
> View attachment 78768
> 
> ...


 
we got ours, it's a black and white A5 flyer delivered with Lambethtalk


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 30, 2015)

We've got ours. Although with only a week to go before close, I don't think they'll have much time to service, fulfill (and receive back) any requests made for the paper copies......
Well done Lambeth. Again.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

Gosh. I can see now why it took them weeks to design.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> We've got ours. Although with only a week to go before close, I don't think they'll have much time to service, fulfill (and receive back) any requests made for the paper copies......
> Well done Lambeth. Again.
> View attachment 78771


Request a paper copy and see if it arrives exactly  on the 6th Nov or after...


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> We've got ours. Although with only a week to go before close, I don't think they'll have much time to service, fulfill (and receive back) any requests made for the paper copies......
> Well done Lambeth. Again.
> View attachment 78771


 

Looks like they've been photoshopping more bicycles into that image...


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 30, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Won't somebody think of the blacksmiths and saddle makers?



Maybe, but they didn't all disappear overnight and with horses came stable yards and horse-shit on the road - and you'd still take your life in your hands if you crossed in front of one of them. Maybe we should try and get them back. The saddlers could make handbags for well-heeled LJAGgers, and the blacksmiths make fancy gates and railings - or bespoke kitchen cupboard handles for the same crowd.

As LadyV says, LJ is a light-industrial area with a bias towards the motor industry. Lots of car/taxi repair workshops, car wash services, petrol station etc. You, LJAG and now the council may find them unsightly and not compatible with the transformation of LJ into a cafe society. Closing roads and the "gentrification" of LJ will kill these businesses and force these people to move away.

If that is the intention, then the Council, Network Rail (and LJAG) need to be upfront and clear that this is their vision. 
Go slowly, consult properly and compensate where necessary. Bring people with you.


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Request a paper copy and see if it arrives exactly  on the 6th Nov or after...


Good idea. Just called and requested. Voicemail for someone in Transport dept. Left a message requesting a paper copy be sent to my address. 

I'll let you all know when it turns up....


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> As LadyV says, LJ is a light-industrial area with a bias towards the motor industry. Lots of car/taxi repair workshops, car wash services, petrol station etc.


Yes. At a guess I'd say well over half the arches in the area (incl camberwell station road) are currently in use as car workshops of some kind.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Walton Lodge planning application recommended for approval with 13 private flats and zero social or affordable housing
> 
> So, here we have the G word again. When the demolition and construction begins CHL will be gridlocked with lorries and plant etc. Not the peaceful country idyll imagined by some posters on this thread.


Odd application on the same agenda (16th November Karibu 7.00 pm) to change to disused toilets at Clapham Old Town Polygon into a restaurant with ancillary toilets for TFL staff, disabled people and baby changing. 

Anything to avoid serving the general public. I hope Robert Goacher gets the chance to catch the planners short.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

critical1 said: ↑
Request a paper copy and see if it arrives exactly on the 6th Nov or after...



Burn:Cycle said:


> Good idea. Just called and requested. Voicemail for someone in Transport dept. Left a message requesting a paper copy be sent to my address.
> 
> I'll let you all know when it turns up....



I'm also going to do this once I receive a flyer notification, as yet non through my mailbox as I left home this morning, I may receive it on my return.

Most folk wont see it till they return home Friday evening... then comes Monday....


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I'm also going to do this once I receive a flyer notification, as yet non through my mailbox as I left home this morning, I may receive it on my return.


Have you had Pravda yet? It came with that this morning at mine.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> Maybe, but they didn't all disappear overnight and with horses came stable yards and horse-shit on the road - and you'd still take your life in your hands if you crossed in front of one of them. Maybe we should try and get them back. The saddlers could make handbags for well-heeled LJAGgers, and the blacksmiths make fancy gates and railings - or bespoke kitchen cupboard handles for the same crowd.
> 
> As LadyV says, LJ is a light-industrial area with a bias towards the motor industry. Lots of car/taxi repair workshops, car wash services, petrol station etc. You, LJAG and now the council may find them unsightly and not compatible with the transformation of LJ into a cafe society. Closing roads and the "gentrification" of LJ will kill these businesses and force these people to move away.
> 
> ...


Regarding the comments about handbags and fancy handles ... the car repair workshops near me often have an impressive colection of Rolls Royces, vintage sports cars and the like parked up waiting for attention.

Anyway, I don't want the workshops and light industrial to disappear and be replaced by cafes. They define what the locality is, and they provide employement. I don't spend very much time in cafes myself. I spent a fair bit of time arguing against the Higgs redevelopment for this reason. I want the industrial uses to stay but I also think the public realm at the heart of LJ could be much improved.

I recognise the potential for road alterations to affect these light industral uses. However my belief is that it doesn't need to be an either/or situation, which is what many are presenting it as. The road alterations can be designed in such a way that effects on these businesses are minimised. Ideally we would have the experimental period, gather some meaningful data on its effects, and then have a calm discussion about what those are, and make adjustments as necessary. If the results indicate that the proposals just can't be designed such that there are not unreasonable negative effects on local business then fair enough - I would not support them further.

Unfortunately there is probably zero chance that the above will be possible, partly because Lambeth have done everything in such a shambolic way, and partly because certain people have wound up the levels of hyperbole in the opposition so much that the whole thing has become too polarised for a proper discussion to take place. The opposition, or at least its most vocal proponents are not interested at all in any level of discussion, as was plainly clear at the recent meeting.

The LJroadmadness lot are actively making this a gentrification issue. My opinion is that if gentrification is going to occur (and it's probably inevitable) it's going to be driven by much more powerful forces than the effects of a partially pedestrianised area and some streetfront cafes. As with so many other issues in the gentrification debate, the symptoms are confused with the causes just because they are visible.

If the cafes and the rest of it are going to happen it'll be because of the current housing pressure and its financial implications. Refusing a traffic calming scheme isn't going to stop that happening. We'll still end up with the cafes and the increased prices - but with the same traffic-riven town centre when there could have ben a chance to change that.

The realistic way to protect the existing industry and associated employment is through planning policy. Response to planning applications, the masterplan currently in development. Argue for the expansion of the existing KIBAs.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 30, 2015)

Designated loading bays  oh yeh and then the ignorant morons who think they have every right to park in disabled bays, spaces for vehicles carrying children, etc etc  who are blatantly NOT one of those allowed to park there will take over those spaces, they are not scared of parking tickets.

Just received a leaflet and a pdf of the leaflet but the first part of the pdf file version is for the businesses  not that it requires name company postcode etc etc. Plus there are drop boxes at the end that are pointless on the hard copy version and no where to send them.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 30, 2015)

Would love to know where teuchter has the idea ljroadmadness are putting this forward as a  gentrification issue, don't see that on their leaflet or  implied by them at their public meeting. Latest leaflet is by "Friends of Loughborough Junction"  NOT ljroadmadness.
ljroadmadness are about "road closures" and the severe effectsbeing caused by them on many lives.
Get your facts right teuchter  tsk tsk


----------



## LadyV (Oct 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Unfortunately there is probably zero chance that the above will be possible, partly because Lambeth have done everything in such a shambolic way, and partly because certain people have wound up the levels of hyperbole in the opposition so much that the whole thing has become too polarised for a proper discussion to take place. The opposition, or at least its most vocal proponents are not interested at all in any level of discussion, as was plainly clear at the recent meeting.



Sadly I think you're right. My annoyance at the closure itself has pretty much gone, I still don't agree with the closure and long term would prefer the road open but at this stage I would be ok to see out the trial period as tbh there's won't be much of it left by the time all the relevant parties have faffed around.

Whatever anger and frustration I feel now is towards the way the whole thing was handled, you use the word shambolic and I think that sums it up so well. I doubt the idea of closures would ever have had a resounding yes from local population but now a good number of people are so wound up about the whole thing that there's no chance of a rational discussion. Added to that the waters have become so muddied with claims of gentrification and social cleansing that it puts any future support for non road related improvements in the area in jeopardy.



teuchter said:


> Refusing a traffic calming scheme isn't going to stop that happening



You refer to closing roads as a traffic calming measure, I imagine there are people at the council who think the same but traffic calming isn't closing roads in my mind, it's widening pavements, reducing parking or introducing CPZs, it's slowing the roads down with speed bumps etc. If we had just been looking at a traffic calming scheme, there still would have been moaners but they would have got on with it and moved on and then after a while they could have introduced closures if they were still necessary but we've gone beyond that now and I don't know how the council can pull back any form of support.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Latest leaflet is by "Friends of Loughborough Junction"  NOT ljroadmadness.


The leaflet imprint: _Friends of Loughborough Junction_ doesn't give an address/contact - on the other hand there are contact details (twice over) for LJ Road Madness.
If this were an election I think they would be assumed (by the returning officer) to be either the same thing - or campaigning jointly and therefore their expenses would be aggregated.
Just saying.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Would love to know where teuchter has the idea ljroadmadness are putting this forward as a  gentrification issue, don't see that on their leaflet or  implied by them at their public meeting. Latest leaflet is by "Friends of Loughborough Junction"  NOT ljroadmadness.
> ljroadmadness are about "road closures" and the severe effectsbeing caused by them on many lives.
> Get your facts right teuchter  tsk tsk


----------



## LadyV (Oct 30, 2015)

Does anyone have a contact at the Angell CCTV Partnership? Or know who runs it? I'm curious to know if they've sold out our one CCTV camera on the area by Ridgway Road and Wyck Gardens to Lambeth for the purpose of catching people driving through the pedestrian area. There are no new cameras in the area and that camera used to move around every few days to get different angles but it's been firmed angled in the direction of the CHL end of the pedestrian zone for the last 3 weeks.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Does anyone have a contact at the Angell CCTV Partnership? Or know who runs it? I'm curious to know if they've sold out our one CCTV camera on the area by Ridgway Road and Wyck Gardens to Lambeth for the purpose of catching people driving through the pedestrian area. There are no new cameras in the area and that camera used to move around every few days to get different angles but it's been firmed angled in the direction of the CHL end of the pedestrian zone for the last 3 weeks.


It's probably being used as a decoy. Doubt they've got the appropriate OCR software on that.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It's probably being used as a decoy. Doubt they've got the appropriate OCR software on that.



You might be right but it's annoying that it's being used in such a way when it's supposed to be making us feel safer etc. Plus it plays further into my general annoyance of the sheer incompetence of Lambeth Council. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, well If I can get my arse in gear and sort it out, I'm going to do a FOI request to Lambeth about the people they've caught and the fines they've given out, the times they've zapped people, how many have appealed due to appalling signage etc, I do think they've been completely negligent in doing all of it. I'm sure that they have missed out on thousands of pounds because they can't organise anything.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Have you had Pravda yet? It came with that this morning at mine.



No, they tend to deliver late, post 7pm or Saturday am! even not at all in the tower blocks... just leave a huge pile in the foyer! sometimes.


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> .. the car repair workshops near me often have an impressive colection of Rolls Royces, vintage sports cars and the like parked up waiting for attention.


Indeed, but I doubt (based on Lambeth demographics and car ownership stats) that all of them (or maybe any of them) are owned by LJ residents. They're more likely the toys of owners from Dulwich/Herne Hill and further afield.... bringing much needed employment to LJ



LadyV said:


> but traffic calming isn't closing roads in my mind, it's widening pavements, reducing parking or introducing CPZs


Agree totally with LadyV on this.

This is how it appears to me: The original consultation presented woolly open questions about improvements to the local environment. I expect very few people (had they received the document) would have rejected the concept of "improvements" to their neighbourhood and environment. It did NOT propose closure of roads.

The responses were then interpreted and manipulated by LJAG and George Wright into developing a plan for *their* vision of a new LJ. The biased nature of the original response (all those LCC respondents from outside the area), coupled with the highly-charged public meeting at Longfield Hall in October 2014 where Mr Wright admitted they had done no traffic analysis which they could use as a benchmark for measuring changes or the success of the plan - and had no money to do so, should have been a warning to the Council on the flawed nature of the plan and its implementation.

They are reaping what they sowed.

I would welcome streetscape improvements, raised tables, making junctions more pedestrian friendly, slowing traffic, managing parking. 
Road closures, as I have said in the past, are too blunt an instrument.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 78783








Interesting to note that this leaflet/flyer was not printed by LJ Road Madness it says clearly at the bottom *FRIENDS OF LOUGHBOROUGH JUNCTION *
I suppose this is how communities and alliances start by rallying for a cause.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> This is how it appears to me: The original consultation presented woolly open questions about improvements to the local environment. *I expect very few people (had they received the document) would have rejected the concept of "improvements" to their neighbourhood and environment.* It did NOT propose closure of roads.



Not sure about that. There are plenty of comments on this thread that equate "improvements" with gentrification and therefore to be resisted.

Also, if, say, the proposals had been to remove on-street parking, to allow bus/cycle lanes to be added, many people would still be up in arms. Again, as seen in comments in this thread.

The folk making these objections might not have been in the majority. But they might have been as vocal as the current ones. And we still have no way of knowing if those current complainers are really in the majority.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Interesting to note that this leaflet/flyer was not printed by LJ Road Madness it says clearly at the bottom *FRIENDS OF LOUGHBOROUGH JUNCTION *
> I suppose this is how communities and alliances start by rallying for a cause.


Maybe you should bring this to the attention of LJ Road Madness, so that they can clarify that they did not approve this leaflet, and do not wish to associate the road closures with gentrification?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Interesting to note that this leaflet/flyer was not printed by LJ Road Madness it says clearly at the bottom *FRIENDS OF LOUGHBOROUGH JUNCTION *
> I suppose this is how communities and alliances start by rallying for a cause.


I understand that many of the Labour leaflets delivered in Ferndale Ward when I stood there in 1982 were delivered by the WRP activists.
Nothing new here mate.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 78783


They are NOT ljroadmadness, the leaflet says at the bottom "Produced by Friends of Loughborough Junction"
I repeat
They are NOT ljroadmadness


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

To clarify - if the Friends of Loughborough Junction are a separate entity they should put a contact for themselves on the Imprint to avoid confusion. At least that is what happens in elections.

For the record:
*Using imprints*
What is an imprint?
1.25 An imprint must, by law, be added to campaign material to show who is responsible for its production. It helps to ensure that the campaign is transparent.
What do you need to include?
1.26 On printed material, such as leaflets and posters, you must include the name and address of:
 the printer
 the promoter
 any person on behalf of whom the material is being published (and who is not the promoter)
1.27 The promoter is the person who has authorised the material to be printed. If the promoter is acting on behalf of a group or organisation, the group or organisation’s name and address must also be included.
1.28 You can use either home or office addresses.
1.29 If you are putting an advert in a newspaper, your advert does not need to include the printer’s details.
Example of an imprint
1.30 A standard imprint for independent candidates should look like this:
Printed by [printer’s name and address].
Local elections > England and Wales > Candidates and
agents > Part 4 of 6
10
Promoted by [agent’s name] of [agent’s address], on behalf of [candidate’s name] of [candidate’s address].
1.31 If the candidate is also the promoter of the material, the ‘on behalf of’ part of the imprint is not required.
1.32 In all cases, you must make sure that the imprint lists all the promoters and organisations involved.
Where do you put the imprint?
1.33 If your material is single-sided – such as a window poster – you must put the imprint on the face of the document. If it is multi-sided, you must put it on the first or last page.
Websites and other electronic material
1.34 You should also put an imprint on electronic material, such as websites and emails. The imprint should include the name and address of the promoter and the organisation on whose behalf it has been produced.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> They are NOT ljroadmadness, the leaflet says at the bottom "Produced by Friends of Loughborough Junction"
> I repeat
> They are NOT ljroadmadness


Strange that this mysterious group didn't discuss the contents of their flyer with LJ road madness before printing "Loughborough Junction Road Madness" at the top of it. Maybe they hadn't heard of them and just coincidentally came up with the title?

Anyway, as I say this needs to be brought to the attention of LJRM so they can disassociate themselves with the messages in the leaflet.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Strange that this mysterious group didn't discuss the contents of their flyer with LJ road madness before printing "Loughborough Junction Road Madness" at the top of it. Maybe they hadn't heard of them and just coincidentally came up with the title?
> 
> Anyway, as I say this needs to be brought to the attention of LJRM so they can disassociate themselves with the messages in the leaflet.


Maybe its a guerilla campaign?


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

Friends Of Loughborough Junction sounds like it has potential to be something really good.
Maybe out of all this something positive will come. I'd like to join. I think something that is not LJAG and that is not a single issue group would be a great thing, much needed.
Here one more time is this ..the people looking for something exactly like Friends of LJ to fund & assist, specifically in coldharbour ward.
The London Community Foundation


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 30, 2015)

why? why should ljroadmadness sing to your hymn sheet teuchter?
it is NOT them.


----------



## LadyV (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Friends Of Loughborough Junction sounds like it has potential to be something really good.



Maybe but who are they? As Concerned1 seems very insistent to point out, they are nothing to do with the Road Madness lot, so who are they, a quick Google search brought up nothing but they've obviously got a bit of money to spend, double sided glossy cardboard leaflets don't come that cheap


----------



## LadyV (Oct 30, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> They are NOT ljroadmadness, the leaflet says at the bottom "Produced by Friends of Loughborough Junction"
> I repeat
> They are NOT ljroadmadness



Sorry but I certainly thought it was from LJRoadMadness, it has their contact details and says Road Madness in pretty big letters, it may be nothing to with them but I doubt anyone sees the "Produced by Friends of Loughborough Junction" line at the bottom!


----------



## LadyV (Oct 30, 2015)

Whilst doing a quick search for the mysterious Friends of Loughborough Junction group, was naturally presented by Google with the LJAG page. Not sure if anyone has posted it here already, apologies if they have but LJAG got a response from Lib Peck at Lambeth. Nothing new in the reply, all the usual nonsense they've been spouting for the last year but here you go

LJAG receive a response from Councillor Lib Peck with regard to experimental road closure | Loughborough Junction Action Group


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> why? why should ljroadmadness sing to your hymn sheet teuchter?
> it is NOT them.


Keep your hair on. I'm not demanding anything of them. It's up to them whether they want to do anything about their position being misrepresented. They might appreciate knowing about this leaflet, that's all.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

Look! Spot the difference.. top one is the image from todays' leaflet, bottom one is from the plan..


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 30, 2015)

Is it: 

"MY GOD! THE BIKES ARE BREEDING!"; or 
"We've narrowly avoided a head on collision between a car and a bus"?


----------



## LadyV (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Look! Spot the difference.. top one is the image from todays' leaflet, bottom one is from the plan..
> View attachment 78789 View attachment 78790



They've removed the road closure and cyclists from the other side of under the bridge and made it look all dark and unwelcoming, unlike the plan one where the road closure makes everything light and inviting!

Oh and they removed the car, they're not welcome!


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

Yep. Instead of vehicles we now have .. a man with a white coat on.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 30, 2015)

And the area's gained a lamp post.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Maybe you should bring this to the attention of LJ Road Madness, so that they can clarify that they did not approve this leaflet, and do not wish to associate the road closures with gentrification?



Nothing wrong with being proactive many a campaign has alliances such as LJAG and the cycle lobby! As for objections not being in the majority that says a lot about your perspective on 700+ vs 181 and now 3000+ vs !

Th point is democracy and consultations don't seem to be working in the co operative council, Lambeth as a body has failed to represent those it is elected to represent. I think alliances are made of this stuff... Good on you Friends of LJ and for raising the bar of the whole LJ Madness.

I remember back in the those days all the splinter groups outside Sth Africa House with a common purpose. Maybe Lambeth has moved out of the Town Hall and decentralised because those days are coming back...


----------



## Angellic (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yep. Instead of vehicles we now have .. a man with a white coat on.



What can it all mean?


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> And the area's gained a lamp post.


oh yeah. No lamp post in today's one. Looks like we've gained a big black chimney type thing above the estate though?


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

Angellic said:


> What can it all mean?


I think he's an outreach worker from the Maudsley the white coat bloke.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Maybe but who are they? As Concerned1 seems very insistent to point out, they are nothing to do with the Road Madness lot, so who are they, a quick Google search brought up nothing but they've obviously got a bit of money to spend, double sided glossy cardboard leaflets don't come that cheap


There was about 200 non laminated ones in the Peace Pharmacy when I went to gwet my prescription just now. If the pharmacy hadn't been playing Morris Cerello sermons (or similar) on their loudspeakers I might have had the presence of mind to ask for one instead of giving them a lecture on religion having ruined Syria. I have to go back on Monday so I'll get one them perhaps.

Peace Pharmacy is a bit out of the way from Loughborough Junction though. Come to think of it Costcutter at LJ also had a few.

Whoever is running the campaign either feels very strongly, or has money, or both. I think if I was running the campaign I would approach than well known local benefactor Jerry Knight for a contribution.


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yep. Instead of vehicles we now have .. a man with a white coat on.


No, he's doing a survey....


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 30, 2015)

LadyV said:


> They've removed the road closure and cyclists from the other side of under the bridge and made it look all dark and unwelcoming, unlike the plan one where the road closure makes everything light and inviting!
> 
> Oh and they removed the car, they're not welcome!


Nor are buses it seems.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> No, he's doing a survey....


I'd forgotten. Think today is the last day that stockwell partnership are 'roving around' trying to find people to talk to about the road closures. I wonder if anybody here been fortunate enough to spot one of them.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Nothing wrong with being proactive many a campaign has alliances such as LJAG and the cycle lobby! As for objections not being in the majority that says a lot about your perspective on 700+ vs 181 and now 3000+ vs !
> 
> Th point is democracy and consultations don't seem to be working in the co operative council, Lambeth as a body has failed to represent those it is elected to represent. I think alliances are made of this stuff... Good on you Friends of LJ and for raising the bar of the whole LJ Madness.
> 
> I remember back in the those days all the splinter groups outside Sth Africa House with a common purpose. Maybe Lambeth has moved out of the Town Hall and decentralised because those days are coming back...


We demand deselection NOW. I would even join the Labour party to get that.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Maybe but who are they? As Concerned1 seems very insistent to point out, they are nothing to do with the Road Madness lot, so who are they, a quick Google search brought up nothing but they've obviously got a bit of money to spend, double sided glossy cardboard leaflets don't come that cheap


No idea (wasn't me) but maybe they have just begun existing, some little coalition born out of this current situation that has potential to grow and become a meaningful thing?


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The leaflet is black and white. Stockwell Partnership can't afford colour printing thats all.


Are you hard of seeing?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Are you hard of seeing?


Its my "device"


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Whilst doing a quick search for the mysterious Friends of Loughborough Junction group, was naturally presented by Google with the LJAG page. Not sure if anyone has posted it here already, apologies if they have but LJAG got a response from Lib Peck at Lambeth. Nothing new in the reply, all the usual nonsense they've been spouting for the last year but here you go
> 
> LJAG receive a response from Councillor Lib Peck with regard to experimental road closure | Loughborough Junction Action Group


Maybe LJAG are the mysterious friends of Loughborough LJ


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

Been lookin


bimble said:


> I'd forgotten. Think today is the last day that stockwell partnership are 'roving around' trying to find people to talk to about the road closures. I wonder if anybody here been fortunate enough to spot one of them.


I have been looking not spotted one as yet. 

The whit coated scientist is doing a random sampling of cycles and people that travel through the junction it appears he has more research to do over the coming month to conclude 6mths worth of data, notice the new shops and demographic.... Wonder what happened to the old ones.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 30, 2015)

Actually on the original picture there are 2 cyclists in the background who have vanished on the leaflet and a tree has also vanished in the background of the leaflet. The "chimney" I think is a Big Brother cctv camera watching over the Junction  have to keep everyone safe.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

Sat here wondering what could have possessed the council to go back to that picture and remove all traces of motor vehicles from it- including the bus FFS. .
It's science fictiony, like a cheap black & white utopia from a future where all motorised transport has become obsolete.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> notice the new shops and demographic....


The new shop in the plan has always been the brewtique (this bit where it looks like someone lost in Shoreditch).




but I never expected it to actually exist already, an 'artisan bottled beer shop' ..  in Macclesfield. Brewtique
I'm enquiring whether or not they know about their plans to expand into LJ.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Sat here wondering what could have possessed the council to go back to that picture and remove all traces of motor vehicles from it- including the bus FFS. .
> It's science fictiony, like a cheap black & white utopia from a future where all motorised transport has become obsolete.


Various versions of the promo image will have been sent to them by the designers at various stages of the development process and someone will have saved them in a chaotic filing system, or not at all. 

So, when they were putting together the flyer, some council officer will have been asked "can you find the promo image for that Loughborough Junction scheme" and they will have looked into that chaotic filing system and taken something at random which may or may not be the latest version.

They might even have retrieved the image as an attachment to an email sent two years ago which says "please don't use this image for publication as it's just a preliminary version".

At least they have managed not to print some kind of pixelated or distorted disaster by failing to understand image resolution or proportional scaling. These are common fates for carefully crafted presentation images once out of the originator's control.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

I understand teuchter that you are a firm believer in ..  Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> The new shop in the plan has always been the brewtique (this bit where it looks like someone lost in Shoreditch).
> View attachment 78796
> but I never expected it to actually exist already, an 'artisan bottled beer shop' ..  in Macclesfield. Brewtique
> I'm enquiring whether or not they know about their plans to expand into LJ.


They'll have to perk up if they do. "Live Jazz" until 3 pm???
People round here don't get up until 3 pm.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 30, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Is it:
> 
> "MY GOD! THE BIKES ARE BREEDING!"; or
> "We've narrowly avoided a head on collision between a car and a bus"?



There are bikes all over the pavement and on the wrong side of CHL - the traffic lights for the junction have disappared!  Where is all the traffic along CHL itself.  How are southern cyclists going to make across to LR? Is it a real-life Frogger game? Squish.


----------



## AlexH (Oct 30, 2015)

LadyV said:


> They've removed the road closure and cyclists from the other side of under the bridge and made it look all dark and unwelcoming, unlike the plan one where the road closure makes everything light and inviting!
> 
> Oh and they removed the car, they're not welcome!


And the traffic lights, and the traffic along CHL (all vanished apparently). Please pray for me as I attempt to cycle across from Hinton Road to get to the idyll of LR itself. Maybe I'll just have to dash across, hopefully no pedestrians in the way....


----------



## AlexH (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think he's an outreach worker from the Maudsley the white coat bloke.


No presumably it's to show how he will now get to work.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 30, 2015)

AlexH said:


> There are bikes all over the pavement and on the wrong side of CHL



There's one bike on the pavement where someone isn't cycling and appears to have stopped to use their phone.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Various versions of the promo image will have been sent to them by the designers at various stages of the development process and someone will have saved them in a chaotic filing system, or not at all.
> 
> So, when they were putting together the flyer, some council officer will have been asked "can you find the promo image for that Loughborough Junction scheme" and they will have looked into that chaotic filing system and taken something at random which may or may not be the latest version.
> 
> ...


More like  Chaotic Lambeth yet again if the above is to be believed...


----------



## CH1 (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think he's an outreach worker from the Maudsley the white coat bloke.


They don't do that now. Patients have to present at A & E [I could get the appropriate documents from Lambeth's website, but that would be tedious. The Councillor responsible for monitoring this is James Chadderton Dixon (Herne Hill). I'm not sure that it was him who introduced it though. That could even have been Donatus Anyanwu (Coldharbour) though doubtless he was implementing Labour cuts (i.e. rationalisation) policy at the time either national or local. 

Raw nerve. Emergency clinic. Dead. Like some patients. I'm sure Dexter would agree if he wasn't calling me a Tory.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Look! Spot the difference.. top one is the image from todays' leaflet, bottom one is from the plan..
> 
> View attachment 78791



The fuckers have changed their font on the bridge. Crazy!


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 30, 2015)

LMAO  I really hope Cllr Brathwaite, George Wright and co all see this leaflet and all the above dissection
of it.
Does the word junction even apply according to this picture?   I notice the Bill board has reappeared so the new proposed build  has vanished. Someone must have objected and Planning rejected the plans.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> The fuckers have changed their font on the bridge. Crazy!


Exactly! They've gotten all bold about it. At least its stopped being bright pink.


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

This is a very careful response I got today to a question about the police's position with regard to publicisisng their views on the experiment


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Does the word junction even apply according to this picture?


We have been through this already. I thought we might have achieved a Learning Outcome but it seems not.


----------



## Rupert (Oct 30, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> The fuckers have changed their font on the bridge. Crazy!


more interestingly/worryingly  they have removed the Bus and the parked? car + added 2 cyclists


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> oh yeah. No lamp post in today's one. Looks like we've gained a big black chimney type thing above the estate though?


Thats the CCTV on the stick I think, it's been poorly photo edited.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> The new shop in the plan has always been the brewtique (this bit where it looks like someone lost in Shoreditch).
> 
> 
> 
> ...







The real deal even has tables and chairs outside, looks great eh!


If this is the type of image and ethos used to support the closures.. Why would you not think GENTRIFICATION?


----------



## bimble (Oct 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> The real deal even has tables and chairs outside, looks great eh!
> 
> 
> If this is the type of image and ethos used to support the closures.. Why would you not think GENTRIFICATION?



I haven't heard back yet from the owners of the actual Brewtique as to whether or not they authorised Lambeth Council to use their logo etc but it is clear that they are a sock free environment. No socks lots of bunting.  That's where we're headed people.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 30, 2015)

And just a short reminder... in case anyone gets the hump about allegations of GENTRIFICATION or are in DENIAL...



concerned1 said:


> The working class Council tenants were NOT leafletted about the consultation for Road closures
> The working class Council tenants  did  NOT have their petition against the proposed road closures accepted by the Council
> The working class Council tenants were NOT allowed to speak at the Call In by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel
> The working class Council tenants were NOT told about the car free event last Saturday and the consultation for a "Parklet"
> The working class Council tenants  are  NOT the only people who are angry,upset, worried, stressed etc about the road closures it is all classes, all ages.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2015)

error


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Last leaflet I got from Loughborough Junction Road Madness says:
> "Today the ROADS"
> "Tomorrow your homes"
> Implies gentrification is the issue.
> ...


Notwithstanding that I am a firm advocate of roads being used for their intended purpose, I would go further than Gramsci on this

To say "today the roads, tomorrow your homes" is UKIP style demagoguey. (or worse - I was thinking about the Smethwick quote, but I expect no-one reading this knows what I mean fortunately).

I think the leaflet was strongly stated, but went over the top in that particular statement. As a liberal I like things kept honest and reasonable.

The Cressingham Gardens campaign need your help - not being used as a tool to frighten Loughborough residents over road closures.
If Cressingham Gardens push back against the council's plans successfully that helps Loughborough. If Cressingham Gardens cannot stop the council's current plans that sets back Loughborough a lot more than any barmy road scheme.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Notwithstanding that I am a firm advocate of roads being used for their intended purpose, I would go further than Gramsci on this
> 
> To say "today the roads, tomorrow your homes" is UKIP style demagoguey. (or worse - I was thinking about the Smethwick quote, but I expect no-one reading this knows what I mean fortunately).
> 
> ...



I have only been catching up on this thread as my computer died for last week or so. Back on life support.

Deleted original post as on closer reading it now appears the "Friends of LJ" are not the same as LJ Road Madness.

I haven’t read this thread for a week and come back to find all this really getting nasty.

Also disheartening to now see , after just catching up, that appears some posters are now moved to oppose traffic reduction.

Really would like LJ Road Madness campaign to disassociate themselves from this leaflet if they think its wrong.  As the impression I got from talking to supporters is that gentrification and middle class LJAG are an issue for them- linked to road closures as an aspect of that.

Not sure what u mean by Cressingham needing my help.

Im only repeating what local Council tenants on estate say to me. Its not a "tool used to frighten LJ residents". Its what LJ Estate Council tenants have said to me. The ones Ive talked to (correctly imo) see Council housing as under threat. They also link this road closure project to gentrication. They see Pop and whats happening to Brixton as what could happen to LJ. The Council tenants Ive talked to are well aware of whats happening in Lambeth in other areas of it. I hardly need to use Cressingham as "tool to frighten them" they know what its all about. Its Council estate residents of the Estate who go onto me about Pop- not me who brings it up.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I haven’t read this thread for a week and come back to find all this really getting nasty.
> Not sure what u mean by Cressingham needing my help.
> Im only repeating what local Council tenants on estate say to me. Its not a "tool used to frighten LJ residents". Its what LJ Estate Council tenants have said to me. The ones Ive talked to (correctly imo) see Council housing as under threat. They also link this road closure project. They see Pop and whats happening to Brixton as what could happen to LJ. The Council tenants Ive talked to are well aware of whats happening in Lambeth in other areas of it.


I mean that the people putting out the leaflet should be supporting Cressingham not suggesting that the road closure is a prelude to a Cressingham situation in order to alarm Loughborough Estate residents into linking these separate issues.

There is a danger that this thread could degenerate into a Pop Brixton thread. But I don't think so. It is on a very specific issue and the issue is still subject to democratic decision ( one hopes). And I don't think people have been personally abusive.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 31, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I mean that the people putting out the leaflet should be supporting Cressingham not suggesting that the road closure is a prelude to a Cressingham situation in order to alarm Loughborough Estate residents into linking these separate issues.
> 
> There is a danger that this thread could degenerate into a Pop Brixton thread. But I don't think so. It is on a very specific issue and the issue is still subject to democratic decision ( one hopes). And I don't think people have been personally abusive.



Not how I see it.

But I am going on my off line conversations with locals from the Council estate. One of the more positive things is the dislike of Pop thats voiced. Without me bringing it up. As some of  us have repeatedly said on Pop thread -  that people on estates aren’t happy with Pop. And been not believed. 

I don’t see it as specific issue. There are a whole host of issues in this road closure "experiment". As the arguments/ discussion on this thread show.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2015)

The Brewtique in Macclesfield is presently undecided about whether to be annoyed or flattered by being transplanted into LJ.


----------



## critical1 (Oct 31, 2015)

I want to live in Milton Keynes....


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I want to live in Milton Keynes....


It's not come to that yet surely. I do remember watching this as a kid and thinking it looked great


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 31, 2015)

bimble said:


> It's not come to that yet surely. I do remember watching this as a kid and thinking it looked great



Great. forgotten that. 
Reminds me of our school trip to MK done as part of our O Level Geography syllabus....was around the same time.


----------



## concerned1 (Oct 31, 2015)

The response to LJAG by Lib Peck:

The review will also take into account;

·  Traffic survey counts (including speed and volume surveys from 23 locations, and video surveys at six locations to assess the changes in volumes of motor traffic and cycling)

·  Review of traffic flows (using the Council’s CCTV system to carry out a review of traffic flows on the key route of Coldharbour Lane.)

·  Review of road safety issues

·  Feedback from emergency services and King’s College Hospital

·  Feedback from TfL

·  Feedback from Southwark Council

·  Feedback from Lambeth Cyclists

·  A summary of all representations sent as part of the statutory consultation

·  Evidence of impact on businesses (via face to face consultation by the Stockwell Partnership, including the business survey mentioned earlier)

·  Evidence of impact on residents (via the ongoing Stockwell Partnership engagement)

·  Analysis of crime data

The final decision on whether to proceed will be made by the Cabinet Member and will be based on a comprehensive report which will include officer recommendations. It is hoped that this will be available by mid-November and all evidence collected, as well as the full report, will be published openly online.

Well this sounds very democratic  thousands of people have signed an online and a paper petition and have emailed in thousands of emails to the Cllrs, MP's, Officers and ljroadmadness and they are going to take feedback of 100 survey's gathered on the street ..... what business survey earlier?  odd how the emergency services do not seem to have had any actual consultations with Lambeth Council, review of cctv systems of traffic flow  huh? crime data  based on what?		more porkie pies?


----------



## critical1 (Oct 31, 2015)

bimble said:


> It's not come to that yet surely. I do remember watching this as a kid and thinking it looked great



I rmember this Lambeth was promoting this heavily to residents... I always thought life was better there, but alas was not to be... Now I've been there it was a good thing I didnt go..


----------



## critical1 (Oct 31, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> The response to LJAG by Lib Peck:
> 
> The review will also take into account;
> 
> ...



There area LOT more to come.. *Lambeth likes making Pork Pies*, just ask Kate Hoey MP.


----------



## Burn:Cycle (Oct 31, 2015)

Also.. in BREAKING NEWS... my call yesterday afternoon (around midday) to the "paper copy survey hotline" - where I left a _voicemail _asking to receive a paper copy of the most recent online survey as advertised in yesterday's flyer drop - has ALREADY generated the required result... landed on the doorstep today, before 12.
 

So it appears that;
- they do listen to their voicemail system
- they do act on messages received (sometimes!)
- They can turn requests around inside 24 hours. Even on a Friday.
- Organisation at Lambeth council isn't quite the bottomless pit we all reckon it is.

.... or perhaps I was lucky and stumbled upon the one person who is super efficient and capable of delivering excellent customer service....


----------



## critical1 (Oct 31, 2015)

Burn:Cycle said:


> Also.. in BREAKING NEWS... my call yesterday afternoon (around midday) to the "paper copy survey hotline" - where I left a _voicemail _asking to receive a paper copy of the most recent online survey as advertised in yesterday's flyer drop - has ALREADY generated the required result... landed on the doorstep today, before 12.
> View attachment 78854
> 
> So it appears that;
> ...



That is ABSOLUTELY AMAZING, well done Lambeth, I phoned them up today, I wonder if they deliver on a Sunday!

Last night I saw this in the foyer, not much of a consultation... Dumping them like this.
Lambeth said that these leaflets would be delivered to every home.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> ·  Evidence of impact on businesses (via face to face consultation by the Stockwell Partnership, including the business survey mentioned earlier)
> 
> ·  Evidence of impact on residents (via the ongoing Stockwell Partnership engagement)



Those are the bullet points that really worry me.
Seems they are saying that the only evidence they're planning to take into consideration with regard to local residents and businesses is the evidence gathered by Stockwell Partnership, during the few hours they spent 'roving around'.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2015)

Good or  bad news. I spent most of the day over in Wimbledon Park then Clapham Junction.
Terrible journey back from CJ Lidl. 35 bus diverted. St John's Road closed eastbound. Buses on major divertion.
Also new? pelican crossing across Wandsworth Road at Debenhams.
It was almost as though G Wright was on loan to Wandsworth Council.
Journey time from Arthur Road to Coldharbour Lane including 10 minutes shopping in Lidl - 2 hours. Tailbacks from Debenams/Falcon crossroads to the former Granda Bingo yuppy flats building on St John's Hill, the Asparagus Pub on Falcon Road/Battersea High Street and Lavender Hill Police Station.

I only say this to explain how when I arrived home it was like being in a traffic free rural paradise. Even in central Brixton.

Have they fixed those lights - or is the whole world watching something called the Rugby World Cup?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Notwithstanding that I am a firm advocate of roads being used for their intended purpose, I would go further than Gramsci on this
> 
> To say "today the roads, tomorrow your homes" is UKIP style demagoguey. (or worse - I was thinking about the Smethwick quote, but I expect no-one reading this knows what I mean fortunately).



Frankly, I don't believe that Gramsci is being alarmist or engaging in demagoguery. It's entirely possible for councils to vary a scheme so deeply that peoples homes are threatened. Today I've looked at proposals that lists properties bordering on Cressingham Gardens as "possible acquisition opportunities" for the "regeneration" of the estate - something the 30 or so households now threatened know nothing about, yet. 



> I think the leaflet was strongly stated, but went over the top in that particular statement. As a liberal I like things kept honest and reasonable.



So, unlike your party, then? 



> The Cressingham Gardens campaign need your help - not being used as a tool to frighten Loughborough residents over road closures.
> If Cressingham Gardens push back against the council's plans successfully that helps Loughborough. If Cressingham Gardens cannot stop the council's current plans that sets back Loughborough a lot more than any barmy road scheme.



Gramsci has already rendered assistance to us. For some reason he doesn't confine himself to a single issue at a time, and appears to have enough energy and compassion to engage himself on more than one project at a time. Fancy that!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Good or  bad news. I spent most of the day over in Wimbledon Park then Clapham Junction.
> Terrible journey back from CJ Lidl. 35 bus diverted. St John's Road closed eastbound. Buses on major divertion.
> Also new? pelican crossing across Wandsworth Road at Debenhams.
> It was almost as though G Wright was on loan to Wandsworth Council.
> ...



Clapham Junction has been like that during "peak shopping hours" on a Saturday since (to my memory) at least the '80s. Crossing Falcon Rd from the Falcon Pub to Dub Vendor used to be taking your life in your hands, as drivers would try to sprint through momentary traffic gaps. It's not helped by the fact that so many of the side roads that used to naturally "filter" the traffic flow, have been one-wayed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I want to live in Milton Keynes....



You poor sick bastard!


----------



## critical1 (Oct 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> peoples homes are threatened. Today I've looked at proposals that lists properties bordering on Cressingham Gardens as "possible acquisition opportunities" for the "regeneration" of the estate - something the 30 or so households now threatened know nothing about, yet.



Yes LJAG in the LJ Masterplan also went around stating "possible acquisition opportunities" or "possible development opportunities" ... these kind of statements have an impact when local residents read them. Are LJAG property developers, are Lambeth the new Foxtons??? with a *SPV, *are they fit to run a company?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Frankly, I don't believe that Gramsci is being alarmist or engaging in demagoguery. It's entirely possible for councils to vary a scheme so deeply that peoples homes are threatened. Today I've looked at proposals that lists properties bordering on Cressingham Gardens as "possible acquisition opportunities" for the "regeneration" of the estate - something the 30 or so households now threatened know nothing about, yet.


The comment was not directed at Gramsci in the way that you (and he) have concluded.
I felt that the wording of the LJ Road Madness (or Friends of Loughborough Junction) leaflet implying that now they are coming for Loughborough Estate's main road, next it will be their very homes was irresponsible and alarmist.

Gramsci did not do the leaflet did he? I doubt it, otherwise he would be taking a much more anti road closure line than heretofore. Althouh no doubt he can post his own comment. I do not presume to speak for him. 

The clarification in post #2632 explained this.

I used a small l liberal by the way - and this was an admittedly slightly provocative comment, but I had not expected it was you who would be provoked.
Given that I mention Cressingham twice in the next para it is not surprising though. Sorry you did not like it. 

As for your comment about my party - though I don't have one technically, and the way Liberal Democrats have followed the trend in contracterisation, PFI etc without bothering to see what that is rooted in has been their downfall I feel. When I joined the Liberal Party as a student in 1972 they were a trendy libertarian outfit which sat more easily with flower power, gay rights, anti-racism etc than the Labour Party (or for that matter Soc Soc which ruled Manchester University union at that time).

I am happy to politically reminisce with you over a cup of tea - but I am sure you have more pressing concerns. And I wish you all the best at the hearing. And apologise I have not given other than moral support to your cause. I am know other friends such as High Definition have done much more than me.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Clapham Junction has been like that during "peak shopping hours" on a Saturday since (to my memory) at least the '80s. Crossing Falcon Rd from the Falcon Pub to Dub Vendor used to be taking your life in your hands, as drivers would try to sprint through momentary traffic gaps. It's not helped by the fact that so many of the side roads that used to naturally "filter" the traffic flow, have been one-wayed.


Adding the road closure and bus divertion was obviously the icing on the cake. Had I had the prescience of some members (not you!!) of this thread I would have gone back the way I arrived in SW19 - Thameslink. Just that had 30 minute train frequency and stopping off for shopping seemed more problematic for that reason.


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2015)

CH1 said:


> As a liberal I like things kept honest and reasonable.


Just for fun.. may I direct you to this? .. The word Liberal as an insult.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yes LJAG in the LJ Masterplan also went around stating "possible acquisition opportunities" or "possible development opportunities" ... these kind of statements have an impact when local residents read them. Are LJAG property developers, are Lambeth the new Foxtons??? with a *SPV, *are they fit to run a company?



It's worse than merely "a company". As you might have guessed, at Cressingham we've boned up on what Lambeth are doing, and their plan is that the SPV will most likely be an "umbrella" for a series of inter-related companies.
Are they fit to run a company? I'm not encouraged given current levels of competence.


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's worse than merely "a company". As you might have guessed, at Cressingham we've boned up on what Lambeth are doing, and their plan is that the SPV will most likely be an "umbrella" for a series of inter-related companies.
> Are they fit to run a company? I'm not encouraged given current levels of competence.



Just in relation to the road closures, I don't see any obvious way in which this is a money maker for the council (apart from the fines but it doesn't look like they've even cashed in very competently on that so far). 
The only people far as I can see who would benefit directly if the scheme remains in place are Network Rail.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 1, 2015)

critical1 said:


> That is ABSOLUTELY AMAZING, well done Lambeth, I phoned them up today, I wonder if they deliver on a Sunday!
> 
> Last night I saw this in the foyer, not much of a consultation... Dumping them like this.
> Lambeth said that these leaflets would be delivered to every home.
> ...


I have to say that this is quite a large stack of Leaflets just left lying about.

No wonder hardly anyone received leaflets last year!


----------



## critical1 (Nov 1, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> I have to say that this is quite a large stack of Leaflets just left lying about.
> 
> No wonder hardly anyone received leaflets last year!



Well that was for one tower block, if you estimate that each block has about 240 adult residents that's a lot of lost consultation papers, It is of no surprise residents don't get notified if these are left lying with the junk mail...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> Just in relation to the road closures, I don't see any obvious way in which this is a money maker for the council (apart from the fines but it doesn't look like they've even cashed in very competently on that so far).
> The only people far as I can see who would benefit directly if the scheme remains in place are Network Rail.



Road closure/traffic calming changes the profile and use of an area.
As for benefit for the council, more active arches, more people paying business rates; more residential, more Council Tax take.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 1, 2015)

How can destroying businesses in the LJ area and increasing rents on Arches bring money in for Lambeth Council?  Now the meaningful Town Centre is a Polluted Traffic Jam, what businesses could possibly survive with the roads closed. There are already active businesses there that have paid rent/ rates for over 25 years and more and will be forced out by the lack of trade reaching them! So how would others prosper and from whom?
Or are we implying gentrifiying the area?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 1, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yes LJAG in the LJ Masterplan also went around stating "possible acquisition opportunities" or "possible development opportunities" ... these kind of statements have an impact when local residents read them. Are LJAG property developers, are Lambeth the new Foxtons??? with a *SPV, *are they fit to run a company?


You jogged me into a company house check, which reveals that a new director with an address in Huddersfield joined the LJAG board in the summer. Three others had resigned - which fits what I said earlier.


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Road closure/traffic calming changes the profile and use of an area.
> As for benefit for the council, more active arches, more people paying business rates; more residential, more Council Tax take.


Yes, true. It's just that as Network Rail are intending to triple the rents , just like down the road, they look to me like the most immediate beneficiaries of the 'changed profile'.


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Well that was for one tower block, if you estimate that each block has about 240 adult residents that's a lot of lost consultation papers, It is of no surprise residents don't get notified if these are left lying with the junk mail...



Re the delivery system for those consultation leaflets.. someone posted this on facebook on Friday, a folorn looking pile of them left out in the rain on cambria rd.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, true. It's just that as Network Rail are intending to triple the rents , just like down the road, they look to me like the most immediate beneficiaries of the 'changed profile'.



Of course GENTRIFICATION has absolutely nothing at all to do with this new profile...


----------



## bimble (Nov 1, 2015)

I'm resisting the G word, will keep doing it too so there (think its possible to see the whole thing just through the economics of it if you know what I mean: Massively increased rents = the car mechanics must be replaced by cafes etc . Or maybe I just don't like the word because I'm worried that I'm gentry.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 1, 2015)

bimble said:


> Re the delivery system for those consultation leaflets.. someone posted this on facebook on Friday, a folorn looking pile of them left out in the rain on cambria rd.
> View attachment 78935



That pile is about 3 courses of bricks high, so I reckon 1500-2000 leaflets there.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2015)

Clare Neely out at the junction this morning distributing these:


Haya87 is a worthy adversary (as a self styled professional campaigner) but really, this thing of calling all vehicles 'rats' and promoting the idea that it's all about 'creating space for cycling' those are crude tricks IMO.


----------



## prunus (Nov 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> Clare Neely out at the junction this morning distributing these:
> View attachment 78973
> 
> Haya87 is a worthy adversary (as a self styled professional campaigner) but really, this thing of calling all vehicles 'rats' and promoting the idea that it's all about 'creating space for cycling' those are crude tricks IMO.



You must know that rat-run is a common term to describe using side streets to bypass traffic - it's not calling all vehicles rats. Don't fall into the trap of attacking everything the other side does with overblown rhetoric - it's no less a 'dirty trick' than those you are decrying. You're usually one of the reasonable ones on this thread


----------



## prunus (Nov 2, 2015)

This morning's anecdotal datapoint: school's back in and the traffic was fine on chl when I went in.

There seems to be much less on Milkwood road and Herne hill road too - although that is just a feeling, could be observation bias (ie I never used to take much notice).

I think the scheme might actually be delivering its main objective. Even sadder then that the divisive implementation looks to make it unlikely to survive.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 2, 2015)

Gramsci is right. It's gotten really unpleasant and personal in here. And slightly hysterical (someone uses the phrase 'rat run' and there's meldown). It's disappointing.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> Clare Neely out at the junction this morning distributing these:
> View attachment 78973
> 
> Haya87 is a worthy adversary (as a self styled professional campaigner) but really, this thing of calling all vehicles 'rats' and promoting the idea that it's all about 'creating space for cycling' those are crude tricks IMO.


I admire her indefatigability.

Why is she using a Twitter abbreviated link to the Lambeth/Stockwell survey?

This is actually quite exciting - reminds me of growing up in rural Suffolk where the Tory and Labour parties used to drive the punters to the polling station, stick a party poll card in their hands and push them inside to vote.

Maybe Clare has the same rustic memories?


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2015)

prunus said:


> You must know that rat-run is a common term to describe using side streets to bypass traffic - it's not calling all vehicles rats. Don't fall into the trap of attacking everything the other side does with overblown rhetoric - it's no less a 'dirty trick' than those you are decrying. You're usually one of the reasonable ones on this thread


This is true, I do strive to appear reasonable and rational most of the time.
I'll defend myself thus: Lougborough Road is not a side street, it's the biggest street in the area, which is why I don't think the 'rat running' term is useful at all to describe the traffic that used to use it. It still seems to me that this experiment has created rather than solved rat running problems.
If the leaflet above just said 'closed to traffic', or even 'closed to through traffic' that would have been fair, but 'rat running motor traffic' just seems unnecessary and unaccurate.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2015)

prunus said:


> This morning's anecdotal datapoint: school's back in and the traffic was fine on chl when I went in.
> 
> There seems to be much less on Milkwood road and Herne hill road too - although that is just a feeling, could be observation bias (ie I never used to take much notice).
> 
> I think the scheme might actually be delivering its main objective. Even sadder then that the devisive implementation looks to make it unlikely to survive.



If you're right - meaning  if a significant amount of the people who made up the reported 10,000 to 13,000 vehicles that once used Loughborough Road have in fact decided to stop driving through the area and found alternatives instead - so that the weight of traffic on CHL will indeed be reduced and not increased by these closures then I will (I promise) do my best to forgive the implementation fiasco and humbly eat my anti-road closure hat.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 2, 2015)

prunus said:


> This morning's anecdotal datapoint: school's back in and the traffic was fine on chl when I went in.
> 
> There seems to be much less on Milkwood road and Herne hill road too - although that is just a feeling, could be observation bias (ie I never used to take much notice).
> 
> I think the scheme might actually be delivering its main objective. Even sadder then that the divisive implementation looks to make it unlikely to survive.



I'm not sure that they are all back actually, there wasn't nearly as many kids out when I went to work at my normal time and I usually see a fair amount. Although I did hear whispers on the bus about inset days but that could be a red herring


----------



## Crispy (Nov 2, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Why is she using a Twitter abbreviated link to the Lambeth/Stockwell survey?


Because it's shorter to copy off a printed flyer?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 2, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Because it's shorter to copy off a printed flyer?


First time I copied into my PC from that post up thread I got number unobtainable (because I mistook a O for a 0 if you know what I mean). I expected the ubiquitous square thingy that people scan into their iphones.[not that would have helped me]

Given the state of the traffic today maybe its a shame I already voted. All sweetness and light out there this morning from 8 am until now.

They have of course completed their works on the traffic lights - including another Pelican crossing outside LJ station.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 2, 2015)

I'm  still aware of being kettled in...


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 2, 2015)

I will not be eating any hats. People are suffering due to transport having to travel further afield to get in and out of the areas.
As for the Clare Neely leaflet  is this now another reason they have just invented for why the roads have been closed ? Space for Cycling!
 George Wright was told the first time round the leaflets they send out are NOT delivered to households. The pile in Cambria road and dumped in a foyer prove this again. Wonder where else they have been dumped?


----------



## LadyV (Nov 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> Re the delivery system for those consultation leaflets.. someone posted this on facebook on Friday, a folorn looking pile of them left out in the rain on cambria rd.
> View attachment 78935



I'm sure you probably have already but I think you should send these pictures to all the usual players and maybe also put it on social media? I think it's time some of this incompetence gets called out in a more public arena, maybe Lambeth can be embarrassed into getting something right.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 2, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Because it's shorter to copy off a printed flyer?


But there's also more chance of getting it wrong, as proved by CH1. It's so lazy of her to copy and paste off a tweet, I expected better, obviously hasn't quite grasped the difference between online social media comms and printed comms


----------



## irf520 (Nov 2, 2015)

Well, having emailed a number of councillors and my local MP about this, today I received the following response:

Dear Mr. X

*Case* *########*

I am writing to give you our response to your complaint received on 27/10/ 2015 regarding Loughborough Road junction Closure. This matter has been passed to me as the Performance and Development Officer responsible for investigation and reply. Before I respond to your specific concerns, I would like to assure you all complaints about Lambeth Council and the services we provide are treated seriously and are used as an opportunity for us to improve our services and to ensure lessons are learnt.
In Line with our usual procedure, I have asked George Wright, The Senior Project Manager to assess the circumstances relating to the matter you have complained about. With this now complete, I have based my response on his findings.

As part of an eight week review we’re seeking views on the experimental road closures in the Loughborough Junction area and we want to hear from you. Please visit our web page via the link below and complete the survey to let us know what you think.

*http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/housing/regeneration/loughborough-junction-what-you-need-to-know*

Please feel free to share the link with anyone you think may wish to comment on these road closures.

The survey will close on Friday 6 November 2015.

If you’d like to request a paper copy of the survey, please email us at *environment@lambeth.gov.uk*or call us on *020 7926 0209.*

The experimental road closures in Loughborough Junction are about creating a safer and more pleasant public space, reducing traffic and improving the environment.  We are keeping the scheme under constant review and we know the strength of feeling on this issue.  We will take into account all views expressed to us, both positive and negative, along with traffic counts from surrounding roads, air quality data and consultation results from an independent, community engagement charity.

Consultation prior to the road closures was comprehensive, with around 11,000 residents and businesses contacted and our officers are in on-going dialogue with Transport for London, the emergency services and community representatives. Now that the scheme is in place we will respond to concerns - we want to ensure that it is given a proper chance to succeed, and we will take mitigating actions where possible.

Following feedback from residents and local councillors, Lambeth council will bring forward its planned review of the experimental road closures in Loughborough Junction.

The review had been planned to take place after twelve (12) weeks, however it will now happen after eight (8) weeks. Traffic data will be examined and all feedback will be listened to – from ward councillors, residents, campaign groups and businesses. Dialogue is on-going with representatives from Transport for London and the emergency services and their views will also inform the review.

The pedestrianisation and road closures have been introduced experimentally with a view to reviewing the scheme at 3 and 6 months intervals. Your objection/representation has been passed to the project manager and will be considered as part of this process.

In the interim if you have any additional comments or require any additional information, please contact either Barbara Poulter, Senior Traffic Order Officer  or  George Wright, Senior Project Manager on (environment@lambeth.gov.uk) direct.



If you believe the complaint has not been dealt with in the right way, or you have any concerns then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

*Zuber Bulbulia*

Performance & Development Officer

Environment Department

London Borough of Lambeth

Tel: 0207 926 4313

Email: ZBulbulia@lambeth.gov.uk

The only response I got from any of the councillors was from Tim Briggs. I got an automated response from Helen Hayes MP.
I suppose it's too much to hope for a reply from Ms. Brathwaite or even from one of my ward councillors.
Maybe their email boxes have been full to bursting point over the last few weeks.


----------



## AlexH (Nov 2, 2015)

BREAKING NEWS I had this response from Cllr Brathwaite to my open letter to all Councillors (copied to local MPs) which summarised my list of objections with a precis of the comments from the online petition calling for LR to be reopened (the text of the letter is on the LJRoadmadness page). Kate Hoey MP has also sent an email to the same recipients asking whether letters such as mine are being treated with equal value to the extraordinary questionnaire (i.e. the survey monkey thing). I look forward to hearing the responses.


D_ear Mr H


Thank you for your email.  Given its length, I will take time to read your comments and get back to you.


Regards

Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite 

Labour Councillor for 

Gipsy Hill Ward

Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability

07805943813
_


----------



## LadyV (Nov 2, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Well, having emailed a number of councillors and my local MP about this, today I received the following response:
> 
> Dear Mr. X
> 
> ...




Copy and paste job, from the same person who we suspected to be an office temp they got in to plough through the emails they were sent, wonder if he/she changes their job title depending on who they're replying to. The email I got from that address didn't have a footer on it and certainly not a phone number. That's a bit dangerous, giving you a way to actually contact a person


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Before I respond to your specific concerns..



I'm confused. Is the rest of that email supposed to look like a response to your specific concerns?

Amazing you got a phone number, my emails from Zuber had at the bottom in bold 'do not reply to this email'.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Kate Hoey MP has also sent an email to the same recipients asking whether letters such as mine are being treated with equal value to the extraordinary questionnaire (i.e. the survey monkey thing). I look forward to hearing the responses.


Very interested to learn what answers are forthcoming to that.


----------



## bimble (Nov 2, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I'm sure you probably have already but I think you should send these pictures to all the usual players and maybe also put it on social media? I think it's time some of this incompetence gets called out in a more public arena, maybe Lambeth can be embarrassed into getting something right.



Worth a try always but I have a feeling that there's a sort of siege / bunker mentality going on, so the higher the volume of criticism the less likely they are to respond to individual bits of it.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 2, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> I will not be eating any hats. People are suffering due to transport having to travel further afield to get in and out of the areas.
> As for the Clare Neely leaflet  is this now another reason they have just invented for why the roads have been closed ? Space for Cycling!
> George Wright was told the first time round the leaflets they send out are NOT delivered to households. The pile in Cambria road and dumped in a foyer prove this again. Wonder where else they have been dumped?


I can't eat my hat, even if I want to. The website says "You have already voted"
So it's all down to a "late surge" as Peter Snow might have said many times.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> Re the delivery system for those consultation leaflets.. someone posted this on facebook on Friday, a folorn looking pile of them left out in the rain on cambria rd.
> View attachment 78935


Why Cambria Road exactly?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2015)

Rush hour this evening:


 
Gridlock on CHL outside Tesco, 17:46



 
Gridlock on CHL west of LJ, 17:50



 
Gridlock by the barrier block, 1752



 
Gridlock on Gresham Rd 17:52


 
Gridlock on St James Crescent, 17:57



 
Gridlock on Fyfield Rd, 17:57



Gridlock on St James Crescent, 17:59




Gridlock on Angell Rd, 18:01


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2015)

Gridlock in central LJ, 18:05


 
Gridlock on CHL East of LJ, 18:08


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> Re the delivery system for those consultation leaflets.. someone posted this on facebook on Friday, a folorn looking pile of them left out in the rain on cambria rd.
> View attachment 78935


Can the person who saw these and took the pictures please let Cllr Paul Gadsby know as he wishes to make a report to Lambeth re this. PGadsby@lambeth.gov.uk  

According to the last consultation 11000 people were leafletted   must have been the same as this one   dumped leaflets   as hardly anyone had a leaflet.


----------



## prunus (Nov 2, 2015)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 79009
> Gridlock in central LJ, 18:05
> 
> 
> ...



Appreciate the photos. Less of the sarcasm though please? We (LJ residents) are basically on the same side, or should be. Let's not stoke the flames of division?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 2, 2015)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 79009
> Gridlock in central LJ, 18:05
> View attachment 79010
> Gridlock on CHL East of LJ, 18:08


The day the earth stood still


----------



## CH1 (Nov 2, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Can the person who saw these and took the pictures please let Cllr Paul Gadsby know as he wishes to make a report to Lambeth re this. PGadsby@lambeth.gov.uk
> According to the last consultation 11000 people were leafletted   must have been the same as this one   dumped leaflets   as hardly anyone had a leaflet.


This is right. If it happened now, it could easily have happened before.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 2, 2015)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 79009
> Gridlock in central LJ, 18:05
> 
> 
> ...



Yep thats it they have all found alternative routes through Camberwell & Brixton, so much quicker...

So much like a sunday evening.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 2, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yep thats it they have all found alternative routes through Camberwell & Brixton, so much quicker...
> So much like a sunday evening.


Don't want to rush to teucher's defence necessarily but if you right click the photos...

Of course they could be some he prepared earlier on Sunday and changed the date, but I for one couldn't be arsed to play a prank like that. It would be almost cast iron kosher if he used a 1995 piece of software like me (he is using Photoshop), but I have to say I believe these photos are real.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2015)

Yes they are real and were all taken at the times I said, this evening. They came straight off my cameraphone, then resized in photoshop to make them smaller (hence the "s" suffix I added to the filenames) so that they were within the upload limit for here.

I'd say a bit of mild sarcasm is small fry compared to being accused of fabricating evidence.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2015)

Alternatively, people can check the traffic levels on Google maps. Here's how they're reporting traffic speed as of now (22.50pm)


----------



## critical1 (Nov 2, 2015)

As I said Sunday is much more busy than Monday evening!! Bizarre is all I can say


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2015)

Yesterday was eerily quiet it was.
I was on a 345 bus which,when we got to LJ station, the driver said would have to wait there for a few minutes, because we were too early.
My best theory is that so many people were suffering from post-halloween party syndrome that 53% of South London pulled a sickie yesterday and stayed in bed.


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yep thats it they have all found alternative routes through Camberwell & Brixton, so much quicker...


Or.. they've all evaporated.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 3, 2015)

editor said:


> Alternatively, people can check the traffic levels on Google maps. Here's how they're reporting traffic speed as of now (22.50pm)
> 
> View attachment 79020



Given that the speed limit in that part of town is 20 mph, red to dark red is appropriate for that area. So it's bang on target. There's even a bit of green which means it's ahead of where it should be.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

I'd forgotten about the 20mph thing. Did that come into force yesterday?

I don't think it applies to CHL though does it?


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'd forgotten about the 20mph thing. Did that come into force yesterday?
> I don't think it applies to CHL though does it?



Don't know. The website says this:
'As part of the aim to have the safest and greenest streets in the capital, all Lambeth’s roads are to be given a 20mph speed limit. The new speed limits will be marked with signs and road markings, rather than physical speed humps and cushions. Lambeth council are in charge of the majority of roads in the borough, apart from the major routes into and around London, which are controlled by Transport for London.'

I haven't noticed a whole load of new signs saying 20mph (which there's a £700,000 budget for remember) so don't think it's really happened yet.
Lambeth Goes 20mph - guide | Lambeth Council


----------



## prunus (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Yes they are real and were all taken at the times I said, this evening. They came straight off my cameraphone, then resized in photoshop to make them smaller (hence the "s" suffix I added to the filenames) so that they were within the upload limit for here.
> 
> I'd say a bit of mild sarcasm is small fry compared to being accused of fabricating evidence.



It is - critical1 is way off base here - but even so. 

Today's morning update from chl: clear and free-flowing.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Don't know. The website says this:
> 'As part of the aim to have the safest and greenest streets in the capital, all Lambeth’s roads are to be given a 20mph speed limit. The new speed limits will be marked with signs and road markings, rather than physical speed humps and cushions. Lambeth council are in charge of the majority of roads in the borough, apart from the major routes into and around London, which are controlled by Transport for London.'
> 
> I haven't noticed a whole load of new signs saying 20mph (which there's a £700,000 budget for remember) so don't think it's really happened yet.
> Lambeth Goes 20mph - guide | Lambeth Council


They say



> From November 2015, work will commence to introduce a new 20mph speed limit borough wide.



So looks like it'll be a gradual process rather than all coming into force now.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 3, 2015)

prunus said:


> It is - critical1 is way off base here - but even so.
> 
> Today's morning update from chl: clear and free-flowing.



Off Base??? how? I plainly said it was busier on a Sunday, is that not true? I never claimed fabrication did I?


----------



## prunus (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Off Base??? how? I plainly said it was busier on a Sunday, is that not true? I never claimed fabrication did I?



Ok, if you weren't implying teuchter was lying, apologies. It did look a bit like it though, to be fair... but I'm glad not. 

The whole traffic-reducing scheme is starting to look really quite successful now though, don't you think?  I know you've been opposed to it so far but don't you think it's actually working rather well?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Don't know. The website says this:
> 'As part of the aim to have the safest and greenest streets in the capital, all Lambeth’s roads are to be given a 20mph speed limit. The new speed limits will be marked with signs and road markings, rather than physical speed humps and cushions. Lambeth council are in charge of the majority of roads in the borough, apart from the major routes into and around London, which are controlled by Transport for London.'
> 
> I haven't noticed a whole load of new signs saying 20mph (which there's a £700,000 budget for remember) so don't think it's really happened yet.
> Lambeth Goes 20mph - guide | Lambeth Council


I think Lambeth are currently in Descartes mode: "I think therefore I am" [Cogito ergo sum for teuchter]


----------



## CH1 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Off Base??? how? I plainly said it was busier on a Sunday, is that not true? I never claimed fabrication did I?


Might have been busier on Sunday because the contractors were mucking about with their lights to get overtime.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 3, 2015)

prunus said:


> The whole traffic-reducing scheme is starting to look really quite successful now though, don't you think?  I know you've been opposed to it so far but don't you think it's actually working rather well?


Actually looks to me like currently the problems have moved to junction of Barrington Road, Moorland Road, Coldharbour Lane and Gresham Road which is hardly surprising since it is already a difficult junction with safety issues.

There was a car crash there on Saturday night which was reported in another thread with pictures.

Elsewhere on Urban75 you have this from 2007





It would be crass for me to blame Saturday night's accident on the new traffic scheme, but it must make such an accident more likely.
As can be seen by the bus crash safety is a critical issue here.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It would be crass for me to blame Saturday night's accident on the new traffic scheme, but it must make such an accident more likely.


Why is it you think it makes accidents at this junction more likely?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 3, 2015)

prunus said:


> Ok, if you weren't implying teuchter was lying, apologies. It did look a bit like it though, to be fair... but I'm glad not.
> 
> The whole traffic-reducing scheme is starting to look really quite successful now though, don't you think?  I know you've been opposed to it so far but don't you think it's actually working rather well?



I do not know what teuchter is capable of! I clearly stated that it was indeed busier on Sunday than a Monday! Apology accepted.

Yes it is working I feel *KETTLED IN* still, so yes it is working in achieving the kettled experience.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Why is it you think it makes accidents at this junction more likely?


Increasing traffic volume by diverting traffic from Loughborough Road to St James's Crescent and possibly (illegally) via Barrington Road also & vv.


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2015)

Maybe someone who drives can explain: Are there are good obvious alternatives to use if you're travelling say between Camberwell and Brixton, so that changing your habits to avoid CHL is a fairly simple thing to do?


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> [Cogito ergo sum for teuchter]


He's not latin he's just scottish.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yes it is working I feel *KETTLED IN* still, so yes it is working in achieving the kettled experience.


I still see this as a project to manage global traffic flow by "sanctioning" local people.
In this sense you are right to complain in my view.

I do agree with teuchter's apparent view that cars are totally unnecessary for most people in this part of London.

To me this is a different issue from that of stopping up local roads to prevent car commuting etc.

The current LJ option punishes everybody equally. Like being kept in at school because someone stole teachers pencil. Or bar staff being equally penalised because someone made a mistake at the till (Which happened to me once. I felt strongly enough to resign on the spot).


----------



## CH1 (Nov 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> He's not latin he's just scottish.


Aren't Scots notorious for demanding precision? Engineering, banking ....oooops!


----------



## CH1 (Nov 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Maybe someone who drives can explain: Are there are good obvious alternatives to use if you're travelling say between Camberwell and Brixton, so that changing your habits to avoid CHL is a fairly simple thing to do?


I don't think there are any good alternatives. That is what CHL is for. Connecting Brixton and Camberwell. If they hadn't built a low railway bridge by the Dogstar it would no doubt be a RED ROUTE  by now - as someone seemed to be nudging towards. Crispy was it?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I don't think there are any good alternatives. That is what CHL is for. Connecting Brixton and Camberwell. If they hadn't built a low railway bridge by the Dogstar it would no doubt be a RED ROUTE  by now - as someone seemed to be nudging towards. Crispy was it?



I don't think low bridges disqualify a road from being a red route. Thurlow Park Road anyone? That bridge gets bashed regularly.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Maybe someone who drives can explain: Are there are good obvious alternatives to use if you're travelling say between Camberwell and Brixton, so that changing your habits to avoid CHL is a fairly simple thing to do?



There isn't anything I'd describe as a good alternative. You either go to the north of CHL and end up meeting Brixton Road to the north of Brixton centre, upon which you sit in a long jam on approach to the centre, or you go south as far as Herne Hill then across, which is considerably further. However with the state of CHL over the last few weeks, I wouldn't be surprised if people avoided it like the plague.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yes it is working I feel *KETTLED IN* still, so yes it is working in achieving the kettled experience.


I take it you are one of the minority of locals who make most of their journeys by car, then, as access for pedestrians and public transport users is exactly as it was previously.


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I still see this as a project to manage global traffic flow by "sanctioning" local people..


I'm still trying (& failing) to see it as it has been presented by the people who introduced it; As a way of making a meaningful town centre for Lj.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I still see this as a project to manage global traffic flow by "sanctioning" local people.
> In this sense you are right to complain in my view.
> 
> I do agree with teuchter's apparent view that cars are totally unnecessary for most people in this part of London.
> ...



I use a car to get to work. But then I work 60+ miles away and public transport would be a nightmare and take a lot longer.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Increasing traffic volume by diverting traffic from Loughborough Road to St James's Crescent and possibly (illegally) via Barrington Road also & vv.


My observations during yesterday's rush hour suggested that there simply is not a huge volume of traffic using these routes. It's been my observation every other time I've walked down St James Crescent since the closures that it really is not full of traffic.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Why is it you think it makes accidents at this junction more likely?



More right turns. To get around the LR closure you can either use Gresham Rd or Barrington Rd/St James's Cres, both of which involve a right turn at that junction.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> My observations during yesterday's rush hour suggested that there simply is not a huge volume of traffic using these routes. It's been my observation every other time I've walked down St James Crescent since the closures that it really is not full of traffic.


To be quite honest I am beginning to think we do need a bit more bedding in time before voting/evaluating.

The introduction of the scheme to coincide with major works at the junction of Herne Hill Road was a disaster. Just goes to show how well coordinated our overlords are. TFL, Lambeth, UK Power Networks et al working independently.

What chance have we got?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> To be quite honest I am beginning to think we do need a bit more bedding in time before voting/evaluating.


Hooray!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I use a car to get to work. But then I work 60+ miles away and public transport would be a nightmare and take a lot longer.


I think you'd have to accept you're a bit of a special case then.

It wouldn't really be practical to design inner London's transport network around the needs of people who commute to work miles outside of the city.

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


----------



## critical1 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I take it you are one of the minority of locals who make most of their journeys by car, then, as access for pedestrians and public transport users is exactly as it was previously.


Hahaha you can assume what you like it will be totaly wrong and out of context....
I am not a minority but part of a *MAJORITY* all 3,500 of us.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 3, 2015)

Given the time and resources 3500 is a small number of those who are genuinely and seriously against this scheme. But much thanks to all those 3500 plus another 167 on the original petition who have signed it after the closures began and also the 1250+ who have signed a paper petition and all the countless numbers who have sent their complaints to the Officers, Cllrs and MP's.
There are so many lives being badly effected by it.

This scheme has been set up via so many lies and continues on, based on them,  has that workman's nose grown any longer?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I think you'd have to accept you're a bit of a special case then.
> 
> It wouldn't really be practical to design inner London's transport network around the needs of people who commute to work miles outside of the city.
> 
> I am interested in why you say it would be a "nightmare" to use public transport. For some other reason than it taking longer?



Yes, I understand that. I usually leave early (6am) and get back late (8pm or later) to avoid the worst of the traffic. I work at home 2 days a week. Its only if I need to get home early for some reason I end up taking the full brunt of rush hour traffic.
Generally I avoid driving at busy times if possible. I don't want to spend time sitting in traffic jams if I can avoid it. But the changes to the roads are making things hell even at times which didn't used to be busy. It's really starting to get on my nerves.
As for public transport, it already takes me 1.5 hours or more each way. On public transport you can add an hour to that. I think 2.5 hours to get to work is a bit much.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Hahaha you can assume what you like it will be totaly wrong and out of context....
> I am not a minority but part of a *MAJORITY* all 3,500 of us.


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.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

CH1 said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

Brainaddict said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 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?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

^ 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:
			
		

> 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...





			
				critical1 said:
			
		

> 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.





teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:
			
		

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





teuchter said:


> 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 said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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,
> ...



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


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 3, 2015)

Lying


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

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


----------



## critical1 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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

Writing something in red won't make it true.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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/......





			
				teuchter said:
			
		

> 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...





			
				critical1 said:
			
		

> 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.





teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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


----------



## prunus (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

I will do a little rewind...



teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I will do a little rewind...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 3, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> 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.
> ...


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


----------



## Belushi (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 79009
> Gridlock in central LJ, 18:05
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 3, 2015)

prunus said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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


----------



## LadyV (Nov 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2015)

prunus said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)




----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

LadyV said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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 (Nov 3, 2015)

AlexH said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Not true.


Which bit?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> 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 (Nov 3, 2015)

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.


----------



## bimble (Nov 3, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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.


Ok. I had never seen that before. All the official information I've read has repeated the same very restricted stated goal of 'a meaningful town centre ' etc.


----------



## prunus (Nov 3, 2015)

bimble said:


> Ok. I had never seen that before. All the official information I've read has repeated the same very restricted stated goal of 'a meaningful town centre ' etc.



I think the one thing that all the 18 opposing sides in this debate can agree on is that communication from the authorities has been dire throughout.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2015)

Does anyone know if they're prosecuting the (seemingly confused) drivers who are driving up Loughborough Road? I only ask because I've always seen at least one car head up there when I go past.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 3, 2015)

editor said:


> Does anyone know if they're prosecuting the (seemingly confused) drivers who are driving up Loughborough Road? I only ask because I've always seen at least one car head up there when I go past.



I have never heard of a warning in relation to a Statutory Penalty Notice, but that's all I've heard so far a lot of WARNINGS unheard of really.

Loads of cars going through day and night, the real Cash Cow methinks..


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> ...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]


On the grounds of balance:
_The Portuguese Inquisition wants to burn me as a sacrifice to the Gods. What do they think I am, a Jew?

CANDIDE - by Voltaire
_
[as told by @MoYoLawn  - Twitterature, Penguin Books, 2009]


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

prunus said:


> I think the one thing that all the 18 opposing sides in this debate can agree on is that communication from the authorities has been dire throughout.


A thing with 18 sides is almost a circle, right?

That document teuchter found is very interesting, the one that has disappeared and only exists now as a cached google shadow thing.

It's interesting because of the first paragraph, called 'background', which very clearly says that this is a measure designed to encourage cycling by making local journeys more difficult by car etc.
It doesn't say anything at all about 'a meaningful town centre'.
That bit, seemingly the key intention inspiration behind the closures, has been excised totally form all subsequent publicity / information about the closures.

The doc goes on to say 'it is anticipated that the whole area bounded by Camberwell New Rd, Denmark rd , Coldharbour Lane and Brixton Road will see a reduction in motor traffic though some roads may see an increase in local access traffic'.
Which has also never been mentioned in any of the council's communications about the closures that I've ever seen.

Why? I'm really stumped as to why the council would choose to go ahead with a plan that was (it now seems) designed for one purpose but present it so differently, sticking to the dogged repetition of that line about 'a meaningful town centre' and so on.


----------



## AlexH (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> A thing with 18 sides is almost a circle, right?
> 
> That document teuchter found is very interesting, the one that has disappeared and only exists now as a cached google shadow thing.
> 
> ...


I agree. Since that appears to have been the original intention (as Teuchter  points out) it has an effect  throughout a wider area than that consulted. I'm miffed that people to the south of LJ (including me in Se24) were never consulted about it - indeed I'm not even included in the latest 11000 leaflet drop. Such a major initiative requires proper planning and consultation and a consideration of the needs of the entire community rather than just keen cyclists (which I am myself).


----------



## irf520 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> A thing with 18 sides is almost a circle, right?
> 
> That document teuchter found is very interesting, the one that has disappeared and only exists now as a cached google shadow thing.
> 
> ...



Well, I imagine because they think it will make it easier to sell their plan to the public. After all, there are a lot of curmudgeonly fuckers like me out there who don't want to "get with the program."

People have been cooking up these plans for ages (I'm not just talking about Loughborough Junction here - that's just a small part of it). Just do a google search for "quietways". There are plans to effectively reserve loads of roads just for cycling. In order to qualify as a "quietway" a road must have < 3000 vehicles per day using it. If it has more than that, it's a candidate for being blocked off and reserved for cycling and local access only.

For example, have a look at this link:

Southwark Quietways Stakeholder Engagement

There's a map there showing a proposed quietway route, annotated with loads of comments, presumably from cyclists, asking for roads to be closed along the way.
I don't know who the "stakeholders" for this scheme are, presumably cyclists. I hadn't heard anything about this scheme until I did the search. Similarly, I didn't know anything about the LJ scheme until I saw a sign go up a week before the closures were introduced. They cook up these plans on the hush hush and they are already decided before anyone has a chance to object.

Quietways are a TFL thing. So I assume every borough has similar plans to this.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

You think the council decided to present this as a local 'meaningful town centre' idea rather than as part of a city-wide concerted effort to get people out of their cars because that way they thought they might get less resistance?
Could be. For me personally it would have helped a lot to be told what it was really all about, because I can understand that bigger picture but never could get my head around the reason that we have been sold, the meaningful town centre / half-arsed pedestrianised area thing.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> You think the council decided to present this as a local 'meaningful town centre' idea rather than as part of a city-wide concerted effort to get people out of their cars because that way they thought they might get less resistance?
> Could be. For me personally it would have helped a lot to be told what it was really all about, because I can understand that bigger picture but never could get my head around the reason that we have been sold, the meaningful town centre / half-arsed pedestrianised area thing.


For me this is a coalition of two "stakeholders" who no doubt have some cross-over:

1. Those who want a new vibrant "Loughborough Village Centre" - with or without bistros in arches etc.  #
2. The cyclists, who understandably want to promote safer cycling routes

The third stakeholders in the situation would be Loughborough Estate residents
the fourth I guess specifically local motorists

The way it pans out, the last two think the first two have ganged upon them with the council.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

You've gone all theistic CH1. 
Still maintain that a major 'stakeholder' here is Network Rail..


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 4, 2015)

So at the end of this consultation and piloting period, three questions should be asked about these road closures: a) what would you keep (about the road closures)?; what would you lose/remove?; what would you keep but change?

I'd keep at the very least Padfield Road and Gordon Grove closures. 

Anyone else?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> You've gone all theistic CH1.
> Still maintain that a major 'stakeholder' here is Network Rail..



Could be. would you say the same of the Taylor Wimpey thing on show the last two days? Can't see how that could be done at all without Network Rail.
I think Network Rail are only interested in Bistros at LJ. So I doubt they actually care about the road being closed or not.
Personally I think that Network Rail wanting the road closed so they can have Bistros in their arches is a step too far (for credibility).

We are going round in circles a bit now. I think the issue of Network Rail sits better with the Masterplan rather than the current road closure.

That is all here on Lambeth's website http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pl-loughborough-junction-masterplan-booklet-2015-2.pdf

and here http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ masterplan Stage1 Report.pdf,
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ masterplan CRG TOR.pdf,
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ masterplan CRG2 Options.pdf
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LJ masterplan CRG2 DigitalFeedbackForm.pdf


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> I'd keep at the very least Padfield Road and Gordon Grove closures.



Very curious: Why do you single out Gordon Grove as a keeper? 
That's the closure just outside my window and personally I've noticed no positives from it as yet (just lots of large vehicles, many of them related to the scrapyard business, forced to do tricky turns).


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think Network Rail are only interested in Bistros at LJ. So I doubt they actually care about the road being closed or not.
> Personally I think that Network Rail wanting the road closed so they can have Bistros in their arches is a step too far (for credibility)


I'm not suggesting that NR are the secret puppet masters cackling behind the screen but I do think that if anyone has a significant vested interest in the 'meaningful town centre' - the publicised goal of all this - then it's them. Because they are intending to refurbish & triple the rents in all the arches, starting with Rathgar Road, in 2016. And bistros are much less likely to work if situated on a busy road, no?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Very curious: Why do you single out Gordon Grove as a keeper?
> That's the closure just outside my window and personally I've noticed no positives from it as yet (just lots of large vehicles, many of them related to the scrapyard business, forced to do tricky turns).



These are key pinch points due to narrowness of bridges or roads not designed for speeding traffic, or large trucks. I'm supposing that there's no positives because these large scrap lorries can't get there from any other way.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> These are key pinch points due to narrowness of bridges or roads not designed for speeding traffic, or large trucks. I'm supposing that there's no positives because these large scrap lorries can't get there from any other way.


The scrap trucks (often very big long things, with iron girders on or several smashed up cars) can now only get to the scrap yard via Minet road and can only legally depart that way too..  I just haven't noticed things being quieter or safer right here is all, and was not aware of a problem before. 

However.. If one day it comes to pass that the adventure playground is repaired and re-opened, which is pretty much directly opposite the park (/ dog poo repository), then maybe it could make sense, Gordon Grove having a pedestrian area.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> However.. If one day it comes to pass that the adventure playground is repaired and re-opened, which is pretty much directly opposite the park (/ dog poo repository), then maybe it could make sense, Gordon Grove having a pedestrian area.


And the arch currently used as a redundant road could become a double facing bistro to serve the park, the parents of children in the newly refurbished kids play centre and residents left parched by the closure of the Wickwood Tavern [very parched].


----------



## irf520 (Nov 4, 2015)

The bridge on Gordon Grove is low, so the larger lorries can only reach the scrapyard via Minet Rd, so you have to leave it open both ways from Minet Rd to Wickwood St.
You could make it one way from Eastlake to Wickwood - that would stop the standoffs at the bridge and leave an escape route for residents of the Flaxman Rd area in case CHL is blocked. Those residents can get back via Lilford and Flaxman.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

irf520 said:


> The bridge on Gordon Grove is low, so the larger lorries can only reach the scrapyard via Minet Rd, so you have to leave it open both ways from Minet Rd to Wickwood St.
> You could make it one way from Eastlake to Wickwood - that would stop the standoffs at the bridge and leave an escape route for residents of the Flaxman Rd area in case CHL is blocked. Those residents can get back via Lilford and Flaxman.


According to Google maps there's a scrap dealer in Wickwood Street called "Bon Automotive". 

I'm impressed. S/he could almost transition to a bistro with no rebranding.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> And the arch currently used as a redundant road could become a double facing bistro to serve the park, the parents of children in the newly refurbished kids play centre and residents left parched by the closure of the Wickwood Tavern [very parched].


Are you seriously saying that it's good the adventure playground is closed and left to rot because fixing it would only benefit the gentry?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Are you seriously saying that it's good the adventure playground is closed and left to rot because fixing it would only benefit the gentry?



I'm surprised adventure playgrounds are still allowed these days. Health and Safety ...


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I'm surprised adventure playgrounds are still allowed these days. Health and Safety ...


Yeah, that's a big part of why it's closed I think, nowadays it would have to be staffed at all times whilst open apparently.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> According to Google maps there's a scrap dealer in Wickwood Street called "Bon Automotive".
> 
> I'm impressed. S/he could almost transition to a bistro with no rebranding.



Who's going to be patronizing all these bistros? No-one I assume until Loughborough Estate is razed to the ground and replaced with "Luxury Apartments".


----------



## critical1 (Nov 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> the google cache link takes you to the text of that document and you will find that quoted bit in it.





teuchter said:


> View attachment 79084
> 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.



Thank you for the screen grab teuchter, it is obviously an artform....

So lets see, this a screen grab of a pdf document from google cache, which is not visible on the Lambeth site, and cannot be downloaded from any other source as an original pdf!

*May I ask what date was the document published? Does anyone have an original digital copy of the pdf? *

*So many questions....*

* *


----------



## irf520 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yeah, that's a big part of why it's closed I think, nowadays it would have to be staffed at all times whilst open apparently.



And the floor would have to be covered with that rubber stuff in case they fell off the climbing frame / tyre hanging from a tree.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

Y


irf520 said:


> And the floor would have to be covered with that rubber stuff in case they fell off the climbing frame / tyre hanging from a tree.


yep. It might be cheaper just to wrap all the children in giant wads of bouncy rubber before letting them in..


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Who's going to be patronizing all these bistros? No-one I assume until Loughborough Estate is razed to the ground and replaced with "Luxury Apartments".


I am anxiously awaiting the demographic effect of the new development at Barrington Road. Looks to have a fairly high proportion of "affordable" and is a Metropolitan/Boris co-production.
Those new residents might be more keen on Jimmy's Plaice.
New developments need to be vetted for "bistro friendliness" along with "secure by design" gatedness.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Are you seriously saying that it's good the adventure playground is closed and left to rot because fixing it would only benefit the gentry?


Quite the opposite. I am saying that it can be used by gentry to park their kids whilst they have a nice steak, or whatever people do in bistros.
Who's to lose. They could employ some unemployed people as volunteers to ensure health and safety at the adventure playground.
And some administrators to run police checks on them.

It is trickle down economics red in tooth and claw.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I am anxiously awaiting the demographic effect of the new development at Barrington Road. Looks to have a fairly high proportion of "affordable" and is a Metropolitan/Boris co-production.
> Those new residents might be more keen on Jimmy's Plaice.
> New developments need to be vetted for "bistro friendliness" along with "secure by design" gatedness.



Is that affordable or "affordable". The latter meaning it still costs and arm and a leg but at least you get to keep both kidneys.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Very curious: Why do you single out Gordon Grove as a keeper?
> That's the closure just outside my window and personally I've noticed no positives from it as yet (just lots of large vehicles, many of them related to the scrapyard business, forced to do tricky turns).





bimble said:


> Yeah, that's a big part of why it's closed I think, nowadays it would have to be staffed at all times whilst open apparently.


Apparently not enough money around to staff it and there is talk of moving it back over to the park, the strange doc teuchter produced states a green area on the road between park and the adventure playground??
What about the lorries for the scapyard??


----------



## irf520 (Nov 4, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Apparently not enough money around to staff it and there is talk of moving it back over to the park, the strange doc teuchter produced states a green area on the road between park and the adventure playground??



I seem to remember at one point they wanted to block Gordon Grove further up towards Minet Rd until they realised that the bridge was too low to allow the required access to the scrapyard.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Quite the opposite. I am saying that it can be used by gentry to park their kids whilst they have a nice steak, or whatever people do in bistros.
> Who's to lose. They could employ some unemployed people as volunteers to ensure health and safety at the adventure playground.
> And some administrators to run police checks on them.
> 
> It is trickle down economics red in tooth and claw.


I thought I was a cynic. The last time the place was open was 8th August, a four year old's birthday party with full dj set playing old Jamaican tunes.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Apparently not enough money around to staff it and there is talk of moving it back over to the park, the strange doc teuchter produced states a green area on the road between park and the adventure playground??


Loughborough residents could lobby to reinstate the original concept of the New Loughborough Estate.
Nouveau Le Corbusier walkways in the sky floating over the fields.
Turn it into a world heritage site for tourists.
Who then flock to the bistros when they are exhausted from sight seeing social housing as it was in mid 20th century Europe.

Then EVERYWHERE could be green spaces - as intended by the LCC architects.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> I thought I was a cynic. The last time the place was open was 8th August, a four year old's birthday party with full dj set playing old Jamaican tunes.


How many days this year? One birthday party sounds a bit minimalist.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

Well .. exactly. But (if I understand you correctly) that's all to the good else it would just encourage bistros.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Well .. exactly. But (if I understand you correctly) that's all to the good else it would just encourage bistros.


You keep getting me wrong. You really should have gone to that exhibition yesterday or Monday.
Didn't go down too well on Brixton Buzz mind (talking of comments here).


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

You have totally confused me its true.. so you are saying that more people eating steaks in bistros is exactly what we need. ok.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

As a matter of interest what do they do about the car breakers?
Is it that car breakers are welcome in the green belt but not houses?
Just asking.

A friend once took me on a tour (20 years or  more ago) of Rainham Marshes. Totes-Amazing-Balls. It was like a cross between "Escape from New York" and "Peter Grimes".

I'm wondering if we are making the most of our local industry. Use it or lose it they say.

[teuchter please look away now]


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> A thing with 18 sides is almost a circle, right?
> 
> That document teuchter found is very interesting, the one that has disappeared and only exists now as a cached google shadow thing.
> 
> ...


Aargh! Is it too much to ask, to actually look at the information provided, the information I've provided a link to twice already?

It is not true that that original document doesn't talk about the public space. It talks about it on the first page. Is no-one actually interested in looking at the facts of what was proposed when?


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

Keep your hair on, I was just talking about the 1st bit, the 'background' paragraph, which explains the wider context of the scheme making it make sense in a way I had not ever seen before.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)

prunus said:


> I think the one thing that all the 18 opposing sides in this debate can agree on is that communication from the authorities has been dire throughout.


Yes. Looking through the appendices document it contained a much showing the boundary of the consultation area. I am within it, and I'm fairly sure I never received the initial info leaflet. I've also not recieved any of the leaflets supposedly sent out this week. If it's true that whoever Lambeth is employing to distribute them has just been dumping them on the street then they really need to sort this out. They need to not pay them, and do it again with someone else.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Keep your hair on, I was just talking about the 1st bit, the 'background' paragraph.


No you weren't - you said



> why the council would choose to go ahead with a plan that was (it now seems) designed for one purpose but present it so differently, sticking to the dogged repetition of that line about 'a meaningful town centre' and so on



This is untrue.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Aargh!...
> It is not true that that original document doesn't talk about the public space. It talks about it on the first page. Is no-one actually interested in looking at the facts of what was proposed when?View attachment 79099



Is it too much to ask What date was it proposed on? as it appears Lambeth and you don't want us to know the *FACTS* you presented?
*All traces of dates removed, No original document? bit strange eh! *

*I don't expect the original will ever be found.. Evidence NOT.*

* *


----------



## LadyV (Nov 4, 2015)

concerned1 said:


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


Yes, that one, for the last couple of weeks it was firmly pointed towards the start of the pedestrian area, I wondered if it had been commandeered by the council as a traffic cam but it's now pointing the other way


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is untrue.


Grr.
I will try to explain: In all the published things I have ever seen from the council about these road closures, apart from the document you found yesterday, I have never seen the closures explained as part of a wider cycling and car reduction agenda.
Everything I've read has said the same thing over & over. Namely: This is intended to create a meaningful town centre & to improve the public space in LJ.
eg



& this Loughborough junction - what you need to know | Lambeth Council
etc etc

I would have been much happier if it had been explained to me from the start that this was part of a far bigger story and was aimed primarily at encouraging people to cycle instead of drive. That's all.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 4, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I have never heard of a warning in relation to a Statutory Penalty Notice, but that's all I've heard so far a lot of WARNINGS unheard of really.
> 
> Loads of cars going through day and night, the real Cash Cow methinks..



I would imagine that there have been quite a few fines landing on people's door mats but only if the car was there to catch them, I walk past the pedestrian zone twice a day almost every day and there are no other cameras there, if there were, why the need for the car! Still not been brave enough to risk it myself just in case though, I could do without having to pay a fine this month!

As for a cash cow, indeed very much so, shame they haven't done it properly though, ie with a fixed camera, because for the amount of cars I see going through there, they would have had potential to collect near on a million pounds by now. But as there seems to only be the car collecting number plates, that amount will be much much less, another example of Lambeth's incompetence.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Grr.
> I will try to explain: In all the published things I have ever seen from the council about these road closures, apart from the document you found yesterday, I have never seen the closures explained as part of a wider cycling and car reduction agenda.
> Everything I've read has said the same thing over & over. Namely: This is intended to create a meaningful town centre & to improve the public space in LJ.
> eg
> ...


I'm not sure that's entirely true - this is on their current "what you need to know" page



> *What road closures have been proposed?*
> We are proposing an experimental closure of Loughborough Road just north of its junction with Ridgeway Road. This would result in a huge reduction in motor vehicles using this area – our studies show that it is currently used by around 13,000 vehicles each week day. This will enable us to change the way the space works to benefit businesses, pedestrians and cyclists and create a space to hold outdoor events.
> 
> Additional road closures are necessary so that motor traffic does not use the next available roads either side of Loughborough Road. It is therefore proposed that the following roads are also part of the experimental road closures (please also refer to the map attached) - Barrington Road - Calais Street - Padfield Road - Lilford Road - Gordon Grove
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I would imagine that there have been quite a few fines landing on people's door mats but only if the car was there to catch them, I walk past the pedestrian zone twice a day almost every day and there are no other cameras there, if there were, why the need for the car! Still not been brave enough to risk it myself just in case though, I could do without having to pay a fine this month!
> 
> As for a cash cow, indeed very much so, shame they haven't done it properly though, ie with a fixed camera, because for the amount of cars I see going through there, they would have had potential to collect near on a million pounds by now. But as there seems to only be the car collecting number plates, that amount will be much much less, another example of Lambeth's incompetence.


I wouldn't be surprised if they have decided not to actually prosecute anyone, so as not to further enrage people in what's already a rather tense situation.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> Keep your hair on, I was just talking about the 1st bit, the 'background' paragraph, which explains the wider context of the scheme making it make sense in a way I had not ever seen before.


The 3rd para of what he posted up now  says they want to make the road narrower, not close it.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'm not sure that's entirely true - this is on their current "what you need to know" page


I'm glad you agree that it is at least mostly true though.
You've been saying this all along, that the road closure must be seen as part of a wider agenda to discourage car use and push people towards alternatives. Why do you think the council (almost entirely) banished this from their published literature on the project? 
Honestly, if this had been plainly stated from the start I'd have found the whole thing much easier to understand.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Yes, that one, for the last couple of weeks it was firmly pointed towards the start of the pedestrian area, I wondered if it had been commandeered by the council as a traffic cam but it's now pointing the other way


They were using it for decoy purposes.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The 3rd para of what he posted up now  says they want to make the road narrower, not close it.


No, as I understand it that is referring to the junction, not the closed section. So the short section on the S side of the bridge provided for access to Rathgar rd etc.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

The whole thing is just so peculiar, what with teuchter 's document looking like dali had a go at it

& how searching for it now only leading you to this..


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> No, as I understand it that is referring to the junction, not the closed section. So the short section on the S side of the bridge provided for access to Rathgar rd etc.


I see that would make Loughborough Road less of a temptation for the north-bound commuter.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)

bimble said:


> The whole thing is just so peculiar, what with teuchter 's document looking like dali had a go at itView attachment 79109
> 
> & how searching for it now only leading you to this..
> 
> ...


I think they should have that original proposal material up on the general info page. However I can see that maybe they decided not to so as to avoid confusion, with people looking at the original proposals and assuming that was what's going to be inplemented, rather than the scheme as revised following the consultation process.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I think they should have that original proposal material up on the general info page. However I can see that maybe they decided not to so as to avoid confusion, with people looking at the original proposals and assuming that was what's going to be inplemented, rather than the scheme as revised following the consultation process.


Apart from the P5 bus route being kept where it is after the consultation showed strong resistance to the proposal to move it, has anything else changed (apart from the way the intention behind it is explained ?)


----------



## critical1 (Nov 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I think they should have that original proposal material up on the general info page. However I can see that maybe they decided not to so as to avoid confusion, with people looking at the original proposals and assuming that was what's going to be inplemented, rather than the scheme as revised following the consultation process.



Is it too much to ask What date was it proposed on? as it appears Lambeth and you don't want us to know the *FACTS* you presented?
*All traces of dates removed, No original document? bit strange eh! *

*I don't expect the original will ever be found.. Evidence NOT.*


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 4, 2015)

Hmmm	bit like the latest Government scandal  "poppygate"   now you see it, now you don't  or now you don't see it, now you do


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 4, 2015)

Are you two the same person?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 4, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Are you two the same person?


I believe we are united in our opposition to these closures if your talking about concerned1 as with any u75 member.  Anyone fighting these road closures I salute them...

*Are you and teuchter the same person?*


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 4, 2015)

It is a fact that Teuchter and I have never been in the same room together.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 4, 2015)

What happened to "scaredy-nimby" and "cuddly toy sheep"?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> It is a fact that Teuchter and I have never been in the same room together.


To the best of our knowledge


----------



## prunus (Nov 4, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Is it too much to ask What date was it proposed on? as it appears Lambeth and you don't want us to know the *FACTS* you presented?
> *All traces of dates removed, No original document? bit strange eh! *
> 
> *I don't expect the original will ever be found.. Evidence NOT.*



I have a copy here, in my download cache.   It's too large to attach (1Mb max).  Will you please stop with the paranoia conspiracy theories now?

E2a: I downloaded it on the 31/10/14; file creation date from pdf properties 19/09/14, if that helps.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 4, 2015)

prunus said:


> I have a copy here, in my download cache.   It's too large to attach (1Mb max).  Will you please stop with the paranoia conspiracy theories now?
> 
> E2a: I downloaded it on the 31/10/14; file creation date from pdf properties 19/09/14, if that helps.



*Paranoia...* OK please share with us all via Free File Hosting - Online Storage; Upload Mp3, Videos, Music. Backup Files 5gb limit.

*So we can STOP Paranoia together...*


----------



## prunus (Nov 4, 2015)

critical1 said:


> *Paranoia...* OK please share with us all via Free File Hosting - Online Storage; Upload Mp3, Videos, Music. Backup Files 5gb limit.
> 
> *So we can STOP Paranoia together...*



Sure, good idea; here you go:

http://www.filedropper.com/ljconsultationvisualisations


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

I like how one of them is looking in the opposite direction, or posing for the camera.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 4, 2015)

prunus said:


> Sure, good idea; here you go:
> 
> http://www.filedropper.com/ljconsultationvisualisations



Thank you prunus... on inspection there is no title, no author or subject, the document has not been security protected as is should be, standard with all Lambeth pdfs, the dates do seem to be in that period, but easily edited and changed via system settings.

The layout is remarkably the same as teutchers reconstruction of a corrupt google cache image?  an online document no one is able to view or make sense of?	 Link teutcher gave click here

teutcher has some *seriouse SKILLZ *to get it so right all the way down to the sentence structure. 
Make of it what you will...


----------



## prunus (Nov 4, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Thank you prunus... on inspection there is no title, no author or subject, the document has not been security protected as is should be, standard with all Lambeth pdfs, the dates do seem to be in that period, but easily edited and changed via system settings.
> 
> The layout is remarkably the same as teutchers reconstruction of a corrupt google cache image?  an online document no one is able to view or make sense of?	 Link teutcher gave click here
> 
> ...



What on earth are you on about?

Are you accusing me of having fabricated that document, or of having altered the dates in it?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)




----------



## critical1 (Nov 4, 2015)

It is as it is...



prunus said:


> Sure, good idea; here you go:
> 
> http://www.filedropper.com/ljconsultationvisualisations



Thank you prunus... on inspection there is no title, no author or subject, the document has not been security protected as is should be, standard with all Lambeth pdfs, the dates do seem to be in that period, but easily edited and changed via system settings.

The layout is remarkably the same as teutchers reconstruction of a corrupt google cache image?  an online document no one is able to view or make sense of?	 Link teutcher gave click here

teutcher has some *seriouse SKILLZ *to get it so right all the way down to the sentence structure.
Make of it what you will...


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> So at the end of this consultation and piloting period, three questions should be asked about these road closures: a) what would you keep (about the road closures)?; what would you lose/remove?; what would you keep but change?
> 
> I'd keep at the very least Padfield Road and Gordon Grove closures.
> 
> Anyone else?



If I were the boss of things I'd like to see what happens if the roads are re-opened , the 20mph were strictly imposed and a big zebra crossing plus wider pavements were created instead on Loughborough Rd.


----------



## prunus (Nov 4, 2015)

critical1 said:


> The layout is remarkably the same as teutchers reconstruction of a corrupt google cache image?  an online document no one is able to view or make sense of?	 Link teutcher gave click here
> 
> teutcher has some *seriouse SKILLZ *to get it so right all the way down to the sentence structure.
> Make of it what you will...



I make of that that the link teuchter supplied was to a Google cache of a pdf. The way they work is that Google uses a pdf to html converter to preserve the text and layout and discards the images, both things to reduce storage space.

You seem to be implying some sort of conspiracy between teuchter and me and who knows who else, which conspiracy I can assure you doesn't exist. You don't appear to understand how anything actually works. You are filling the thread with irrelevancies. This is an important topic of debate that affects a lot of people and doesn't deserve to be dragged down to the level you are operating at. Please stop it.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)

Anyone can view the google cache file. Open the link in a browser, zoom out a bit, and scroll down. That's all I did to make the screenshot.

It's missing the images and the original typeface has been replaced with a default one, for the reasons prunus states.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 4, 2015)

*Dig your own hole....*


----------



## CH1 (Nov 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


>



Which Mass is that?
I assumed it would be Bach Mass in B minor - since  authentic space films do use Bach viz:   

But this is not it. What is it. I think we should be told.


----------



## SpamMisery (Nov 4, 2015)




----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2015)

Whatever it is, I expect the authorities will prevent us from finding out.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Whatever it is, I expect the authorities will prevent us from finding out.


Why would they? are they not transparent and open?


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)




----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2015)

First meeting of Vassall and Coldharbour Forum | Vassall and Coldharbour


----------



## AlexH (Nov 4, 2015)

Kate Hoey MP speaking sense! Teuchter better look away now. MP | South London Press


----------



## AlexH (Nov 4, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Which Mass is that?
> I assumed it would be Bach Mass in B minor - since  authentic space films do use Bach viz:
> 
> But this is not it. What is it. I think we should be told.



It's Mozart's requiem


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

AlexH said:


> It's Mozart's requiem


Thanks. The D minor key is suitably ominous!


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk



*Gridlock AGAIN on Denmark Road - too narrow to take the extra traffic. Lambeth, we warned you this would happen.*


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Kate Hoey MP speaking sense! Teuchter better look away now. MP | South London Press


She's going on about the chaos and paralysed traffic that may now be clearing. And asking for everything to be scrapped before we have the chance to find out if the thing she's complaining about is really a problem or not.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

Not my intention to re-start the dissection of yesterday's document but..  this bit in Kate Hoey's article is pretty much exactly how I've seen the scheme so far (as the result of a small group pf people pushing their idea of how to improve LJ, related to the LJ Plan etc.

If the road closures had been explained from the start as a part of a big picture agenda that is not much to do with Loughborough Junction local issues and more to do with reducing car use in London that would have helped me a lot; maybe I'd have been able to see the ridiculously flawed consultation as just a gesture made by the council before implementing this bit of their wider traffic reduction strategy instead of attaching so much importance to it, or seeing it as an example of how one pressure group seems to dominate discussion of the future of my little patch.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

In line the the new extraterrestrial paranoia now becoming fashionable on this thread, I am forced to reveal a surprising communication from beyond......

A former Lambeth councillor rang me yesterday having looked LJAG up using some company information service. He had discovered I was formerly a director of LJAG  and wanted information. Information about who earth various other directors were, what LJAG was, why the last AGM apparently had only 5 people in attendance and on and on.

The nub of the matter was the guy had a number of friends whose commute into London had now become impossible and he moreover had been late for a Bartok concert at the Royal Festival Hall.

Apparently the more elevated types round Brockwell Park (who I understand include judges, lords, doctors etc) don't take kindly to LJAG disrupting their schedules. They jumped to the conclusion that LJAG are in fact trouble-making PLEBS.

I tried to put the guy right, and even asked him whether he had actually driven down here since Sunday, when he went into a rant about never mind that, now people have to drive through Brixton or Camberwell which is absolutely impossible hell and takes hours.

I find it ironic I am put in the position of defending Ljag AND also LETRA etc by alien outisde forces.
 Herne Hill alien on the line!


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

Labour are rowing back on road management in Streatham St Leonards.-extract from Labour blog below

"4 Nov 2015 — I attended a meeting this morning with Sustrans staff, traffic and highways engineers and community engagement staff and my fellow councillor, Cllr Jaffer. We looked at feedback and suggestions received by us to date and we looked at and discussed a number of other options in addition to the original one.
The headline news is that we will not now be implementing the trial now until March 2016 at the earliest. This will give us an opportunity to present alternative options and to hold further discussions with local residents and other stakeholders as requested.
We do plan to continue with the Quietway route along Estreham Road but obviously in not as safe an environment as we hoped for for the time being."

As this is split ward with one Green councillor I wonder what he will do? Official Green policy would suggest he would be calling for immediate implementation. Could this be one place at least where party policy is deflected by local opinion?


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

Does 'road management' there mean closing roads?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> Does 'road management' there mean closing roads?



Yes. Estreham Road is, I believe, the one on the chopping block there.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> In line the the new extraterrestrial paranoia now becoming fashionable on this thread, I am forced to reveal a surprising communication from beyond......
> 
> A former Lambeth councillor rang me yesterday having looked LJAG up using some company information service. He had discovered I was formerly a director of LJAG  and wanted information. Information about who earth various other directors were, what LJAG was, why the last AGM apparently had only 5 people in attendance and on and on.
> 
> ...



You should put him in touch with Mr T who will be happy to explain to him that he would have no trouble reaching his Bartok concert in good time if he were to cycle to the Royal Festival Hall, and also explain to the judges and lords that they don't NEED to drive into central London (either for work or for Bartok) and that they should cycle or take the tube/bus/train along with the great unwashed. Well, maybe not the bus since that could get stuck in traffic. It would be entertaining to see their reaction.


----------



## prunus (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> You should put him in touch with Mr T who will be happy to explain to him that he would have no trouble reaching his Bartok concert in good time if he were to cycle to the Royal Festival Hall, and also explain to the judges and lords that they don't NEED to drive into central London (either for work or for Bartok) and that they should cycle or take the tube/bus/train along with the great unwashed. Well, maybe not the bus since that could get stuck in traffic. It would be entertaining to see their reaction.



I know you're being slightly tongue-in-cheek, but really it is difficult to find sympathy for people who feel they have to drive into central London from Herne Hill, which has frequent regular train services into both the city (and beyond) AND the west end.

And the RFH - that one next to Waterloo station, the major transport hub, is that the one he means?

Absolutely of *course* you should be able to drive through our area (doors tightly locked mind), adding noise, danger and pollution to our proletarian lives, in order to reach these places.

The sense of entitlement is nauseating.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

.


----------



## prunus (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> wait. why I am included in that ? is it because of  ' if i were the boss of things?



Just quoting error, possibly because of dodgy signal as I, appositely enough, travelled into work on the thameslink . Fixed now.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

prunus said:


> And the RFH - that one next to Waterloo station, the major transport hub, is that the one he means?



I guess so. Is there another one?



prunus said:


> adding noise, danger and pollution to our proletarian lives,



Maybe their lordships use electric cars and drive (or are chauffeured) like Miss Daisy?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

prunus said:


> The sense of entitlement is nauseating.


I think most of these diesel driving 4WD fans are doing just the same. Its just that you don't know where they come from. Some could even come from the Loughborough Estate!

Whatever happened to the idea of mini cars BTW?

And as for diesel - apart from poisoning the air it's caused the lay off of thousands of South African platinum miners.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

Bit of a dead end maybe, the painting of all car drivers as selfish polluting bastards..  if I had a car that was to me a necessity for whatever reason I'd be really pissed off being caricatured as the enemy.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Whatever happened to the idea of mini cars BTW?



You do occasionally see those little 'smart' cars that can park perpendicular to the kerb instead of parallel to it. But is there is even enough space inside to fit your weekly shopping? I guess that's the problem. You're not going to have two cars, so the one you have needs to be suitable for all scenarios, even if some of them only occur rarely.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> You do occasionally see those little 'smart' cars that can park perpendicular to the kerb instead of parallel to it. But is there is even enough space inside to fit your weekly shopping? I guess that's the problem. You're not going to have two cars, so the one you have needs to be suitable for all scenarios, even if some of them only occur rarely.


Maybe Zak will do for such devices what Boris has done for the bike? [message sponsored by VW]


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> Bit of a dead end maybe, the painting of all car drivers as selfish polluting bastards..  if I had a car that was to me a necessity for whatever reason I'd be really pissed off being caricatured as the enemy.



I think this is off message actually. There are plenty of BMW driving black men around, and also chic molls over made-up like drag queens, but I reckon the majority of "big car" useage is white and quite affluent. And not hipsters either.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

Car clubs don't get much of a mention here. Now widely available all over London, and affordable (certainly relative to the cost of owning a car). They can be used for things like weekly shopping.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> In line the the new extraterrestrial paranoia now becoming fashionable on this thread, I am forced to reveal a surprising communication from beyond......
> 
> A former Lambeth councillor rang me yesterday having looked LJAG up using some company information service. He had discovered I was formerly a director of LJAG  and wanted information. Information about who earth various other directors were, what LJAG was, why the last AGM apparently had only 5 people in attendance and on and on.
> 
> ...



Doesn't surprise me at all.

No-one's commented on my post pointing out that about half of the signatories of the initial 750-strong anti-closures petition were from outside the consultation area.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think this is off message actually. There are plenty of BMW driving black men around, and also chic molls over made-up like drag queens, but I reckon the majority of "big car" useage is white and quite affluent. And not hipsters either.


oh dear. I didn't mean it in that way, quite the opposite - was trying to suggest that the idea of all these selfish drivers going around polluting the place with their windows up just for the self indulgent fun of it might not be quite fair. I know the people in the video probably aren't into Bartok but still.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

I'm still laughing at the thought of some lord or high court judge getting on the 68 from Herne Hill to Waterloo, sitting down and getting chewing gum on his Savile Row suit and being asked, "You got a spare cigarette, mate" by some chancer. Then getting the bus back with all the pissheads and someone sparking up a crafty spliff at the back.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

They don't even need to do that - 15mins on the train to Blackfriars then an enjoyable and very civilised stroll along the south bank to the RFH.


----------



## AlexH (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Doesn't surprise me at all.
> 
> No-one's commented on my post pointing out that about half of the signatories of the initial 750-strong anti-closures petition were from outside the consultation area.


A function of the fact that the consultation area was too small and local people affected by the closure were outside that area and should have been consulted but were not - hence the anger. You should also remember that  many of the so called majority who responded to the official consultation were cyclists and campaigners etc who had no connection to the area at all!


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Labour are rowing back on road management in Streatham St Leonards.-extract from Labour blog below......
> 
> As this is split ward with one Green councillor I wonder what he will do? Official Green policy would suggest he would be calling for immediate implementation. Could this be one place at least where party policy is deflected by local opinion?



The Green councillor would be asking for the cycle way, but also demanding a proper and fair consultation, I don't believe the Green party are fascists like so many other parties such as the Blue Labour Lambeth Council we currently have installed.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

AlexH said:


> A function of the fact that the consultation area was too small and local people affected by the closure were outside that area and should have been consulted but were not - hence the anger. You should also remember that  many of the so called majority who responded to the official consultation were cyclists and campaigners etc who had no connection to the area at all!


Cyclists who travel through the area and responded to the consultation are no diferent to drivers who travel through the area and signed the petition. One group's participation in this is just as valid or invalid as the other's.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

AlexH said:


> A function of the fact that the consultation area was too small and local people affected by the closure were outside that area and should have been consulted but were not - hence the anger. You should also remember that  many of the so called majority who responded to the official consultation were cyclists and campaigners etc who had no connection to the area at all!


That's what the councillor said more or less. But how far do you go?

I remember Linda Bellos (bless) complaining that Lambeth had not consulted the black community of Lambeth now living in Thornton Heath about how they wanted the Black Cultural Archives to proceed.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> oh dear. I didn't mean it in that way, quite the opposite - was trying to suggest that the idea of all these selfish drivers going around polluting the place with their windows up just for the self indulgent fun of it might not be quite fair. I know the people in the video probably aren't into Bartok but still.


Oh - I thought you were highlighting the macho side of all this.
Whereas we had already established it was to a large degree school runs I thought.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> They don't even need to do that - 15mins on the train to Blackfriars then an enjoyable and very civilised stroll along the south bank to the RFH.


It's true, did that the other evening. Blackfriars is a beautiful station.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Cyclists who travel through the area and responded to the consultation are no diferent to drivers who travel through the area and signed the petition. One group's participation in this is just as valid or invalid as the other's.


True I guess they balance each other out

Some ways to ensure that it's locals who respond would be 
a) go door knocking but that would cost a fortune 
b) paper surveys with postage paid reply envelopes, also cost a fortune 
c) or individual surveys per households with a personalised code that would allow you to do it online, similar to the electoral role register forms we get, no doubt also costs a fortune


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

LadyV said:


> True I guess they balance each other out
> 
> Some ways to ensure that it's locals who respond would be
> a) go door knocking but that would cost a fortune
> ...



I do think that the initial consultation here could have been a lot better without huge expense: Just a few well placed posters locally, clearly announcing what was being considered and telling people where and when the consultation events were going to be might have helped a lot.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> I do think that the initial consultation here could have been a lot better without huge expense: Just a few well placed posters locally, clearly announcing what was being considered and telling people where and when the consultation events were going to be might have helped a lot.



Yeah you're right. Personally I also think there's been far too much reliance placed on the internet in all of this, most announcements about events have been via posts on forums or websites. Most of the original consultation was  online I think, there may have been a paper version, I can't remember. Given the reported levels of poverty in the area, I think it was wrong for the Lambeth to assume that everyone would be able to participate in the consultation.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

LadyV said:


> True I guess they balance each other out
> 
> Some ways to ensure that it's locals who respond would be
> a) go door knocking but that would cost a fortune
> ...


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.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Yeah you're right. Personally I also think there's been far too much reliance placed on the internet in all of this, most announcements about events have been via posts on forums or websites. Most of the original consultation was  online I think, there may have been a paper version, I can't remember. Given the reported levels of poverty in the area, I think it was wrong for the Lambeth to assume that everyone would be able to participate in the consultation.


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


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

It must be number 3 on that list which I saw. 
Yes, they did have a paper copy of the questionnaire there, the two very embattled looking young people with a folding table.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Car clubs don't get much of a mention here. Now widely available all over London, and affordable (certainly relative to the cost of owning a car). They can be used for things like weekly shopping.


Not all at the same time though.. Saturdays will be fraught....


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

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


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

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 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

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 (Nov 5, 2015)

LadyV said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

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 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

leanderman said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> 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?
> ...



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 (Nov 5, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

MrM said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> Bin men. Spare a thought for the bin men.



Are your bins overflowing?


----------



## MrM (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

leanderman said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

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 (Nov 5, 2015)

MrM said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2015)

MrM said:


> 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.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

critical1 said:


> 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!!!


Imagine being a parent without access to a car. We've been over this before. What are they supposed to do?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

MrM said:


> 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).



If you want to cut down on the school run, you need to make sure schools are distributed in such a way that people don't have to travel a long way. And put siblings in the same school so you don't have parents schlepping all over the place taking children to different schools.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> If you want to cut down on the school run, you need to make sure schools are distributed in such a way that people don't have to travel a long way. And put siblings in the same school so you don't have parents schlepping all over the place taking children to different schools.


The easier it is for car-owning parents to send their kids to distant schools, by driving them there, the more of them will do it. Remove a little bit of that advantage from them, and maybe it's possible to moderate this vicious circle.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

Perhaps I should say "homines sapientes" in order not to be pulled up by the nitpicking brigade.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The easier it is for car-owning parents to send their kids to distant schools, by driving them there, the more of them will do it. Remove a little bit of that advantage from them, and maybe it's possible to moderate this vicious circle.



I was thinking more of the case where the parents didn't choose a school or schools far away.
You are like the executioner who first crucifies his victim and then breaks his legs because he didn't die fast enough.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> 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.


those days are over unfortunately, I remember getting the bus to school or walking it as I had spent my bus fare on something more worthwhile

I also remember kids being mugged and stabbed and being disruptive.. As a parent theses days I wonder what I would do to make sure they are within the school gates.. Have you noticed most schools look like fortress's these days impenetrable!! Make you wonder...


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I was thinking more of the case where the parents didn't choose a school or schools far away.


You mean when the kids end up in a school far away through no choice of the parents?

Again - what about the parents in this situation who don't own a car? Should we be trying to make life easier for them, or not? Or should we be worrying about the parents lucky enough to have a car, whose journeys might now take a bit longer?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Imagine being a parent without access to a car. We've been over this before. What are they supposed to do?



I don't see any validity in the argument that, because some people don't have X, no-one should have X.
If that were a valid argument, no-one should have access to electricity or clean running water.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

critical1 said:


> those days are over unfortunately, I remember getting the bus to school or walking it as I had spent my bus fare on something more worthwhile
> 
> I also remember kids being mugged and stabbed and being disruptive.. As a parent theses days I wonder what I would do to make sure they are within the school gates.. Have you noticed most schools look like fortress's these days impenetrable!! Make you wonder...



Yes, I know what you mean. I walked past my old primary school recently. It's amalgamated with the secondary school next door and the place looks more like a prison than a school. Massive iron fences and bars everywhere.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I don't see any validity in the argument that, because some people don't have X, no-one should have X.
> If that were a valid argument, no-one should have access to electricity or clean running water.


That's not my argument though, is it?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> That's not my argument though, is it?



No, your argument is that even if some people have X they shouldn't use it because other don't have the option.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

I don't have kids (or a car) but got to admit if I had small children living here with me I'm not sure how relaxed I'd feel about them cycling to school on shiny bikes, or walking home after dark, etc.  
On the other hand, the statistics (nationwide) do look pretty dire: "Over a quarter of parents (27 per cent) automatically drive their children .. In stark contrast, 92 per cent of pensioners and 81 per cent of today’s parents walked to primary school when they were children; in 2012 just 47 per cent of trips to and from primary school were made on foot and 44 per cent by car'.
That's a lot of rush hour traffic right there..
http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/sites/default/files/content/library/Factsheets/Walking to school.pdf


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

What about people who have three children all at different schools and also have to go to work every day and come back and collect the children and what about if they are a single parent and a possibly doing even two jobs one during the day and one in the evening to make ends meet.

Should these parents give up and receive benefits or take the bus or walk


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> No, your argument is that even if some people have X they shouldn't use it because other don't have the option.


No it's not.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

critical1 said:


> What about people who have three children all at different schools and also have to go to work every day and come back and collect the children and what about if they are a single parent and a possibly doing even two jobs one during the day and one in the evening to make ends meet.
> 
> Should these parents give up and receive benefits or take the bus or walk


If they are car owners they should be arguing for anything that moves away from a world where people so short of time are spending half their waking hours being a taxi driver.
If they aren't car owners they should be arguing for anything that improves the safety of their children who have to walk/take the bus to school.

It would be in their interest whether car owners or not to have a system where walking / PT to school was encouraged and where it was the norm, and where those walking journeys were along streets busy with other pedestrians rather than traffic, because that's what makes them safer.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 5, 2015)

critical1 said:


> What about people who have three children all at different schools and also have to go to work every day and come back and collect the children and what about if they are a single parent and a possibly doing even two jobs one during the day and one in the evening to make ends meet.
> 
> Should these parents give up and receive benefits or take the bus or walk



No one is saying that absolutely everyone should walk/cycle/public transport to school/work etc, there are always going to be some people for whom that isn't really an option but there are a good number of people that could consider their choice of transport. For instance one of my neighbours in Styles Gardens used to drive her son to school, which is on the other side of Loughborough Road towards Herne Hill. She's now walking him there because it's no longer convenient to drive but I doubt she would have stopped otherwise. If we could reduce non essential journeys like that then we would have no need for a road closure. But maybe something like this, not necessarily this, is needed to make people think about their journeys.

And before you think otherwise, I do not want the closures as I think they were ill thought out, badly implemented and rushed, I also believe there were other options that could have produced similar results but without the animosity the closures have caused. And yes I have filled in the appropriate consultations and have complained the relevant parties to that effect. But despite being against them, I'm also rational enough to let the trial continue and see what happens.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

ooh. BBC London radio this morning. 
The bit about LJ's closures is at about  1hr 47 in.. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035db84#play


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If they are car owners they should be arguing for anything that moves away from a world where people so short of time are spending half their waking hours being a taxi driver......and where those walking journeys were along streets busy with other pedestrians rather than traffic, because that's what makes them safer.


A few of the  pedestrians are gangs there have already been a few deaths in the area. Loughborough rd now has wheelies and people doing hand break turns due to the lack of commuters down this road, are you suggesting that parents should resent caring for there children and ensuring there safety and livelihoods.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> ooh. BBC London radio this morning.
> The bit about LJ's closures is at about  1hr 47 in..
> BBC Radio London - The Breakfast Show with Penny Smith and Paul Ross, Sharm el-Sheikh and new homes in Hounslow


Well said on the BBC no less...


----------



## LadyV (Nov 5, 2015)

Have just seen this on the LJ Road Madness facebook page, am I reading it right that it says that they are extending the trial time? I'm all for seeing the trial out but this is not going to go down well with some people

"BREAKING NEWS THIS RESPONSE JUST NOW FROM THE DEPUTY MAYOR:

Dear Mr. Hickey
I have read your e.mail with interest, myself with my Cllr colleague met the officers yesterday morning to raise the concerns which residents are snaring with us
We agreed to extend the trial time from December to March next year, also officers are looking into alternate ways of dealing with this important issue. By extending the date there will be more time to do satisfactory consultation /engagement with the residents affected by this scheme
I am as your Local councillor willing and happy to come to any public meetings residents arrange
Councillor Saleha Jaffer
Deputy Mayor
One of your Labour Councillors for St Leonards Ward
Tel: 07929 547 619
Email: Sjaffer@Lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Have just seen this on the LJ Road Madness facebook page, am I reading it right that it says that they are extending the trial time? I'm all for seeing the trial out but this is not going to go down well with some people
> 
> "BREAKING NEWS THIS RESPONSE JUST NOW FROM THE DEPUTY MAYOR:
> 
> ...


What is that about? 
Sounds like just a return to the original 6 month trial with no break clause now, no 3 month review let alone the 8 week one there's been all this fuss about??


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Have just seen this on the LJ Road Madness facebook page, am I reading it right that it says that they are extending the trial time? I'm all for seeing the trial out but this is not going to go down well with some people
> 
> "BREAKING NEWS THIS RESPONSE JUST NOW FROM THE DEPUTY MAYOR:
> 
> ...


All very STRANGE has this been verified as being authentic...

Myself with my Cllr colleague?? Who exactly lol


----------



## AlexH (Nov 5, 2015)

critical1 said:


> All very STRANGE has this been verified as being authentic...


Yes, I can vouch it is authentic. 

The Council promised an early review to see if the project was working and if not it was stated that they would bring it to an early end. It is clear that the Council (or Cllr Brathwaite at least) were hoping that the results might show a positive outcome for continuation of the scheme. However, as a result of the massive outcry against it from local residents, an online petition and paper petition combined now exceeds 5000 names (yes 5000),  let alone the survey monkey thing, it appears that they do not like the results of their consultation so far. Consequently it is clear from the below that the Council intends to EXTEND the duration of the scheme UNTIL MARCH 2016. They have already agreed to do that BEFORE THE REVIEW DATE HAS CONCLUDED AND A DECISION TO BE ANNOUNCED ON 19th.  It is obvious that the so-called ‘review’ by the Council and its offers is a sham since the Council has no real intention of paying any attention to the wishes of the people with whom it is bound to consult and is prepared to act irrationally to secure the result it wants. 

WATCH THIS SPACE - it's going to be in the BBC news this evening I think. And the Fiasco is in the Standard.  The MPs are also now starting to take an interest.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Labour are rowing back on road management in Streatham St Leonards.-extract from Labour blog below
> 
> "4 Nov 2015 — I attended a meeting this morning with Sustrans staff, traffic and highways engineers and community engagement staff and my fellow councillor, Cllr Jaffer. We looked at feedback and suggestions received by us to date and we looked at and discussed a number of other options in addition to the original one.
> The headline news is that we will not now be implementing the trial now until March 2016 at the earliest. This will give us an opportunity to present alternative options and to hold further discussions with local residents and other stakeholders as requested.
> ...



Are we sure there hasn't been some mix up with the Estreham Road closure? The councillor named is from St Leonards Ward and the timeline tallies with the above quote.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

Ok.. it looks like there's no 'mix up' . Don't know what I'd call this but not a mistake. 
This seems to be the background.. Mr Hickey's email (an OPEN LETTER) is far too long to post (it's 4 pages of A4, a very detailed critique of the closures) 
 But I'll quote this bit of it: 

Your Council  is required to have a live ongoing 6 month consultation period for the experimental TMO. In fact the Lambeth website misleads on the question of the public realm improvements by suggesting that a consultation is closed and there is no live consultation, thus deterring unsuspecting members of the community from providing a response. Those people who have emailed you to voice their objections have been met with a wall of silence and no acknowledgment.  It was only this week (during school half-term) a survey monkey questionnaire prepared by the Stockwell Partnership has been opened asking a limited number of questions with limited space for comments but most members of the public will not be aware of this and it has not been posted on the Lambeth website section which deals with consultations. I understand that the duration of that survey will last just this week ahead of the review next week.  In other words your Council has decided to restrict the scope of any consultation:  there is no acceptable justification for this, indeed it demonstrates the Council wants to limit the scope for representations because it fears that the vast majority are opposed to the road closures. The review at 8wks will apparently take into account pollution levels recorded on the closed LR  but you have not measured, and do not intend to measure, the pollution levels on Coldharbour Lane to check the extent to which CHL is more polluted than before. The data from this unscientific approach are going to be inherently unreliable.  


It is disgraceful that the decision on whether to continue with the scheme will be made by Cllr Brathwaite alone – particularly since the Cllr in question has not even had the courtesy to acknowledge receipt of my emails on the subject, nor other people’s correspondence. She has not attended any meetings with the vast majority in the local community who oppose the road closure.  It is clear that Cllr Brathwaite is determined to ignore representations made to her because her mind is already made up to press ahead with an initiative that is her pet project.  The decision should be called in by other Councillors so that such an important issue affecting the local community is left to the will of one person who is unwilling to admit this has been a drastic mistake.


and the response seems to be ' ok, well we'll leave them in place for the full 6 months then' (?)


On 2 Nov 2015, at 16:23, Brathwaite,Jennifer Cllr <JBrathwaite@lambth.gov.uk> wrote:


Dear Mr Hickey,

Thank you for your email.  Given its length, I will take time to read your comments and get back to you.

Regards

Councillor Jennifer Brathwaite

Labour Councillor for 

Gipsy Hill Ward

Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability

07805943813


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Yes, I can vouch it is authentic.
> 
> The Council promised an early review to see if the project was working and if not it was stated that they would bring it to an early end. It is clear that the Council (or Cllr Brathwaite at least) were hoping that the results might show a positive outcome for continuation of the scheme. However, as a result of the massive outcry against it from local residents, an online petition and paper petition combined now exceeds 5000 names (yes 5000),  let alone the survey monkey thing, it appears that they do not like the results of their consultation so far. Consequently it is clear from the below that the Council intends to EXTEND the duration of the scheme UNTIL MARCH 2016. They have already agreed to do that BEFORE THE REVIEW DATE HAS CONCLUDED AND A DECISION TO BE ANNOUNCED ON 19th.  It is obvious that the so-called ‘review’ by the Council and its offers is a sham since the Council has no real intention of paying any attention to the wishes of the people with whom it is bound to consult and is prepared to act irrationally to secure the result it wants.
> 
> WATCH THIS SPACE - it's going to be in the BBC news this evening I think. And the Fiasco is in the Standard.  The MPs are also now starting to take an interest.


Thanks for that, I'll wait for official verification from Lambeth or LJMADNESS


----------



## AlexH (Nov 5, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Thanks for that, I'll wait for official verification from Lambeth or LJMADNESS


Ok sure, but I can tell you from the horse's mouth that it's a reply by the Deputy Mayor to my email!


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Ok sure, but I can tell you from the horse's mouth that it's a reply by the Deputy Mayor to my email!



It IS you. . It looks to me like they have to some extent used that bit of your open letter (the 6 month consultation requirement) to legitimate delaying any review / repeal  until March.. is that how you see it ?


----------



## AlexH (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> It IS you. . It looks to me like they have to some extent used that bit of your open letter (the 6 month consultation requirement) to legitimate delaying any review / repeal  until March.. is that how you see it ?



They are obliged to consult for 6 months before deciding to make a TMO permanent, but they do not have to keep the roads closed in the meantime. Having called an early review they are worried about what the current conclusions would show: the people who have petitioned and those who have completed  the survey have spoken - I suspect overwhelmingly against continuation of the road closure but they don't want to demonstrate that with the review. I think they are also concerned that the consultation so far has been flawed and open to judicial review and might be seeking to have more time to do it right. I can't see this ending well.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> 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


Wow - no wonder you are up posting on Urban75 at 5.20 am. Dissociative PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to the uninitiated). 
There is probably a claims firm for that.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The easier it is for car-owning parents to send their kids to distant schools, by driving them there, the more of them will do it. Remove a little bit of that advantage from them, and maybe it's possible to moderate this vicious circle.


There you go again - this is stick before carrot.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

AlexH said:


> WATCH THIS SPACE - it's going to be in the BBC news this evening I think. And the Fiasco is in the Standard.  The MPs are also now starting to take an interest.


I saw part of the news clip on BBC1 London news.
Who was the quite well presented lady who took a side swipe at where LJAG diredctors live?
Not from here surely - looked far too normal.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 5, 2015)

Just seen this:
Crunch day looms over traffic ‘experiment’


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I saw part of the news clip on BBC1 London news.
> Who was the quite well presented lady who took a side swipe at where LJAG diredctors live?
> Not from here surely - looked far too normal.


She's a Loughborough resident.... are you saying Loughborough residents are ABNORMAL.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> And put siblings in the same school so you don't have parents schlepping all over the place taking children to different schools.



Lambeth has a sibling rule. 

Apart from where a child is in a special school, I don't know any families with primary age kids at different schools.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

The bit on todays' BBC 1 London news about the road closures is here, starts at 11.40 minutes in
(with an interview with Clare Neely standing in Loughborough Rd talking about being able to hear children playing, whilst a heavy goods truck goes past behind her.)

BBC iPlayer  - BBC London News - 05/11/2015


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 5, 2015)

Well they would wouldn't they? The children were on a half term holiday!


----------



## critical1 (Nov 5, 2015)

bimble said:


> The bit on todays' BBC 1 London news about the road closures is here, starts at 11.40 minutes in
> (with an interview with Clare Neely standing in Loughborough Rd talking about being able to hear children playing, whilst a heavy goods truck goes past behind her.)
> 
> BBC iPlayer  - BBC London News - 05/11/2015



It is Laughable really...It's the white van man driving through.......


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

Yes, it really is, funny / awful.


----------



## bimble (Nov 5, 2015)

Anyone know why Cllr braithwaite & Helen Hayes visited the junction today?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> There you go again - this is stick before carrot.


Yes. Because the evidence shows that the other way around doesn't work. But let's just ignore that, and continue to watch those in the least advantaged position gradually become even more so, and pander to the demands of those who rank their personal freedom as more important.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 5, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Yes. Because the evidence shows that the other way around doesn't work. But let's just ignore that, and continue to watch those in the least advantaged position gradually become even more so, and pander to the demands of those who rank their personal freedom as more important.


Hear hear personal freedom and human rights  all the way


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Just seen this:
> Crunch day looms over traffic ‘experiment’



From the article:

"So a crunch day for London indeed, but also for anyone fearing unofficial war has been declared on those who dare depend on a motor vehicle, and that’s most of us."

There's nothing unofficial about the war. It's all openly declared if anyone cares to look. The difference now is the gloves have come off and the knuckle dusters are on.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

critical1 said:


> She's a Loughborough resident.... are you saying Loughborough residents are ABNORMAL.


YES - if you compare them to Urban75 posters


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> From the article:
> "So a crunch day for London indeed, but also for anyone fearing unofficial war has been declared on those who dare depend on a motor vehicle, and that’s most of us."
> There's nothing unofficial about the war. It's all openly declared if anyone cares to look. The difference now is the gloves have come off and the knuckle dusters are on.


That article could not have been written today (as it is).


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> From the article:
> 
> "So a crunch day for London indeed, but also for anyone fearing unofficial war has been declared on those who dare depend on a motor vehicle, and that’s most of us."
> 
> There's nothing unofficial about the war. It's all openly declared if anyone cares to look. The difference now is the gloves have come off and the knuckle dusters are on.



Have we really descended to the pathetic 'war on motorists' trope? Cars and the motor industry lobby have dominated town planning since the fifties. A minor swing in favour of non car road usage is not a war. 

Unless your a motor journalist like the writer of that article. How this place has changed. Reclaim the streets?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Have we really descended to the pathetic 'war on motorists' trope? Cars and the motor industry lobby have dominated town planning since the fifties. A minor swing in favour of non car road usage is not a war.
> 
> Unless your a motor journalist like the writer of that article. How this place has changed. Reclaim the streets?



I don't call plans to abolish all through routes within a five mile perimeter a minor change. Especially when combined with other changes which reduce capacity at major junctions.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I don't call plans to abolish all through routes within a five mile perimeter a minor change. Especially when combined with other changes which reduce capacity at major junctions.


It's not 5 miles.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

The region bounded by Denmark Hill, Herne Hill, Dulwich Road, Effra Road, Brixton Road and Camberwell New Road has a perimeter of 5 miles.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2015)

irf520 said:


> The region bounded by Denmark Hill, Herne Hill, Dulwich Road, Effra Road, Brixton Road and Camberwell New Road has a perimeter of 5 miles.


Surely a well intentioned mathematician would have said a RADIUS of 5 miles.
That is what I assumed. A perimeter of 5 miles is obscurantist IMHO.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 5, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Surely a well intentioned mathematician would have said a RADIUS of 5 miles.
> That is what I assumed. A perimeter of 5 miles is obscurantist IMHO.



Perimeter is relevant because if you want to go in the 'wrong' direction you have a diversion of half the perimeter.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Perimeter is relevant because if you want to go in the 'wrong' direction you have a diversion of half the perimeter.


I defer to your Pythagorean expertise.


----------



## Bluenote (Nov 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Lambeth has a sibling rule.
> 
> Apart from where a child is in a special school, I don't know any families with primary age kids at different schools.


Let me help you to understand. Issue is simple, several children in a family, unless multiple birth they are obviously different ages, as children age they move on to an school for older children. Result children are not at they same school.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 6, 2015)

Bluenote said:


> Let me help you to understand. Issue is simple, several children in a family, unless multiple birth they are obviously different ages, as children age they move on to an school for older children. Result children are not at they same school.



Secondary school children travel independently. By foot or bus. Tube, train even.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Secondary school children travel independently. By foot or bus. Tube, train even.


That's where other pedestrians such as gangs are then involved, see you at the police station or worse... But let's not talk about that as it undermines the whole ethos of kettled area


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> YES - if you compare them to Urban75 posters


I always thought that normal was an imposed condition from a group mentality, In that case I agree with you.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Secondary school children travel independently. By foot or bus. Tube, train even.


That a lot them don't anymore seems to be part of the problem?


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

So that email yesterday from the Deputy Mayor ..

*"We agreed to extend the trial time from December to March next year*, also officers are looking into alternate ways of dealing with this important issue. By extending the date there will be more time to do satisfactory consultation /engagement with the residents affected by this scheme"

It does say the trial, not the consultation period.

Does that basically mean that this 8 week review we've heard so much about is now in the bin already ?
(genuinely confused of flaxman rd)


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)




----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> The bit on todays' BBC 1 London news about the road closures is here, starts at 11.40 minutes in
> (with an interview with Clare Neely standing in Loughborough Rd talking about being able to hear children playing, whilst a heavy goods truck goes past behind her.)
> 
> BBC iPlayer  - BBC London News - 05/11/2015


My sincere apologies for repeating (again) my all time favourite clip.
A 2007 visit to Enugu left me with a powerful appreciation of crap traffic schemes. 
For me Lambeth have at least managed to produce that déjà vu feeling (again).
The opening seconds of the BBC film are reminiscent of a more authentic road experience now largely lost to us. And as critical1 points out the white vans in the BBC clip have truly earth moving dimensions:


----------



## leanderman (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> That a lot them don't anymore seems to be part of the problem?



If true, yes. Doesn't seem to happen over here though.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

I don't know about this development, but on a broader level it's a huge shame that in the UK we can't get it together to make safe cycle routes to schools.  It's no wonder gangs can get a foothold when people don't feel safe walking and cycling in their neighbourhood.  Streets dominated by cars do nothing to make our streets feel welcome.

I lived in Amsterdam where most kids cycle to school.  It can only be helpful for both kids and parents if they have the opportunity to get to school under their own steam and inclination, rather than being dependant on a parent and oil.

I'm sure you can't compare this neighbourhood to the one in this thread, but I found this video illustrating how different our streets could be if we started to design them for people.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> I don't know about this development, but on a broader level it's a huge shame that in the UK we can't get it together to make safe cycle routes to schools.  It's no wonder gangs can get a foothold when people don't feel safe walking and cycling in their neighbourhood.  Streets dominated by cars do nothing to make our streets feel welcome.
> 
> I lived in Amsterdam where most kids cycle to school.  It can only be helpful for both kids and parents if they have the opportunity to get to school under their own steam and inclination, rather than being dependant on a parent and oil.
> 
> I'm sure you can't compare this neighbourhood to the one in this thread, but I found this video illustrating how different our streets could be if we started to design them for people.



That place is more like Milton Keynes or Swindon. Recently built with oodles of space. And planned.
As you say the model is not transplantable - although I supposed the mini park part of Loughborough Road might end up like this (for about 50 yards).


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> My sincere apologies for repeating (again) my all time favourite clip.
> A 2007 visit to Enugu left me with a powerful appreciation of crap traffic schemes.


I can't spot what's wrong with the Enugu road system to be honest.

I was in Malawi earlier this year, and here's a photo of the country's main North- south road (something like the M1, if there was only the M1).
We were more or less the only car, which in a way is really idyllic see ?
Maybe that's the answer.. a drastic lowering of GDP


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

Lambeth have now introduced a new game called spot the consultation invite... Can you spot it.


----------



## prunus (Nov 6, 2015)

Oh ffs... The lights are out again at the bottom of Herne hill road. 

At least they've not been replaced by those temporary ones that caused so much trouble last time, and there doesn't appear to be any traffic problems as yet...

But really...


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

prunus said:


> Oh ffs... The lights are out again at the bottom of Herne hill road.
> 
> At least they've not been replaced by those temporary ones that caused so much trouble last time, and there doesn't appear to be any traffic problems as yet...
> 
> But really...



Seems to me that maybe that sort sort of thing should be considered more or less normal, and factored in to plans like this (as well as the major construction work coming etc )?


----------



## prunus (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Seems to me that maybe that sort sort of thing should be considered more or less normal, and factored in to plans like this (as well as the major construction work coming etc )?



In the 15 years I've lived here I think perhaps the lights have been out maybe 4 or 5 times - I think factoring that level of interruption in might be rather over-fitting the model. 

It normally doesn't cause that much problem (as indeed it's not now) - it was the poor phasing of the temporaries recently that was the big problem. 

That they're out now just annoys me because *they've just been f**king fixed!*

The temporary traffic light fiasco also annoys me, because I believe it was the primary cause of the jams over the beginning (or just after) of the closure period, which were then attributed to the closures by people all over from the bus drivers to that (frankly rubbish) Evening Standard article, erroneously driving public opinion against them.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> That place is more like Milton Keynes or Swindon. Recently built with oodles of space. And planned.
> As you say the model is not transplantable - although I supposed the mini park part of Loughborough Road might end up like this (for about 50 yards).



The same principles apply to inner cities.  Id say it's even more pressing to redesign areas where space is limited as cars take up masses of space next to all other forms of transport.  The Dutch model is certainly transportable.

Change has happened before in built up areas which were once heavily congested.  Up until 1970's Holland also designed their streets around cars - with little thought for how this impacted on communities.  Around '74 a campaign, which translates to 'Stop the child murder', started in De Pijp.  The area was then a heavily polluted and congested suburb of Amsterdam.  Through collective action, and reclaim the streets style of protesting, the residents managed to change the direction of the suburb and also the nation.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

prunus said:


> The temporary traffic light fiasco also annoys me, because I believe it was the primary cause of the jams over the beginning (or just after) of the closure period, which were then attributed to the closures by people all over from the bus drivers to that (frankly rubbish) Evening Standard article, erroneously driving public opinion against them.


It definitely confused things at the worst possible time, that's true.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

prunus said:


> it was the poor phasing of the temporaries recently that was the big problem.


Reminds me - one thing that would help a lot, as a pedestrian, is if the lights worked a bit quicker at the LJ junction. Sometimes it feels like a very long time standing there waiting to cross.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> Lambeth has a sibling rule.
> 
> Apart from where a child is in a special school, I don't know any families with primary age kids at different schools.



I do, my friends kids who are a year apart go to different schools in Tulse Hill, not sure why, unless it's their choice but one parent drops off one, one parent drops off the other


----------



## leanderman (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I do, my friends kids who are a year apart go to different schools in Tulse Hill, not sure why, unless it's their choice but one parent drops off one, one parent drops off the other



By car?


----------



## LadyV (Nov 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> By car?


One by car as he's an estate agent, other walking


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

What we have to deal with as LOCAL RESIDENTS, I'll feel safer with more CCTV and police on the beat...


"It is really important that as many people as possible respond to the consultation so that a full range of views are heard - the consultation is open to everyone, not just local residents, so if you cycle through the area please do respond."

"The scheme is supported by local residents and people who cycle through the area. Clare Neely who lives in the neighbourhood says_ "I am passionate about the scheme because for years local residents have been telling the council that we want to live in a neighbourhood where people feel safe to walk and cycle. "_


----------



## Winot (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> One by car as he's an estate agent, other walking



The killer argument to persuade Urban75 posters: protect the right of estate agents to drive their children to school.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 6, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Lambeth have now introduced a new game called spot the consultation invite... Can you spot it.
> 
> View attachment 79216


I can see it. Top right


----------



## prunus (Nov 6, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> I can see it. Top right



Gnomic...


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> The same principles apply to inner cities.  Id say it's even more pressing to redesign areas where space is limited as cars take up masses of space next to all other forms of transport.  The Dutch model is certainly transportable.
> 
> Change has happened before in built up areas which were once heavily congested.  Up until 1970's Holland also designed their streets around cars - with little thought for how this impacted on communities.  Around '74 a campaign, which translates to 'Stop the child murder', started in De Pijp.  The area was then a heavily polluted and congested suburb of Amsterdam.  Through collective action, and reclaim the streets style of protesting, the residents managed to change the direction of the suburb and also the nation.


I assume from these comments you favour mass Compulsory Purchase Orders, decanting people to New Towns, and building Ring Road 1 - as in the 1940s/50s.

How modern and up with events - not to say the feelings of people who have lived in our community for the last 60 years.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 6, 2015)

That approach wasn't used in the Netherlands though was it? I can't quite recall.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 6, 2015)

Winot said:


> The killer argument to persuade Urban75 posters: protect the right of estate agents to drive their children to school.



I wasn't supporting his right one way or the other, was merely answering a question. However he drops off his child on route to his office, it's not a journey made especially. You might not like estate agents but when it comes down to it, it's a job and someone has to do it. I remember when I was looking to move, them having a car was pretty handy if you're trying to look at 5 properties in an hour slot. And he's not completely the enemy as he doesn't work near us and it's not for Foxtons!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I assume from these comments you favour mass Compulsory Purchase Orders, decanting people to New Towns, and building Ring Road 1 - as in the 1940s/50s.


Yeah, kind of like this, except for being pretty much the exact opposite ?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Yeah, kind of like this, only that the thinking is pretty much the exact opposite ?


If you want loads of space for cycle ways, grass etc you must demolish.
At the very least you must remove all those bricked up undercrofts put under the flats by Brixton Challenge at vast public expense. Likewise the chainlink and simulated iron bedstead fencing which give that enclosed Colditz feeling to all lawns and communal areas.

Yes there is lots to do - to get back to the future.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

Imogen Walker (deputy leader of the council) has stepped in to say that yesterday's message (from the deputy mayor)  - the one saying the trial will now continue uninterrupted until March-  was.. just wrong:  





PS. The big digital £130 signs have disappeared from the junction, they were still there last night.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> If you want loads of space for cycle ways, grass etc you must demolish.
> At the very least you must remove all those bricked up undercrofts put under the flats by Brixton Challenge at vast public expense. Likewise the chainlink and simulated iron bedstead fencing which give that enclosed Colditz feeling to all lawns and communal areas.
> 
> Yes there is lots to do - to get back to the future.



No, that's absolute nonsense.  With public space effectively reserved for the private motor car people get squeezed out of space which was once considered to be part of the community. Enclosing areas for communities is a response to designing streets for cars.

In De Pijp, and many urban areas in Holland it's the streets which are neighbourhood communal area.  There's no need to enclose an area for the community when the streets are part of your community.  If you are interested there's a film of how the streets of De Pijp were reclaimed in Holland which you'll be able to find.  

In the film there's footage of how in the early 70's the streets were gridlocked, kids had no option but to be driven to school.  Now in De Pijp the same buildings have streets with free flowing traffic and clean air and communities - communities develop when people have a chance to meet on streets.  That doesn't happen with people isolated in cars.  It's busy roads which enclose people in their homes and 'communal areas'.  

To return streets to communities back from what was effectively space dedicated to private use to something had to change - and that's to restrict the private car.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> If you want loads of space for cycle ways, grass etc you must demolish.


No, you just need to use existing roadspace more efficiently. That's the whole point - having the entire roadspace given over to motor vehicles is a very inefficient use. In many cases you can provide a very decent cycle lane and/or bus lane by removing a car lane, or removing on-street parking as has been discussed before.

The demolition and CPOs come when you want to increase capacity for motor vehicles. The plan to essentially demolish Brixton and Loughborough Junction was all to the end of providing more capacity for motor vehicles. And I bet you, if it had been built, and there had now been a suggestion to reclaim some of that space for cyclists or pedestrians, the drivers would have been up in arms saying south London simply couldn't function without a 6 lane highway tearing through zone 2.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> No, that's absolute nonsense.  With public space effectively reserved for the private motor car people get squeezed out of space which was once considered to be part of the community. Enclosing areas for communities is a response to designing streets for cars.
> 
> In De Pijp, and many urban areas in Holland it's the streets which are neighbourhood communal area.  There's no need to enclose an area for the community when the streets are part of your community.  If you are interested there's a film of how the streets of De Pijp were reclaimed in Holland which you'll be able to find.
> 
> ...


Have you ever been to either of the two Loughborough Estates?
Are you writing this in the UK even - or from the Netherlands?


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

When this thing is presented as an argument between the rights of motorists versus children singing as they walk to school under cherry blossom trees,  I find myself totally agreeing with .. teuchter.
Thing is I don't think this particular scheme is any good.
I think alternatives still to be discussed and looked at by Lambeth could be a lot better for Loughborough Junction, for cycling, for public transport users.

I think it's a mistake to reduce the discussion to, basically, cars versus humans, because it means the pros and cons and alternatives to this particular scheme get completely left out of the conversation.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Have you ever been to either of the two Loughborough Estates?
> Are you writing this in the UK even - or from the Netherlands?



I made that clear in my first post.  Read my posts and you should realise that I'm speaking on general terms.

I don't currently live in Holland - but living there had made it very clear to me how discriminatory and isolating it is to plan urban areas around the motor car.


----------



## AlexH (Nov 6, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> The same principles apply to inner cities.  Id say it's even more pressing to redesign areas where space is limited as cars take up masses of space next to all other forms of transport.  The Dutch model is certainly transportable.
> 
> Change has happened before in built up areas which were once heavily congested.  Up until 1970's Holland also designed their streets around cars - with little thought for how this impacted on communities.  Around '74 a campaign, which translates to 'Stop the child murder', started in De Pijp.  The area was then a heavily polluted and congested suburb of Amsterdam.  Through collective action, and reclaim the streets style of protesting, the residents managed to change the direction of the suburb and also the nation.



Surprising as it may sound to some posters here, I'm all in favour of redesigning to have more cycleways to encourage and enable more cycling from those both young and older who are able to do so: but not everyone can and it's not always feasible - it's difficult to cycle safely with school bags/sports kit/musical instrument/a model village you've done for homework, all of which is done in the pouring rain.   One  has to realise that vehicles need to be used for all sorts of reasons. I support the superhighway scheme in central london, with its concept of shared but separated use of the highway so that motors and cycles can co-exist - making it safe for the casual cyclist is important if you want to encourage more of them -  again it's not always feasible for me to cycle if I have several lever arch files of paper to lug around. The present scheme, which cuts off one end (for only 38 yrds) of a wide arterial road suitable for vehicles has already been relaid recently with wide cycle lanes in both directions and was perfectly safe for cyclists.  Now it isn't safe. The BBC news clip shows this. Additionally it has cut off those who live south of the block from getting anywhere north, and kettled those who live north of the block (there are still lines of parked cars all along so the suggested that this is low car ownership is a redherring) and its important to remember the longer part of LR is still used by motor vehicles -but then it comes to dead end where the 38 yards of space has no discernable benefit that I can see.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> When this thing is presented as an argument between the rights of motorists versus children singing as they walk to school under cherry blossom trees,  I find myself totally agreeing with .. teuchter.
> Thing is I don't think this particular scheme is any good.
> I think alternatives still to be discussed and looked at by Lambeth could be a lot better for Loughborough Junction, for cycling, for public transport users.
> 
> I think it's a mistake to reduce the discussion to, basically, cars versus humans, because it means the pros and cons and alternatives to this particular scheme get completely left out of the conversation.



But that's what you've assisted in reducing it to.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

AlexH said:


> The present scheme, which cuts off one end (for only 38 yrds) of a wide arterial road suitable for vehicles has already been relaid recently with wide cycle lanes in both directions and was perfectly safe for cyclists.  Now it isn't safe.


Agree. As do the many cyclists who have taken the time to comment and express their opposition to this particular scheme.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> But that's what you've assisted in reducing it to.


I'm sorry you think so. Never my intention (I'm someone opposed to this scheme who has never had a driving license).


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> I don't know about this development, but on a broader level it's a huge shame that in the UK we can't get it together to make safe cycle routes to schools.  It's no wonder gangs can get a foothold when people don't feel safe walking and cycling in their neighbourhood.  Streets dominated by cars do nothing to make our streets feel welcome.
> 
> I lived in Amsterdam where most kids cycle to school.  It can only be helpful for both kids and parents if they have the opportunity to get to school under their own steam and inclination, rather than being dependant on a parent and oil.
> 
> I'm sure you can't compare this neighbourhood to the one in this thread, but I found this video illustrating how different our streets could be if we started to design them for people.



So gangs on bikes will now steal and upgrade bikes etc.. and make quick getaways and the elderly will do what exactly, considering we now have a large elderly & disabled population approaching, what should they do. Without the required infrastructure?


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Surprising as it may sound to some posters here, I'm all in favour of redesigning to have more cycleways to encourage and enable more cycling from those both young and older who are able to do so: but not everyone can and it's not always feasible - it's difficult to cycle safely with school bags/sports kit/musical instrument/a model village you've done for homework, all of which is done in the pouring rain.   One  has to realise that vehicles need to be used for all sorts of reasons. I support the superhighway scheme in central london, with its concept of shared but separated use of the highway so that motors and cycles can co-exist - making it safe for the casual cyclist is important if you want to encourage more of them -  again it's not always feasible for me to cycle if I have several lever arch files of paper to lug around. The present scheme, which cuts off one end (for only 38 yrds) of a wide arterial road suitable for vehicles has already been relaid recently with wide cycle lanes in both directions and was perfectly safe for cyclists.  Now it isn't safe. The BBC news clip shows this. Additionally it has cut off those who live south of the block from getting anywhere north, and kettled those who live north of the block (there are still lines of parked cars all along so the suggested that this is low car ownership is a redherring) and its important to remember the longer part of LR is still used by motor vehicles -but then it comes to dead end where the 38 yards of space has no discernable benefit that I can see.



It's all about having the opportunity to use the right tool for the job.  If you have luggage then clearly a bike is not always the best option.  There's also no point in putting in badly designed cycle facilities - they should be central to any street design, rather than an afterthought.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

What on earth is going on just aheAd of the lady with the wicker basket though.. Is someone on a wheelchair being mugged because the cobblestones are impeding his getaway?


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

critical1 said:


> So gangs on bikes will now steal and upgrade bikes etc.. and make quick getaways and the elderly will do what exactly, considering we now have a large elderly & disabled population approaching, what should they do. Without the required infrastructure?



Holland's streets are particularly well suited to the elderly and disabled.  Wide flat cycle paths, the standard in Holland, are suitable for wheelchairs and other motility scooters.

You also shouldn't overlook the benefits cycling has for an aging population.  Many ailments are delayed, even relieved through cycling.   For example people with some forms of Arthritis and parkinson's struggle to walk a few steps, but regain their mobility give the option of a save environment to cycle.

I've no experience of gangs on bikes!  Do they take advantage of streets devoid of people to do their gang things?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Imogen Walker (deputy leader of the council) has stepped in to say that yesterday's message (from the deputy mayor)  - the one saying the trial will now continue uninterrupted until March-  was.. just wrong:
> 
> 
> View attachment 79225
> ...



*Cllr Imogen Walker*
Strange how the Deputy Mayor couldn't tell us themselves... *Maybe what was said, was true....*


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> I made that clear in my first post.  Read my posts and you should realise that I'm speaking on general terms.
> 
> I don't currently live in Holland - but living there had made it very clear to me how discriminatory and isolating it is to plan urban areas around the motor car.


You don't live in Loughborough either though do you?

On the one hand people from outside the area, many of whom are totally unfamiliar with it prescribe solutions, or support unsuitable council "solutions" with no local knowledge and not having to live with the consequences.

Then you have the LJAGers, a group of well meaning middle class activists who live in the posher owner occupied streets. Many are relative newcomers to the area, but are seeking to do their bit for the community.

In this particular case they have been seduced by the utopian vision of a pedestrian and cyclists paradise, but failed to carry the bulk of residents with them. Residents many of who are used to living a certain way - as they have indeed for the last 50 or more years. Including cars.

I think that you, sir or madam, if you live in Lambeth, could consider doing your bit by pounding the pavements and getting elected as a Labour councillor here next 2018 for the good of our community.

Meanwhile we do have three Labour councillors here who have not exactly given the road scheme a vote of confidence. Far from it - two have called the scheme into scrutiny, one gave a residents petition to the council AGAINST.

Finally the third councillor is currently Mayor of Lambeth and therefore non-partisan this civic year. The Mayor did however award LJAG a prize as Voluntary Organisation of the Year 2014/15.

If this were Lewes some of LJAG might be with the Mayor on a bonfire in effigy like Cameron and his pig, never mind civic award.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 6, 2015)

I can imagine residents on the Loughborough Estate having an effigy of Jennifer Braithwaite and George for their bonfire!


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You don't live in Loughborough either though do you?
> 
> On the one hand people from outside the area, many of whom are totally unfamiliar with it prescribe solutions, or support unsuitable council "solutions" with no local knowledge and not having to live with the consequences.
> 
> ...




Out of interest have you ever lived in a country where, for example, you take it for granted that your children are safe to cycle to school?

Sorry, I'm not really in a position to engage with you in the specifics of this plan.  I don't know the area.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Residents many of who are used to living a certain way - as they have indeed for the last 50 or more years. Including cars.


So we mustn't ever try to change anything. The arguments for the benefits of changing things might be strong, but people are used to doing things a certain way, so let's just ignore those benefits and carry on as we are.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> What on earth is going on just aheAd of the lady with the wicker basket though.. Is someone on a wheelchair being mugged because the cobblestones are impeding his getaway?


If its in Lambeth yep, knife crime is up 29% here... so expect a lot of issues, in relation to crime and ASB


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

critical1 said:


> If its in Lambeth yep, knife crime is up 29% here... so expect a lot of issues, in relation to crime and ASB


Sadly that's what the police seem to think too, when I've spoken to any of them they have voiced concerns about increased crime as a result of the closures.


----------



## leanderman (Nov 6, 2015)

AlexH said:


> it's difficult to cycle safely with school bags/sports kit/musical instrument/a model village you've done for homework, all of which is done in the pouring rain. One  has to realise that vehicles need to be used for all sorts of reasons.



I understand your points about the closure, which make sense. 

Except the bit above. More than half of people don't need cars. They cope.

And if you can't cycle to school, you walk or take the bus.

Driving to school is polluting, unhealthy, bad for the environment, slows other traffic such as buses etc etc.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> I understand your points about the closure, which make sense.
> 
> Except the bit above. More than half of people don't need cars. They cope.
> 
> ...


That is why you have the school bus...


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> Out of interest have you ever lived in a country where, for example, you take it for granted that your children are safe to cycle to school?
> 
> Sorry, I'm not really in a position to engage with you in the specifics of this plan.  I don't know the area.


This is obviously a trick question. I don't have any children - so cannot comment literally.

However its horses for course isn't it?

I can think of lots of places in Ghana where cycling would be completely safe. But not Kumasi, or Obuasi round the gold mines. Or anywhere in Accra.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

AlexH said:


> The present scheme, which cuts off one end (for only 38 yrds) of a wide arterial road suitable for vehicles has already been relaid recently with wide cycle lanes in both directions and was perfectly safe for cyclists.  Now it isn't safe.



Why do you say it is now less safe than before?



And these are not "wide cycle lanes". It's better than nothing because at least it indicates to drivers that cyclists have a right to the road. But those lanes are maybe a metre wide, and using them in heavy traffic you are compressed between the door zone of the parked cars and the traffic - two wide vehicles passing each other on that road will be right up to the cycle lane (and in reality probably infringing on it). Like I say it's better than nothing but it's not an arrangement that is very encouraging to those wary of cycling on the road.




AlexH said:


> (there are still lines of parked cars all along so the suggested that this is low car ownership is a redherring)



What's that supposed to mean? You'd only be convinced that the low levels of car owndership were real if there were no cars parked on the road? Do you dispute the statistics that suggest onwership is somewhere around 20%? 

20% of 10000 households is still 2,000 cars. Still enough to fill up a lot of space that coudl be used for other things.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

leanderman said:


> ...
> 
> Driving to school is polluting, unhealthy, bad for the environment, slows other traffic such as buses etc etc.



I have a friend who works for an organisation which quantifies such things.  Air pollution takes six months off the average life expectancy in this country.  The distribution is very wide so in the most polluted areas it's several years.  Children are particularly susceptible to the dangers of filthy air.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Why do you say it is now less safe than before?
> 
> Like I say it's better than nothing but it's not an arrangement that is very encouraging to those wary of cycling on the road.


Just speaking as a wary cyclist.. It's not Loughborough Rd itself that feels 'less safe', it's just everywhere else (the junction, coldharbour lane, my own street also with the unexpected reversing vehicles and so on).


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Why do you say it is now less safe than before?
> 
> View attachment 79235
> 
> ...



That's a picture of the road after it's been redesigned?  

I'd be tempted to say no provision would be better than a narrow cycle lane in the 'door zone'.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Just speaking as a wary cyclist.. It's not Loughborough Rd itself that feels 'less safe', it's just everywhere else (the junction, coldharbour lane, my own street also with the unexpected reversing vehicles and so on).


So assuming that things settle down over time *if* they do, and CHL traffic gets back to levels similar to pre-closures, and people learn the new layout so aren't turning around in your street...*overall* things would be better?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So we mustn't ever try to change anything. The arguments for the benefits of changing things might be strong, but people are used to doing things a certain way, so let's just ignore those benefits and carry on as we are.


I believe in consent. I sacked my last GP because he stuck a needle in me with Flu vaccine in it. Without my consent.  Wish I'd taken him to the GMC or something.

I do not like being violated - and I don't like my area being violated either.

It may be for my and their own good. But the people potentially affected must agree and consent willingly.

We live here under a de-facto date-rape council - and you are defending their corner cutting and immorality because it coincides with your environmental ideals.

Major changes to people's lives MUST be properly discussed and agreed to by the people concerned.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So assuming that things settle down over time *if* they do, and CHL traffic gets back to levels similar to pre-closures, and people learn the new layout so aren't turning around in your street...*overall* things would be better?



If CHL traffic turns out to be unchanged and if the confusion disappears.. it will be about the same as before I guess, for me as a wary cyclist. Apart from the 20 seconds or so of the  closed LR, which are improved?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What's that supposed to mean? You'd only be convinced that the low levels of car owndership were real if there were no cars parked on the road? Do you dispute the statistics that suggest onwership is somewhere around 20%?
> 
> 20% of 10000 households is still 2,000 cars. Still enough to fill up a lot of space that coudl be used for other things.


Stats are simple things... Loughborough has the highest population density in Lambeth, with a majority living in Tower Blocks, High density Housing Lambeth calls it. 
So care ownership is low compared to the density of population, that is all.
It does not mean that residents do not owns cars....


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> That's a picture of the road after it's been redesigned?


Yes - here is the "before" picture




This is why I am getting frustrated with people going on about how we've already had all these great improvements for cyclists, and that this scheme is overly radical - no, what we have had is minor fiddling about in a way that is designed to work around having virtually no impact on things for drivers. This is what much of the cycling provision in london looks like - narrow lanes or just bikes painted on the road. It's not enough to change people's habits substantially. The cycle superhighways (although not in all parts of them) are much more ambitious and courageous because they actually properly reclaim a portion of the road. People are moaning about the one along the embankment, but it's a substantial enough alteration that I think it really will encourage people to use bikes more to get into the city. I sometimes use the Boris bikes for example, but going east-west through the city is not that pleasant at the moment so in many cases I wouldn't use them for such journeys. However, once that "superhighway" is done, I think I definitely will use it as a travel option much more. And that's one more passenger off the crowded tube.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I believe in consent. I sacked my last GP because he stuck a needle in me with Flu vaccine in it. Without my consent.  Wish I'd taken him to the GMC or something.
> 
> I do not like being violated - and I don't like my area being violated either.
> 
> ...



An environmental ideal?  I'd say that the status quo where 1/5 of people in London suffer premature death due to air pollution is a violation.

If you want to use superlatives like a 'date-rape council' I'd suggest we can also use 'murdering motorists'


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Stats are simple things... Loughborough has the highest population density in Lambeth, with a majority living in Tower Blocks, High density Housing Lambeth calls it.
> So care ownership is low compared to the density of population, that is all.
> It does not mean that residents do not owns cars....


Thanks so much for explaining this.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> If CHL traffic turns out to be unchanged and if the confusion disappears.. it will be about the same as before I guess, for me as a wary cyclist. Apart from the 20 seconds or so of the  closed LR, which are improved?


But as a wary cyclist - with lots of improved sections like the LR road stretch connected together, if that means that potentially 80% of your ride to get to, say, the south bank, is on quiet streets, instead of 25%, wouldn't that make you much more likely to consider using a bike for such a journey?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> An environmental ideal?  I'd say that the status quo where 1/5 of people in London suffer premature death due to air pollution is a violation.
> 
> If you want to use superlatives like a 'date-rape council' I'd suggest we can also use 'murdering motorists'


I agree about air pollution. But why has it taken 100 years to act on this?
I guess it probably took 150 years to deal with coal though didn't it.

But the argument you are using is specious.

Air pollution caused by cars is a dangerous medical nuisance.
The Loughborough road closure will stop some vehicles using part of Loughborough Road.
Therefore the closure is merited on health grounds, whatever other factors apply.

Personally I feel you would need a Master of the Rolls like Lord Denning to get away with such an argument in court.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> This is why I am getting frustrated with people going on about how we've already had all these great improvements for cyclists, and that this scheme is overly radical


But.. as explained above, this particular scheme is completely rubbish as an encouragement for people like me to cycle instead of using public transport.
I'd be all for proper generous joined up cycle lanes instead of parked cars instead, for instance..
This (blocking a short stretch of one big road to cars) doesn't help much is all.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Yes - here is the "before" picture
> 
> View attachment 79236
> .


your streetview image looks well out of date, the-cycle lanes are now wider and painted green I think.....


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I agree about air pollution. But why has it taken 100 years to act on this?
> I guess it probably took 150 years to deal with coal though didn't it.
> 
> But the argument you are using is specious.
> ...



I intended the reply to be in the same tone as your comment which I was replying to.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> I intended the reply to be in the same tone as your comment which I was replying to.


Touché then.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> But.. as explained above, this particular scheme is completely rubbish as an encouragement for people like me to cycle instead of using public transport.
> I'd be all for proper generous joined up cycle lanes instead of parked cars instead, for instance..
> This (blocking a short stretch of one big road to cars) doesn't help much is all.


But you can't have joined-up cycle lanes if each individual stretch of that joined-up route is rejected on the basis that it's not part of a joined-up route yet.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 6, 2015)

The main part of LR is very wide. 12m carriageway and 4-5m pavements. With parking on one side only, you could still have 2-way vehicle traffic, plus fully segregated 2m-wide cycle lanes, with door-opening space for parked cars.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Major changes to people's lives MUST be properly discussed and agreed to by the people concerned.


Thing is, as fredfelt says, most people when you consult them will respond according to their own self interest (of course) . Something like the 5p plastic bag tax for instance, apparently there was uproar in some quarters , because you know, it's annoying for the individual to have to remember to carry a bag. Or increasing tax rates, etc and so on.. you know what I mean. 
Is why I find it more interesting when the conversation steers clear of these vast hyperbolic generalities


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

cuppa tee said:


> your streetview image looks well out of date, the-cycle lanes are now wider and painted green I think.....


No they're not. The image is from this year. You can see them in the background here.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> But you can't have joined-up cycle lanes if each individual stretch of that joined-up route is rejected on the basis that it's not part of a joined-up route yet.


Ok.. but I didn't mean a joined up route of incrementally closed streets, closed to all but cyclists and buses - just suggesting that for me the closures don't make much sense as part of any joined up cycling encouragement scheme. .


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Ok.. but I didn't mean a joined up route of incrementally closed streets, closed to all but cyclists and buses - just suggesting that for me the closures don't make much sense as part of any joined up cycling encouragement scheme. .


So how do you propose we achieve this joined-up scheme, if we reject making any of the bits that can be joined up?


----------



## MrM (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> But the people potentially affected must agree and consent willingly.


True, but (at the risk of taking this to an extreme) as a local resident I don't really consent willingly to giving people the right to pollute the air I breathe, or put my children's lives at risk on the roads.
(and if we can stick to a rational assessment, any danger from gangs is dwarfed by the danger of a road accident).
It comes back to the idea of trading off one set of rights (e.g. motoring) against someone else's rights (e.g. clean air). 
It cannot be a given that, because people have driven cars in the past, nothing can ever constrain their motoring.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

Crispy said:


> The main part of LR is very wide. 12m carriageway and 4-5m pavements. With parking on one side only, you could still have 2-way vehicle traffic, plus fully segregated 2m-wide cycle lanes, with door-opening space for parked cars.


Yes - but things change somewhat when you get beyond fiveways (something that seems to be consistently ignored here when talking about how wide LR is, as part of the argument that it's a principal through route and therefore nonsensical to close off)


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So how do you propose we achieve this joined-up scheme, if we reject making any of the bits that can be joined up?


What if instead of closing one end of the street completely (this big street here I mean) it had been attempted instead to reduce the amount of cars parking all along both sides of it and so widen the cycle lanes instead, for instance? 
EDIT: I'm not copying Crispy was busy typing)


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> What if instead of closing one end of the street completely (this big street here I mean) it had been attempted instead to reduce the amount of cars parking all along both sides of it and so widen the cycle lanes instead, for instance?
> EDIT: I'm not copying Crispy was busy typing)


That would be preferable to doing nothing. But once you got to Fiveways and continued onto Akerman Rd or Loughborough Rd as it turns left, you'd be back in a situation with relatively narrow streets, into which all that traffic, along with the cyclists then has to funnel.

And that's really the point of the traffic-reduction element of this scheme - it's the onward flow of traffic into these smaller streets that is more of a problem than on the wide section of LR, which is a bit of an anomoly created by the replanning of that part of LJ with the building of the estate at a time when unbridled car transport was seen as the future. It's a fragment of a (now outdated) town-planning typology that is essentially an island amidst more traditional Victorian London street layouts (which weren't built for motor traffic as we now know it).


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> That would be preferable to doing nothing. But once you got to Fiveways and continued onto Akerman Rd or Loughborough Rd as it turns left, you'd be back in a situation with relatively narrow streets, into which all that traffic, along with the cyclists then has to funnel.
> 
> And that's really the point of the traffic-reduction element of this scheme - it's the onward flow of traffic into these smaller streets that is more of a problem than on the wide section of LR, which is a bit of an anomoly created by the replanning of that part of LJ with the building of the estate at a time when unbridled car transport was seen as the future. It's a fragment of a (now outdated) town-planning typology that is essentially an island amidst more traditional Victorian London street layouts (which weren't built for motor traffic as we now know it).



And so (ignoring the historical minutae) it's back to evaporation theory for you, right? In that completely closing the end of LR, thus creating more congestion elsewhere and forcing drivers to use circuitous routes through those victorian streets will in time reduce the total number of drivers in London, which in the long term, if repeated enough times, will make cycling more attractive for people like me. Is that really preferable to trying a way that would quite obviously improve things right now ?


----------



## LadyV (Nov 6, 2015)

MrM said:


> True, but (at the risk of taking this to an extreme) as a local resident I don't really consent willingly to giving people the right to pollute the air I breathe, or put my children's lives at risk on the roads.
> (and if we can stick to a rational assessment, any danger from gangs is dwarfed by the danger of a road accident).
> It comes back to the idea of trading off one set of rights (e.g. motoring) against someone else's rights (e.g. clean air).
> It cannot be a given that, because people have driven cars in the past, nothing can ever constrain their motoring.



Yes but (also at the risk of taking this to an extreme) unless you live off your land in the middle of nowhere with no electricity, no gas and never burn anything, just by living your life you're polluting someone else's air. To take it to less of an extreme, LR might now have less traffic and therefore improved pollution levels but 13,000 cars cars per day aren't just going to disappear into thin air, so again you and your children may be benefiting from the closure but somewhere else someone else has had their air pollution increased and their children's lives put at risk.

That's not to say that in the future things can't change but there were much better ways of doing this whole project. Smaller, gradual changes would have gained much more local approval and consent and made it harder for the people who drive through to object.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> That would be preferable to doing nothing. But once you got to Fiveways and continued onto Akerman Rd or Loughborough Rd as it turns left, you'd be back in a situation with relatively narrow streets, into which all that traffic, along with the cyclists then has to funnel.
> 
> And that's really the point of the traffic-reduction element of this scheme - it's the onward flow of traffic into these smaller streets that is more of a problem than on the wide section of LR, which is a bit of an anomoly created by the replanning of that part of LJ with the building of the estate at a time when unbridled car transport was seen as the future. It's a fragment of a (now outdated) town-planning typology that is essentially an island amidst more traditional Victorian London street layouts (which weren't built for motor traffic as we now know it).



The north end of LR, Fiveways and onwards is a nightmare for drivers and cyclists alike but with some CPZs and more restrictive parking and maybe even making some more roads one way, I think you could make it better for everyone.

I think this is kind of another reason that closing Loughborough Road at Wyck Gardens wasn't that well thought out as people are still parked all the way down LR and when you get to Fiveways etc, there's still a good amount of traffic, yet we're encouraging more cyclists to go down there.

Further examples of bad implementation really


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Further examples of bad implementation really


I think the local powers that be outdid themselves today, omnishambles-wise, with the deputy leader and deputy mayor presumably having had a quiet chat about the 'misunderstanding'. It's such a shame, feels like a wasted opportunity this whole thing.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

Did You Know that our deputy leader (of Lambeth Council) is an acclaimed actor? I didn't.



&



www.imogenwalker.com


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> And so (ignoring the historical minutae) it's back to evaporation theory for you, right? In that completely closing the end of LR, thus creating more congestion elsewhere and forcing drivers to use circuitous routes through those victorian streets will in time reduce the total number of drivers in London, which in the long term, if repeated enough times, will make cycling more attractive for people like me. Is that really preferable to trying a way that would quite obviously improve things right now ?


I think that supporting more ambitious attempts to improve things in the local and wider area both now and in the long term, is preferable to settling for self-contained minor local level improvements, yes. Certainly.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> but 13,000 cars cars per day aren't just going to disappear into thin air,


The whole point is that a good proportion of these car journeys can, and will, "disappear" if things are followed through confidently.

I don't really see how more "gradual" changes could be implemented to the same effect. For example, none of the closures (apart maybe from the Padfield Rd one) that are part of this scheme would work individually.

How would you propose to do it?


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The whole point is that a good proportion of these car journeys can, and will, "disappear" if things are followed through confidently.
> 
> I don't really see how more "gradual" changes could be implemented to the same effect. For example, none of the closures (apart maybe from the Padfield Rd one) that are part of this scheme would work individually.
> 
> How would you propose to do it?



I was looking at that photo this morning, the one I took on Malawi's version of the M1. There are almost no cars in Malawi. Why not (in your scheme of things) impose an 8,000% tax on cars, or petrol, for example? (this is not a serious suggestion it is designed for teuchter)


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> I was looking at that photo this morning, the one I took on Malawi's version of the M1. There are almost no cars in Malawi. Why not (in your scheme of things) impose an 8,000% tax on cars, or petrol, for example? (this is not a serious suggestion it is designed for teuchter)


Because it would be overkill? What's your point?


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Because it would be overkill? What's your point?


Ok, the percentage was ridiculous but what is your response to the basic idea ?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> The north end of LR, Fiveways and onwards is a nightmare for drivers and cyclists alike but with some CPZs and more restrictive parking and maybe even making some more roads one way, I think you could make it better for everyone.
> 
> I think this is kind of another reason that closing Loughborough Road at Wyck Gardens wasn't that well thought out as people are still parked all the way down LR and when you get to Fiveways etc, there's still a good amount of traffic, yet we're encouraging more cyclists to go down there.
> 
> Further examples of bad implementation really



One ways are an obvious way to work around narrow roads. For example you could make the northern part of LR one way from Fiveways towards Brixton Rd, with traffic in the opposite direction proceeding along Mostyn Rd.
However one ways seem to be out of favour as well these days (Borough, New Cross Gate, Aldgate East have gone, Aldgate is going). Even roundabouts seem to be out of favour.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Ok, the percentage was ridiculous but what is your response to the basic idea ?


If I want to provoke people I say that we should substantially reduce the amount by which we subsidise car owners.

There are various measures that I would potentially be in support of, which would involve financial disincentives for drivers in certain situations. Slapping a load of extra tax on petrol would be a very blunt instrument because it would affect people regardless of the necessity of their car use. I would prefer to look at road-pricing schemes because they could be tailored to make things a bit more expensive in areas where there is an issue with congestion, or where there is good provision of alternative modes of transport. It could also be adjusted according to vehicle type and provide a way to make sure, for example, that tradespersons weren't penalised by measures aimed at reducing unnecessary car journeys. It could also make it easy to buildin allowances for people travelling for medical reasons and so on.

I actually think a proper road pricing scheme could do away with the need for things like the closures we're currently looking at. But in order to do so, it would have to be a much more extensive system than people seem likely to accept. Road pricing was proposed in this country some time ago but was resoundingly rejected by the populace. Sadly. Of course, we do have one very crude version of it in the London congestion charge.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I actually think a proper road pricing scheme could do away with the need for things like the closures we're currently looking at.


Just quoting you as a way of emphasising like. Because you mention blunt instruments, and I think this particular instrument is so blunt as to be useless really.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

irf520 said:


> One ways are an obvious way to work around narrow roads. For example you could make the northern part of LR one way from Fiveways towards Brixton Rd, with traffic in the opposite direction proceeding along Mostyn Rd.


Basically you want to increase the overall capacity of the road system by making additional streets into part of a main thoroughfare network. So we can pour even more vehicles into the area to fill up that capacity and end up with everyone going at much the same speed afterwards.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The whole point is that a good proportion of these car journeys can, and will, "disappear" if things are followed through confidently.
> 
> I don't really see how more "gradual" changes could be implemented to the same effect. For example, none of the closures (apart maybe from the Padfield Rd one) that are part of this scheme would work individually.
> 
> How would you propose to do it?



What do you class as a good proportion? I would imagine a drop but not what I would class a good proportion. The closure may have stopped some of the lazy journeys, which is a good thing but it's not going to stop the people that use a car for longer journeys or for work such as trades, they will just be displaced and cause congestion and pollution elsewhere. 

The type of changes I would suggest would be parking restrictions on LR and through Fiveways, that would stop the tourists coming in and parking so they can catch the train. Make it so that there is only parking on one side of LR, which would open space to build in the proper cycle paths. No parking or double yellows on the narrow part of LR towards Brixton Road. More zebra crossings. Enforce the 20 mph speed limit, with cameras if need be. More speed bumps. Raised areas with the cobbley bits that are horrid to drive over near school and shops. Consider making some roads one way, that would probably need some though on which roads and which direction. Think beyond the north of CHL zone they've concentrated on at the moment, extend some of these ideas to CHL, Herne Hill Road and Hinton Road. The fact that it has been so concentrated on the north of CHL has had a lot to do with the animosity that is felt.

These are just suggestions though and ones that possibly could have been introduced gradually and might have been better received but who knows, no one has a crystal ball or a magic wand to fix everything straight away


----------



## irf520 (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If I want to provoke people I say that we should substantially reduce the amount by which we subsidise car owners.
> 
> There are various measures that I would potentially be in support of, which would involve financial disincentives for drivers in certain situations. Slapping a load of extra tax on petrol would be a very blunt instrument because it would affect people regardless of the necessity of their car use. I would prefer to look at road-pricing schemes because they could be tailored to make things a bit more expensive in areas where there is an issue with congestion, or where there is good provision of alternative modes of transport. It could also be adjusted according to vehicle type and provide a way to make sure, for example, that tradespersons weren't penalised by measures aimed at reducing unnecessary car journeys. It could also make it easy to buildin allowances for people travelling for medical reasons and so on.
> 
> I actually think a proper road pricing scheme could do away with the need for things like the closures we're currently looking at. But in order to do so, it would have to be a much more extensive system than people seem likely to accept. Road pricing was proposed in this country some time ago but was resoundingly rejected by the populace. Sadly. Of course, we do have one very crude version of it in the London congestion charge.



I suspect we'll get road pricing eventually. But not a finely tailored scheme - just a scheme to extract the maximum possible revenue.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Just quoting you as a way of emphasising like. Because you mention blunt instruments, and I think this one is not just blunt but possibly so blunt as to be useless really.


Yes but we have to choose from the instruments available to us. As soon as a meaningful enough road pricing scheme seemed like a realistic option (and I mean in terms of public acceptance, rather than technically) I'd take it in favour of closure schemes and you'd see me enthusiastically supporting any such proposals. But I don't think that option is there at the moment.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Basically you want to increase the overall capacity of the road system by making additional streets into part of a main thoroughfare network. So we can pour even more vehicles into the area to fill up that capacity and end up with everyone going at much the same speed afterwards.



What you mean like we've got now? That's all this closure has done. Loughborough Road from Fiveways to CHL is a nice wide road, a thoroughfare one might say, yet we've closed that and poured even more vehicles on to roads that aren't designed for them!


----------



## LadyV (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> If I want to provoke people I say that we should substantially reduce the amount by which we subsidise car owners



Exactly how much do you think car owners are subsidised? The UK is already one of the most expensive places to own and run a car.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> What you mean like we've got now? That's all this closure has done. Loughborough Road from Fiveways to CHL is a nice wide road, a thoroughfare one might say, yet we've closed that and poured even more vehicles on to roads that aren't designed for them!


No, we've reduced the overall capacity in the system (slightly), not added any vehicles to it. And the evidence shows that the result of doing this, given time, is usually that the number of vehicle journeys drops proportionately.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Exactly how much do you think car owners are subsidised? The UK is already one of the most expensive places to own and run a car.



He already posted that up before. Something like 80% of the total costs attributed to motoring were imputed costs for "externalities", which I'm sure you could get virtually any figure you like for by choosing your methodology to get the figure you want.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> What do you class as a good proportion?


I'd take this as a starting point to judging that -


----------



## irf520 (Nov 6, 2015)

Well personally I wouldn't drive a 1 mile journey unless I had heavy/bulky stuff to carry or I had to take someone with me who couldn't walk that far. Do these figures account for journeys like that?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Did You Know that our deputy leader (of Lambeth Council) is an acclaimed actor? I didn't.
> View attachment 79246
> &
> View attachment 79243
> www.imogenwalker.com


"*You couldn't make it up!*"


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> "*You couldn't make it up!*"


that thing of her on the tube, please re-post it here. It's too good. plus it has bagpipes, for teuchter.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Exactly how much do you think car owners are subsidised? The UK is already one of the most expensive places to own and run a car.


The problem is we can argue endlessly about this because it's so hard to put a number on social and environmental costs, amongst many others. Which is why I said, it's something I say to provoke the argument.

When looking at transport issues, the aims that I want to pursue are
a) try and give people as equal access as possible to mobility, regardless of their financial or medical or social situation
b) provide that transport in as efficient a way as possible, to minimise the harmful effects of the necessary infrastructure.

I think it's more useful to take that as a starting point, than to start by trying to quantify costs of our existing, inequal, inefficient, harmful system.

In my opinion, achieving either of those aims means that we have to become massively less dependent on the private motor car. And we are in a place (big city like London) and at a time (given the technology now available to us) where it's completely feasible to do that, and to do it pretty painlessly too. In other parts of the country it's much more of a challenge, but on this thread we're talking about London.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> that thing of her on the tube, please re-post it here. It's too good. plus it has bagpipes, for teuchter.


----------



## AlexH (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> The north end of LR, Fiveways and onwards is a nightmare for drivers and cyclists alike but with some CPZs and more restrictive parking and maybe even making some more roads one way, I think you could make it better for everyone.
> 
> I think this is kind of another reason that closing Loughborough Road at Wyck Gardens wasn't that well thought out as people are still parked all the way down LR and when you get to Fiveways etc, there's still a good amount of traffic, yet we're encouraging more cyclists to go down there.
> 
> Further examples of bad implementation really


And they redid (i.e. widened) the pavements to create the funnel in the first place!


----------



## AlexH (Nov 6, 2015)

AlexH said:


> And they redid (i.e. widened) the pavements to create the funnel in the first place!


Which annoyed me at the time because it is now more dangerous to use on a cycle.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 6, 2015)

on-street parking on the narrow roads round fiveways has just got to go IMo


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

I think he should see this as well


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

LadyV said:


> The type of changes I would suggest would be parking restrictions on LR and through Fiveways, that would stop the tourists coming in and parking so they can catch the train. Make it so that there is only parking on one side of LR, which would open space to build in the proper cycle paths. No parking or double yellows on the narrow part of LR towards Brixton Road. More zebra crossings. Enforce the 20 mph speed limit, with cameras if need be. More speed bumps. Raised areas with the cobbley bits that are horrid to drive over near school and shops. Consider making some roads one way, that would probably need some though on which roads and which direction. Think beyond the north of CHL zone they've concentrated on at the moment, extend some of these ideas to CHL, Herne Hill Road and Hinton Road. The fact that it has been so concentrated on the north of CHL has had a lot to do with the animosity that is felt.



I'd certainly agree that all of this would be better than nothing, by the way. If this closure scheme collapses I do hope people will give support for the implementation of all of these things its place. Because it's easy to propose lesser alternatives as being good enough, as a means of dismissing a more ambitious scheme, and then fail to actually make sure those alternatives don't get dismissed on a similar basis, until we're back to minor tweaking like painting unsatisfactory cycle lanes on the road and pretending there's been some kind of meaningful change.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'd take this as a starting point to judging that -


Come on Teuchter, play along: I know it's on your desktop, re-post the "externalities" , incl the one about 3- 5 billion for 'noise opportunity" or whatever it was ?


----------



## AlexH (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


>



Lovely, what an idyllic scene. Passport to Pimlico with oodles of space. Wouldn't it be lovely if the tube were always like that, or maybe one close by.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think he should see this as well



Chomsky is talking rubbish, as usual .  "intellectuals are not subject to these changes" ?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


>




Rousing.

Last night while you lot were getting in a fankle about the msyterious emails mentioning the extension of the trial period I went to see the Proclaimers at Shepherds Bush Empire.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 6, 2015)

'fankle' - that's a new one on me.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Come on Teuchter, play along: I know it's on your desktop, re-post the "externalities" , incl the one about 3- 5 billion for 'noise opportunity" or whatever it was ?


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...gwwk4XzWK5nlnApxg&sig2=zuaLlWEhY9FrLildMa78uQ


----------



## AlexH (Nov 6, 2015)

Ok, this will enrage the more militant of the cyclists who are all in favour the road closure (especially those not from around these parts). 
Lambeth Cyclists and the London Cycling Campaign - at a meeting on 21 October 2015 attended by someone from Lambeth Council minuted: "Not all trials have been a success, though. The Loughborough Junction trial has arguably not made it more attractive to cycle on the route".
Rather different from what Clare Neely is saying in public, including on the BBC clip which showed a cyclist nearly being taken out by a u-turning taxi. Not safe now and certainly wouldn't be attractive. When someone ends up under the wheels as a result of all this Lambeth will be held to account.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 'fankle' - that's a new one on me.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Ok, this will enrage the more militant of the cyclists who are all in favour the road closure (especially those not from around these parts).
> Lambeth Cyclists and the London Cycling Campaign - at a meeting on 21 October 2015 attended by someone from Lambeth Council minuted: "Not all trials have been a success, though. The Loughborough Junction trial has arguably not made it more attractive to cycle on the route".
> Rather different from what Clare Neely is saying in public, including on the BBC clip which showed a cyclist nearly being taken out by a u-turning taxi. Not safe now and certainly wouldn't be attractive. When someone ends up under the wheels as a result of all this Lambeth will be held to account.


You never answered my question about why you think it's now less safe to cycle on LR.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 6, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Ok, this will enrage the more militant of the cyclists who are all in favour the road closure (especially those not from around these parts).
> Lambeth Cyclists and the London Cycling Campaign - at a meeting on 21 October 2015 attended by someone from Lambeth Council minuted: "Not all trials have been a success, though. The Loughborough Junction trial has arguably not made it more attractive to cycle on the route".
> Rather different from what Clare Neely is saying in public, including on the BBC clip which showed a cyclist nearly being taken out by a u-turning taxi. Not safe now and certainly wouldn't be attractive. When someone ends up under the wheels as a result of all this Lambeth will be held to account.



So, basically because car drivers are driving badly this is now the fault of the council?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> View attachment 79249


I never actually realised until just now that it's a Scottish turn of phrase.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

CH1 said:


> "*You couldn't make it up!*"



Lots of actors in Lambeth & Clowns...


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I never actually realised until just now that it's a Scottish turn of phrase.


Maybe this is the right time to share with you: Teuchter Wagons.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

The link teuchter posted above has some really interesting stuff in it. (Please don't shout at me , I'm not a driver)


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Maybe this is the right time to share with you: Teuchter Wagons.


Yes. I am already aware of this.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Yes. I am already aware of this.


I wonder, did  you perchance get to read the piece by martin amis on jeremy corbyn 2 weeks ago ? Re the lack of a sense of humour as a thing to reasonably be worried about in someone who wants to lead us into the brave new future ? x


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> I wonder, did  you perchance get to read the piece by martin amis on jeremy corbyn 2 weeks ago ? Re the lack of a sense of humour as a thing to reasonably be worried about in someone who wants to lead us into the brave new future ? x


I do not see the relevance of this.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 6, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I do not see the relevance of this.


Nor I - I went to a talk by Amis last year (more of a book promotion actually) at the Royal College of Music (part of the 2014 Proms season).

He struck me as short and very assertive. "Full of himself" as my Mum would say.

I reckon the most obvious difference between Martin Amis and Jeremy Corbyn is one is short and the other tall. And they BOTH take themselves very seriously. 

Which is not actually the same as having no sense of humour.


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

Most sincere & earnest apologies for anybody offended by the above thing. I'm off to see a bagpipe extravaganza.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 6, 2015)

Oh dear ...


----------



## bimble (Nov 6, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Oh dear ...


What? All the best politically engaged crossword puzzlers are into it.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> What? All the best politically engaged crossword puzzlers are into it.



sense of humour ... brave new future ... I had to do a double take myself


----------



## critical1 (Nov 6, 2015)

bimble said:


> Most sincere & earnest apologies for anybody offended by the above thing. I'm off to see a bagpipe extravaganza.


Thought you were audience to one here already...


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Lovely, what an idyllic scene. Passport to Pimlico with oodles of space. Wouldn't it be lovely if the tube were always like that, or maybe one close by.


Sounds like you suffer from what my former bosses used to call "lack of commitment".
The Victoria line IS like that at 5.20 am.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> Chomsky is talking rubbish, as usual .  "intellectuals are not subject to these changes" ?


I' going to check out your observation there. I am very concerned you have found a flaw in this intellectual éminence grise*.*
Quite co-incidentally my Facebook friend from the University of Harare posted this helpful quote this morning:

"_The doctrinal system, which produces what we call “propaganda” when discussing enemies, has two distinct targets. One target is what’s sometimes called the “political class,” the roughly 20% of the population that’s relatively educated, more of less articulate, playing some role in decision-making. Their acceptance of doctrine is crucial, because they’re in a position to design and implement policy.

Then there’s the other 80% or so of the population. These are Lippmann’s “spectators of action,” whom he referred to as “the bewildered herd.” They are supposed to follow orders and keep out of the way of the important people. They’re the target of the real mass media: the tabloids, the sitcoms, the Super Bowl and so on.

These sectors of the doctrinal system serve to divert the unwashed masses and reinforce the basic social values: passivity, submissiveness to authority, the overriding virtue of greed and personal gain, lack of concern for others, fear for real or imagined enemies, etc. The goal is to keep the bewildered herd bewildered. It’s unnecessary for them to trouble themselves with what’s happening in the world. In fact, it’s undesirable-if they see too much of reality they may set themselves to change it._"

Noam Chomsky


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> _The goal is to keep the bewildered herd bewildered. _


So anyway, the deadline for responses to the monkey survey seems to have been extended until Friday 13th now. Not sure when this happened, or if its a decision or a misunderstanding..


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> So anyway, the deadline for responses to the monkey survey seems to have been extended until Friday 13th now. Not sure when this happened, or if its a decision or a misunderstanding..


There have been panicky emails from people connected to LJAG on 6th November imploring a response before the 6th November deadline. However since LJAG has now supposedly "stepped back" and is pressing the council to account for its actions, I'm wondering whether LJAG are unwittingly demonstrating the truth of Noam's dictum.

Which seems to be the message of your post.

I think.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 7, 2015)

Good grief  can Lambeth organise ANYTHING? 

Guess George Wright, Raj Mistry, Barbara Poulter, and Cllr Brathwaite's email boxes are going to be overflowing again.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> "_The doctrinal system, which produces what we call “propaganda” when discussing enemies, has two distinct targets. One target is what’s sometimes called the “political class,” the roughly 20% of the population that’s relatively educated, more of less articulate, playing some role in decision-making. Their acceptance of doctrine is crucial, because they’re in a position to design and implement policy.
> 
> Then there’s the other 80% or so of the population. These are Lippmann’s “spectators of action,” whom he referred to as “the bewildered herd.” They are supposed to follow orders and keep out of the way of the important people. They’re the target of the real mass media: the tabloids, the sitcoms, the Super Bowl and so on.
> 
> ...



Aye, the mass media are putting their weight behind the anti-closures campaign with their ill-researched and sensationalising news articles.

Their hyping of various imagined enemies serves well to keep the conspiraloons bewildered.

Those who look at reality and set themselves to make changes need to keep out of the way of the important people who want to drive to their concerts.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 7, 2015)

Or are we saying the "reclaim the streets" movement has always been the doctrine of the powerful?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> people connected to LJAG


Weasel words anyone?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> So anyway, the deadline for responses to the monkey survey seems to have been extended until Friday 13th now. Not sure when this happened, or if its a decision or a misunderstanding..


The CLOWNS are at it again...


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Weasel words anyone?


You want names?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Good grief  can Lambeth organise ANYTHING?
> Guess George Wright, Raj Mistry, Barbara Poulter, and Cllr Brathwaite's email boxes are going to be overflowing again.


No - and their email boxes are NOT overflowing with the answer they were seeking looks like.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Or are we saying the "reclaim the streets" movement has always been the doctrine of the powerful?


One could argue that recaim the streets - in its time - was a doctrine of student kids of our wealthy rules getting their radicalism out of their system, before moving on to join Daddy in the boardrooms and stock exchange.

Now with high frequency trading etc there's  no time for all that. They just get in there ripping off the public immediately. 

Where's all those nice earnest working class students these days? - working zero hours contracts in bistros to pay off their student loans. Too bloody knackered to reclaim a street.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

I went to the network rail thing at brixton rec and asked about how the plans for the LJ arches are coming along. 
The man said couple of interesting things (spontaneously, I mean these were his responses to the whole subject of LJ) . Said firstly that they (NR) are aware of a need to ensure that their consultation does not rely too heavily on  LJAG. Second thing he said was that there was 'a raid' on the arches in Rathgar & Belinda sometime early this year which resulted in 17 arches being found to contain either drugs or guns or both. I have no clue about this, just repeating what he said.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> I went to the network rail thing at brixton rec and asked about how the plans for the LJ arches are coming along.
> The man said couple of interesting things (spontaneously, I mean these were his responses to the whole subject of LJ) . Said firstly that they (NR) are aware of a need to ensure that their consultation does not rely too heavily on  LJAG. Second thing he said was that there was 'a raid' on the arches in Rathgar & Belinda sometime early this year which resulted in 17 arches being found to contain either drugs or guns or both. I have no clue about this, just repeating what he said.


Sounds plausible to me. I think I posted somewhere about a raid I witnessed on arches roughly where Bureau of Silly Ideas now is at 2 am on a summer night around 1993.

I should add that garages attached to council estates sometimes have the same issue. (in the interests of promoting transport equality)


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Or are we saying the "reclaim the streets" movement has always been the doctrine of the powerful?


Reclaim the streets was fun, makes me feel all old and sentimental thinking about it. Once upon a time I helped making a giant hooped skirt big enough for a pneumatic drill to hide inside. But yes seriously I don't think many young people in London have the luxury of being able to spend time doing that sort of thing now.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 7, 2015)

Before the farm, the land it is on was very much overgrown as Family Housing had built a wall across the back entrance making access impossible.
URH and LL did nothing to try to remedy this and utilise the land as it is within the Management Agreement of the  LEMB. Police raided an arch and found in the back buried  various illegal items.
Hence the land was forcibly opened up and cleared.  That was several years ago  not sure 17 arches were raided and found to have similar items. Best way to know that is to enquire at one of the long standing businesses there who have a good relationship with Network Rail.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Before the farm, the land it is on was very much overgrown as Family Housing had built a wall across the back entrance making access impossible.
> URH and LL did nothing to try to remedy this and utilise the land as it is within the Management Agreement of the  LEMB. Police raided an arch and found in the back buried  various illegal items.
> Hence the land was forcibly opened up and cleared.  That was several years ago  not sure 17 arches were raided and found to have similar items. Best way to know that is to enquire at one of the long standing businesses there who have a good relationship with Network Rail.


If I wanted to hide my Bitcoins that seems like a suitable place. Gated at the Tesco side n'est-ce pas?


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> not sure 17 arches were raided and found to have similar items. Best way to know that is to enquire at one of the long standing businesses there who have a good relationship with Network Rail.


 True. like I said I've no idea, was surprised when that's the first thing he said about loughborough junction.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 7, 2015)

Trying to cover their hoisting of rents etc.

There was an event last night  a " public" one but it appears it is in fact NOT a pedestrian zone


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 7, 2015)

This then happened


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> This then happened



Oh dear. Glad the police van had nothing better to do on a Friday night. 
Clearly the wrong sort of public event, not the kind they were looking for


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> This then happened
> View attachment 79300


I think you were all in danger of being arrested for looking working class.
That now comes under the generic heading of "inappropriate behaviour".


----------



## Belushi (Nov 7, 2015)

More on events at the other end of the Victoria line which may be of interest

Waltham Forest ‘mini-Holland’ row: politics, protests and house prices


----------



## Peter Z (Nov 7, 2015)

I'm a Myatts Fields resident & I look forward to the time when they introduce a proper Dutch scheme to the whole of the Loughborough rd area - All residential streets access only to cars, with separated bike lanes on A roads. This current scheme is an improvement, but only a small step in the right direction.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 7, 2015)

Well there was one on the 26th September and a Pop Park were there to consult people  although once again barely anyone had been informed of it. Wonder what the results of that consultation was? 
This was the event


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 7, 2015)

Peter Z said:


> I'm a Myatts Fields resident & I look forward to the time when they introduce a proper Dutch scheme to the whole of the Loughborough rd area - All residential streets access only to cars, with separated bike lanes on A roads. This current scheme is an improvement, but only a small step in the right direction.


"All residential streets access only to cars" so no deliveries, tradesmen, dust carts, recycling vehicles and all the rest? Just cars?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 7, 2015)

It means that cars can only use the residential streets to gain access to the addresses on those streets. Same for other vehicles.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

Belushi said:


> More on events at the other end of the Victoria line which may be of interest
> 
> Waltham Forest ‘mini-Holland’ row: politics, protests and house prices


Very interesting. I know that article a while back, the one about how most London cyclists are white affluentish and male,  was dismissed because based on a very limited study but it's easy to see why a lot of the people pictured in that demo are not going to feel that the pro- cycling changes are of benefit to them.


----------



## Angellic (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> I went to the network rail thing at brixton rec and asked about how the plans for the LJ arches are coming along.
> The man said couple of interesting things (spontaneously, I mean these were his responses to the whole subject of LJ) . Said firstly that they (NR) are aware of a need to ensure that their consultation does not rely too heavily on  LJAG. Second thing he said was that there was 'a raid' on the arches in Rathgar & Belinda sometime early this year which resulted in 17 arches being found to contain either drugs or guns or both. I have no clue about this, just repeating what he said.



I remember wandering through Rathgar Rd one Sunday evening over the summer. Some guys were loading or unloading large wooden crates. I was curious as they looked like the kind of boxes used to ship artworks. I received a very menacing stare from one guy that I felt was more than a bit threatening. I've also been mistaken  for a  policeman. Someone once muttered 'pigs' as I walked down Loughborough Rd with a friend.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

Angellic said:


> I've also been mistaken for a policeman. Someone once muttered 'pigs' as I walked down Loughborough Rd with a friend.


 That must be pretty grim. Sometimes  I forget that being a girl can make the world a less aggressive & threatening place. I'm still surprised about this massive crack and guns raid story though, and that nobody seems to have heard a thing about it.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> That must be pretty grim. Sometimes  I forget that being a girl can make the world a less aggressive & threatening place. I'm still surprised about this massive crack and guns raid story though, and that nobody seems to have heard a thing about it.


I have also found that age has a similar mellowing effect.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I have also found that age has a similar mellowing effect.


Yeah, I'm looking forward to the full effect of 'little old lady'.  Will be great, will be able to get away with anything at all.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It means that cars can only use the residential streets to gain access to the addresses on those streets. Same for other vehicles.


I'm curious about how that works, I mean how do you implement a thing like that? Is it by making all residential streets into dead ends or by some sort of iris recognition / bar code system?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Someone once muttered 'pigs' as I walked down Loughborough Rd with a friend.


Then there used to be the tradition of calling out "Batty boy" if the friends walking down the street were of the male sex but black and white.
I'm not quite sure why, but some of the very rough Jamaican guys seem to have Gaydar which would leave Peter Tatchell standing.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Then there used to be the tradition of calling out "Batty boy" if the friends walking down the street were of the male sex but black and white.
> I'm not quite sure why, but some of the very rough Jamaican guys seem to have Gaydar which would leave Peter Tatchell standing.


 Blimey. And my rap song about big shiny cars was off message? Maybe you just want a bit more sympathy re how difficult it must be to make your way in the world these days as an oppressed white male person.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm curious about how that works, I mean how do you implement a thing like that? Is it by making all residential streets into dead ends or by some sort of iris recognition / bar code system?



By making them all either dead ends or such that the only place you can reach is back where you came from.
Usually done by strategically bollarding roads, leaving gaps for bikes to get through.
Of course that also makes emergency service access difficult, so sometimes they put in a gate to which the emergency services have a key. Still delays them though.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> I went to the network rail thing at brixton rec and asked about how the plans for the LJ arches are coming along.
> The man said couple of interesting things (spontaneously, I mean these were his responses to the whole subject of LJ) . Said firstly that they (NR) are aware of a need to ensure that their consultation does not rely too heavily on  LJAG. Second thing he said was that there was 'a raid' on the arches in Rathgar & Belinda sometime early this year which resulted in 17 arches being found to contain either drugs or guns or both. I have no clue about this, just repeating what he said.



Yep and no charges being made or court cases being held... I went also to the NR thing today, I was greeted by 3 yes 3 police and one private security man. Looks like NR were expecting a riotous consultation...


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

irf520 said:


> By making them all either dead ends or such that the only place you can reach is back where you came from.
> Usually done by strategically bollarding roads, leaving gaps for bikes to get through.
> Of course that also makes emergency service access difficult, so sometimes they put in a gate to which the emergency services have a key. Still delays them though.


That sounds a lot like what's happening here outside my window. I mean those orange road blocks were taken away eventually (the ones the emergency services were supposed to drag out of their way before continuing to the emergency) but given that the signage is supposed to be temporary they could well be intending to replace with bollards, or giant plant pots. Access only is what it is here now (Gordon Grove).


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yep and no charges being made or court cases being held


That's what I thought, sounds like quite a big story and not a ripple, odd.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> Blimey. And my rap song about big shiny cars was off message? Maybe you just want a bit more sympathy re how difficult it must be to make your way in the world these days as an oppressed white male person.


Not really - it used to add to the danger and the satisfaction of "scoring" if you know what I mean. 
I wouldn't go as far as the guy in Little Shop of Horrors though (Steve Martin version).Dentists are definitely out for me.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> That sounds a lot like what's happening here outside my window. I mean those orange road blocks were taken away eventually (the ones the emergency services were supposed to drag out of their way before continuing to the emergency) but given that the signage is supposed to be temporary they could well be intending to replace with bollards, or giant plant pots. Access only is what it is here now (Gordon Grove).



Yes, precisely. If you look at what they've done, all the roads from Flaxman Rd to Kenbury St are now only reachable from CHL and the only way out from any of them is via CHL.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I wouldn't go as far as the guy in Little Shop of Horrors though (Steve Martin version).Dentists are definitely out for me.


That's another thing I wish I hadn't seen on Utube. Thanks.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yep and no charges being made or court cases being held... I went also to the NR thing today, I was greeted by 3 yes 3 police and one private security man. Looks like NR were expecting a riotous consultation...


I was sorry to have missed all that. I went to the Libraries march, and had a wrong idea that the Network Rail thing finished at 4 pm - but it evidently actually finished at 2. I met a Network Rail and uniformed security guy and they dis agreed with how many people had attended when I asked.
The security guy said, not many - about 30 and there were some demonstrators. The other one who was Asian corrected him saying they had had 70.

Maybe 70 over 2 days? Or what do you think?

I would have loved to see the demo - just goes to show unless you have your finger on the pulse in Brixton time will pass you by.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Yes, precisely. If you look at what they've done, all the roads from Flaxman Rd to Kenbury St are now only reachable from CHL and the only way out from any of them is via CHL.


I can see how that (access only) might be really appealing as an idea, on a leafy street full of children playing hopscotch and all but what I see here instead is loads of people trying to figure out how to get to and from an important industrial site.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I would have loved to see the demo - just goes to show unless you have your finger on the pulse in Brixton time will pass you by.


Save Brixton Arches campaigners crowd into Network Rail consultation


----------



## irf520 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> I can see how that (access only) might be really appealing as an idea, on a leafy street full of children playing hopscotch and all but what I see here instead is loads of people trying to figure out how to get to and from an important industrial site.



Yes. Now think how much further along narrow residential roads the lorries have to go.
Also, if Coldharbour Lane is blocked for any reason, no-one is getting in or out of that area.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> I can see how that (access only) might be really appealing as an idea, on a leafy street full of children playing hopscotch and all but what I see here instead is loads of people trying to figure out how to get to and from an important industrial site.


Talking of which has there been any contact regarding the industrial estate on Lilford Road and the other larger one on Paulet Road. Are they affected do you think?


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Yes. Now think how much further along narrow residential roads the lorries have to go.Also, if Coldharbour Lane is blocked for any reason, no-one is getting in or out of that area.



I think Loughborough Junction is a total anomaly for central London.
We've got victorian houses (now on the market for a million quid) right up next to important industrial areas & car repair workshops, scrap metal dealers and welders, manufacturing businesses and woodworkers and things like this.
I love that about where I live.

Seems to me that this fact, the uniqueness of the place (obviously connected with the railway arches) was not taken into account at all one bit when this street closure idea was introduced.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> Save Brixton Arches campaigners crowd into Network Rail consultation


This is editor's version of Dawn of the Dead my favourite Zombie film set in the shopping centre.
Had you seen that one on Youtube?

At any rate this is street theatre we can be proud of. As would local boy and opera producer Graham Vick


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Had you seen that one on Youtube?


lets take this outside, like to the chitter chatter thread, or the beer place down belinda.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 7, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Yes. Now think how much further along narrow residential roads the lorries have to go.
> Also, if Coldharbour Lane is blocked for any reason, no-one is getting in or out of that area.


LJ Road Madness - Timeline Photos | Facebook


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

is that what we have to look forward to ? Is it related to the hotel construction job ?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> is that what we have to look forward to ? Is it related to the hotel construction job ?


Yep, for how long I don't know


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yep, for how long I don't know


I am filled with genuine dread about the next bit, like the next couple of years when Higgs plus all the other massive developments are being built.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Talking of which has there been any contact regarding the industrial estate on Lilford Road and the other larger one on Paulet Road. Are they affected do you think?


Ask the official researchers .. Steve@stockwell.org.uk


----------



## irf520 (Nov 7, 2015)

What purpose is a hotel on Coldharbour Lane supposed to serve? Is Brixton now an international tourist destination? Is it a destination for international business travel?


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

irf520 said:


> What purpose is a hotel on Coldharbour Lane supposed to serve? Is Brixton now an international tourist destination? Is it a destination for international business travel?


Dirty stopout maybe? A room for after your date at the village ?
Interesting this bit of the network rail glossies


----------



## irf520 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> Dirty stopout maybe? A room for after your date at the village ?
> Interesting this bit of the network rail glossies
> View attachment 79319



The "unique character" of Brixton? How much of that will be left after they've gentrified the f**k out of it?


----------



## Beasley (Nov 7, 2015)

During the consultation last year I learned that businesses on the Lilford Industrial Estate had not received leaflets from Lambeth. Neither had Pullman Garge and they have been very active in the anti movement throughout because of their worries over loss of trade.

I tried to contact the owners of the Paulet Industrial Estate. They didn't seem worried as it was not their problem but their tenants were not consulted either. The NHS dialysis unit there were most upset when the experiment started causing delays to patients and staff.


----------



## bimble (Nov 7, 2015)

irf520 said:


> What purpose is a hotel on Coldharbour Lane supposed to serve? Is Brixton now an international tourist destination? Is it a destination for international business travel?


Have you seen The Village ? (next door to the new hotel) It's like a totes amazing place to come for an edgy culturally diverse dinner date, if you actually live in Hertfordshire or something. I don't know who else will use the hotel.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

bimble said:


> Ask the official researchers .. Steve@stockwell.org.uk


I might actually ask the Chartwell guy. If I can find his contact details.

He was v. friendly when I was casing out the site of the new house he put next to the entrance when the planning application went in. For all that he was buttering me up I was amazed to see recently that he has replicated the style of the terrace down to detail. You don't often get developers making their architecture blend in with their surroundings these days. At least not in Lambeth. Paulet Road/Chartwell Industrial Estate


----------



## Beasley (Nov 7, 2015)

CH1 said:


> casing out the site of the new house he put next to the entrance when the planning application went in.


I met a builders supplies lorry driver (Sandell Perkins, I think) at that site in the first month of closures.
He was most angry about everything AND he said that he cycles to work so could see it from both sides.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 7, 2015)

Lambeth Council have their Vehicle repairs contractor in there guess they don't care as we pay for that


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Lambeth Council have their Vehicle repairs contractor in there guess they don't care as we pay for that


The owner said MI5 had had an office in there. Amazing what the government had to do before GCHQ just went on Urban75!


----------



## Beasley (Nov 7, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Lambeth Council have their Vehicle repairs contractor in there


Well he hadn't been told a thing!


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 7, 2015)

It's zone 2, in an area that has international press attention, has to its horror become a 'destination' in a way which differs from it's previous reason for being a destinatio & the nearest chain hotel is up the road in a bland bit of Vauxhall?

The prince tried to be a boutique hotel catering for the academy audience a few years back. They had no idea how to run a business though, so it failed. Given the demographics of the people who have moved here in the last 5 years the owners have evidently seen there's a Market for it. Who could have predicted that a travelodge above fire on bondway would work?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 7, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> It's zone 2, in an area that has international press attention, has to its horror become a 'destination' in a way which differs from it's previous reason for being a destinatio & the nearest chain hotel is up the road in a bland bit of Vauxhall?
> 
> The prince tried to be a boutique hotel catering for the academy audience a few years back. They had no idea how to run a business though, so it failed. Given the demographics of the people who have moved here in the last 5 years the owners have evidently seen there's a Market for it. Who could have predicted that a travelodge above fire on bondway would work?


It's obviously an ideal location for a ** hotel. And if that doesn't work they will turn it into a student residence. 
How can they lose?

Then there is the up-and-coming Z Hotel behind Superdrug. That is going to be boutique hotel - but does have at least a boutique location. Rumour has it they will have breakfast provided  by a private passage to Costas and spare underwear will be available from Marks.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 8, 2015)

Travelodge rooms are probably bigger than student bedsits if the ones by the interplanetary soc are anything to go by. It's a no brainer - big investment but low running costs with tight margins


----------



## critical1 (Nov 8, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It's obviously an ideal location for a ** hotel. And if that doesn't work they will turn it into a student residence.
> How can they lose?........



Well it sure fits in with the demographic of the Lambeth Blue Labour cabinet members*.*


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2015)

I'm sure it'll do well, the new hotel, especially if they offer special deals for an hour or two instead of the whole night. Just a bit confused as to why the whole of coldharbour lane was shut to traffic tonight, with orange plastic barriers and everything, to allow a construction lorry to just sit in the street there.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm sure it'll do well, the new hotel, especially if they offer special deals for an hour or two instead of the whole night. Just a bit confused as to why the whole of coldharbour lane was shut to traffic tonight, with orange plastic barriers and everything, to allow a construction lorry to just sit in the street there.


I wonder...


----------



## CH1 (Nov 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm sure it'll do well, the new hotel, especially if they offer special deals for an hour or two instead of the whole night. Just a bit confused as to why the whole of coldharbour lane was shut to traffic tonight, with orange plastic barriers and everything, to allow a construction lorry to just sit in the street there.


it  has 'elf and safety of course. Like when Network Rail ran the trains at 20 mph for a year after the Potters Bar train crash.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 8, 2015)

Premier Inns do a nice eat as much as you like breakfast bar  so shall go there for breakfast lol


----------



## CH1 (Nov 8, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Premier Inns do a nice eat as much as you like breakfast bar  so shall go there for breakfast lol
> View attachment 79331


Last time I used such a place was the old London Park hotel at Elephant and Castle. Was chocker with Germans and they (and I) found it irresistible going several times round the loop for the full fried breakfast.

It sounds like Premier Inn might beat Wetherspoons for those of us who like a large breakfast.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 8, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Well it sure fits in with the demographic of the Lambeth Blue Labour cabinet members*.*


I thought these sort of people were more accustomed to Property Fairs in Cannes.
Or have I come the the wrong thread?


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2015)

mmm. breakfast.


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Travelodge rooms are probably bigger than student bedsits if the ones by the interplanetary soc are anything to go by. It's a no brainer - big investment but low running costs with tight margins



Snowy is an astronaut?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 8, 2015)

irf520 said:


> By making them all either dead ends or such that the only place you can reach is back where you came from.
> Usually done by strategically bollarding roads, leaving gaps for bikes to get through.
> Of course that also makes emergency service access difficult, so sometimes they put in a gate to which the emergency services have a key. Still delays them though.




Someone mentions the "Dutch system" - ie something that's been working fine for several decades in a nation famous for its pragmatism - but you still seem determined to find reasons why it can't work.

Or do you have some solid information showing that such systems create significant problems with delays to ambulances?

But perhaps we should also be thinking about the reasons why ambulances are called out in the first place, and see how the Netherlands compares to the UK.


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2015)

Really good bit of writing here, about bicycles as almost religious symbols.

"They can be emblems of right-thinking, environmentally friendly city government or the weapons of self-righteous, passive-aggressive machismo. . "

The beauty of bikes – redesigning two wheels


----------



## teuchter (Nov 8, 2015)

Last night I was coming home on the bus ... sitting on the top deck and as you come through Deptford you get quite a clear view of the junction by Deptford Bridge. If you want a good example of how unconstrained motor traffic demands can completely trash the urban environment this is one. What a disaster.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 8, 2015)

Coldharbour Lane outside the the dogstar today was  packed all the way up to Hernhill due to road closure on top end of Coldharbour Lane.

This affects any traffic counts now on Coldharbour... Duh!


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2015)

critical1 said:


> This affects any traffic counts now on Coldharbour... Duh!


  Or it would if they hadn't done the traffic counts already ( in the middle of half term remember).
The Higgs development is a lot bigger than the hotel. Are we going to have orange barriers shutting off coldharbour lane here to allow the developer's lorries in and out ?
edit: Yes, of course there will be road closures during the construction of Higgs.


----------



## alcopop (Nov 8, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Coldharbour Lane outside the the dogstar today was  packed all the way up to Hernhill due to road closure on top end of Coldharbour Lane.
> 
> This affects any traffic counts now on Coldharbour... Duh!
> 
> View attachment 79353 View attachment 79354


That's why trials are run for a decent amount of time.

Everything will average out.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 8, 2015)

alcopop said:


> That's why trials are run for a decent amount of time.
> 
> Everything will average out.



Trial should then be for several years and several deaths of local business... end of trial, states FAIL compensation payouts...


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 8, 2015)

Average out? No. Businesses closed, a whole community broken up, additional hardship for many, all for a space on a road for the public who according to the Lambeth Walk results are not allowed on it anyway.


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2015)

I think possibly that alcopop doesn't live in LJ.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> Or it would if they hadn't done the traffic counts already ( in the middle of half term remember).......



alcopop... Does not even note that road counts are not supposed to be conducted during the school holidays! Average out indeed.


----------



## prunus (Nov 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I am filled with genuine dread about the next bit, like the next couple of years when Higgs plus all the other massive developments are being built.



Agreed, the developments already going ahead are going to change LJ in far more and further reaching ways than The topic here. Personally I'd love it if the council would close the roads round me before the 4 years of construction traffic starts heading our way.  Lambeth if you're listening - the northsiders want their roads reopened - can you close Hinton and Wanless and Wingmore et al instead please?


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2015)

I know you've got a smiley face up there but (in seriousness) it's how CHL is going to function during these construction projects that's the bit I worry about, because seems to me that the fewer alternative routes there are for the construction traffic the worse it will be on that the main road for people on feet and buses and so on. Unless of course we just go for it properly and turn CHL into a tree lined cycles and buses only route, and let the developers use donkeys and rickshaws instead.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I know you've got a smiley face up there but (in seriousness) it's how CHL is going to function during these construction projects that's the bit I worry about, because seems to me that the fewer alternative routes there are for the construction traffic the worse it will be on that the main road for people on feet and buses and so on. Unless of course we just go for it properly and turn CHL into a tree lined cycles and buses only route, and let the developers use donkeys and rickshaws instead.



Nothing wrong with donkeys and rickshaws...


----------



## prunus (Nov 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> I know you've got a smiley face up there but (in seriousness) it's how CHL is going to function during these construction projects that's the bit I worry about, because seems to me that the fewer alternative routes there are for the construction traffic the worse it will be on that the main road for people on feet and buses and so on. Unless of course we just go for it properly and turn CHL into a tree lined cycles and buses only route, and let the developers use donkeys and rickshaws instead.



The smiley face was in acknowledgement that I was doing what I'd been exhorting others not to do - ie making an 'us-and-them' argument, albeit tongue in cheek. 

The construction traffic would not in any case I suspect have been coming down Loughborough Road and the other closed roads - they're too small at the top. It'll be coming via CHL and i imagine Herne Hill Road too. 

In light of that, the less other traffic there is in the area the better for all of us. 

Obviously the official traffic counts will give us the actual answer when released, but anecdotally my feeling is there is definitely less traffic on CHL now than before LR was closed (now the lights are ok). 

If that is in fact the case we should keep it shut to mitigate the disruption from the construction work. 

A lot of ifs, I know, but at least it's logically consistent, and testable. So let's wait and find out


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2015)

It does seem a lot better I agree (traffic on CHL just lately).
The official traffic count I have doubts about the value of because methodology but if it turns out that this really has made there be less traffic on CHL and not more, hat eating remains a possibility for me.

Even if the numbers can be proved conclusively though, I'd be curious to know how much of any reduction in traffic is due to people deciding to let their children use the bus, or taking the train to the south bank etc, and how much is due to people just driving a long way round or deciding that it's no longer worth their while to come use the businesses here in LJ


----------



## critical1 (Nov 8, 2015)

prunus said:


> The smiley face was in acknowledgement that I was doing what I'd been exhorting others not to do - ie making an 'us-and-them' argument, albeit tongue in cheek.....
> 
> Obviously the official traffic counts will give us the actual answer when released.....
> 
> ...



But prunus you are also very aware, that the official traffic counts are flawed as they are not to be done whilst the schools are on holiday, and that is in the "official GUIDLINES" for monitoring.

Too much smoke n mirrors here.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 8, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Someone mentions the "Dutch system" - ie something that's been working fine for several decades in a nation famous for its pragmatism - but you still seem determined to find reasons why it can't work.
> Or do you have some solid information showing that such systems create significant problems with delays to ambulances?
> But perhaps we should also be thinking about the reasons why ambulances are called out in the first place, and see how the Netherlands compares to the UK.
> View attachment 79342


Bang go my plans to retire on the Algarve.


----------



## bimble (Nov 8, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Bang go my plans to retire on the Algarve.


Weird how the top spot for dead pedestrian children is switzerland. But then .. they do walk a lot, they walk home for lunch even most of them (the swiss schoolchildren) .


----------



## CH1 (Nov 8, 2015)

bimble said:


> Weird how the top spot for dead pedestrian children is switzerland. But then .. they do walk a lot, they walk home for lunch even most of them (the swiss schoolchildren) .


And evidently the Portuguese pensioners can't hop out of the way of the passionate cyclists quick enough. Maybe they need zimmer training - how to discipline cyclists with a wave of your "appliance".


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Really good bit of writing here, about bicycles as almost religious symbols.
> 
> "They can be emblems of right-thinking, environmentally friendly city government or the weapons of self-righteous, passive-aggressive machismo. . "
> 
> The beauty of bikes – redesigning two wheels



Much the same could be said of the car as a symbol of passive aggressive machismo. Cars are promoted heavily in advertising as more than just a way to get around. Films like Fast and Furious promote cars as symbols as well.

Cars are also linked to the rise Capitalism in the form of "Fordist" mass production. America for example had good public transport systems in cities such as Los Angeles. Which were ripped out at behest of of car business.

The car is symbolic of the best and worst of Capitalism. The ability to mass produce commodities but inability to deal with environmental consequences and waste of resources.

There have been complaints here of the influence of cyclist lobby groups. This book review makes point that the car industry and industries associated with it such as oil companies have vested interest in making sure that no alternatives get anywhere.  The book review concentrates on US but is applicable elsewhere as car use is  global issue.



> Since 1925, the automotive industry has been the leading sector of the US economy, and, of the world’s 10 largest corporations, three are car manufacturers and six are oil companies.
> 
> The logic of maximising corporate profit through the car, they write, is compelling to all manner of capitalist industries that sell vastly more glass, rubber, steel, aluminium, plastic, paint and other products for the car than they ever would for the puny bike or efficient train.





> Making public transport free is essential, they argue. They cite Belgium’s third biggest city (Hasselt), which enjoyed a 1300% increase in public transport use over 10 years of free mass transit, and Ockelbo in Sweden, which had a 260% rise with half the new public commuters being former drivers.
> 
> All that stands in the way of a green transport future is the “concentrated private power of corporations” in the oil and auto industries.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2015)

Gramsci Of course that's true  (I put that bike article there because thought it was interesting, not because I'm an unquestioning fan of the world's motor and oil industries.)
Meanwhile.. this has happened now. It's a mystery apparently.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Gramsci Meanwhile.. this has happened now. It's a mystery apparently.
> View attachment 79371


That's horrific. I keep wondering if that if going to happen in Brixton with all this pile driving and over development going on.


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Making public transport free is essential, they argue. They cite Belgium’s third biggest city (Hasselt), which enjoyed a 1300% increase in public transport use over 10 years of free mass transit


 Nice idea but sky pie.  "the cost of the free bus experiment also almost quadrupled in ten years.."   Hasselt cancels free public transport after 16 years


----------



## CH1 (Nov 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Nice idea but sky pie.  "the cost of the free bus experiment also almost quadrupled in ten years.."   Hasselt cancels free public transport after 16 years


This was always Young Liberal policy in the 70s.

There is of course free transport in London for selected groups: 60+, disabled, pensioners. I can tell you its bad enough having to pay these prices when working. Try doing so on benefits.

Getting my 60+ card was a liberation for me - although it is at the expense of the fare paying customer I do realise.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 9, 2015)

*Back on topic:* I went to survey the Loughborough Parkway traffic flows this morning about 8 am. Some motorists and motorbikes are still chancing it and ignoring the restrictions, but the conclusion  - from what I saw this morning is this:

Nearly 100% of northbound traffic down Hinton Road turns left now - heading west-bound down Coldharbour Lane.

This is added to by a significant flow (and queue as the junction in not controlled) from Shakespeare Road - again west-bound onto Coldharbour Lane. God knows where these cars (and lorries/skip lorries/40 ton trucks etc) are coming from up Shakespeare Rd, but they do.

Clearly the traffic congestion in Coldharbour Lane near the barrier block is caused by all this.

There is now a major increase in cars turning off Coldharbour Lane into Barrington Road and Valencia place - rat running to avoid central Brixton and the Loughborough Parkway. Could be fatal for pedestrians like me who are unable to wait the requisite 5 minutes to cross when the little Green Man appears (or not in the case of Valencia Place, where there is no little Green Man).

Career suggestion for George Wright (and Councillor Bathwaite)


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2015)

CH1 said:


> There is now a major increase in cars turning off Coldharbour Lane into Barrington Road and Valencia place -



I don't really understand why people would be turning into Valencia Place instead of Gresham Rd - an attempt to bypass the traffic lights?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 9, 2015)

CH1 said:


> That's horrific. I keep wondering if that if going to happen in Brixton with all this pile driving and over development going on.


The earth will rebel
And swallow 
Loughborough Junction 
And be washed away by the river...


----------



## CH1 (Nov 9, 2015)

critical1 said:


> The earth will rebel
> And swallow
> Loughborough Junction
> And be washed away by the river...


That's what Deeper Life Bible Church said on Saturday morning as they were giving me something for Anthea


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> So anyway, the deadline for responses to the monkey survey seems to have been extended until Friday 13th now. Not sure when this happened, or if its a decision or a misunderstanding..


It was indeed yet another 'misunderstanding' !

The link saying that the monkey survey ends on 13th is now apparently being removed from the council's website.

Because someone contacted George Wright today asking about the extension, and he replied "The on-line survey has indeed closed.  Where is the information that it continues till 13th November?"


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2015)

CH1 said:


> This was always Young Liberal policy in the 70s.
> 
> There is of course free transport in London for selected groups: 60+, disabled, pensioners. I can tell you its bad enough having to pay these prices when working. Try doing so on benefits.
> 
> Getting my 60+ card was a liberation for me - although it is at the expense of the fare paying customer I do realise.



If I could choose to live in a world made according to Young Liberal Policy in the 70s I'd be there now, not here. 
You're welcome to your 60+ card by the way, 
a fare paying customer of the many competing private companies who run London's bus network.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 9, 2015)

Lambeth Official Consultation Survey  dated 13th November has now been CLOSED


----------



## bimble (Nov 9, 2015)

This is the new paragraph someone at Lambeth made today



"citizens" 

Loughborough junction - what you need to know | Lambeth Council


----------



## Angellic (Nov 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> This is the new paragraph someone at Lambeth made today
> 
> View attachment 79394
> 
> ...



Thank you, Citizen Bimble.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 9, 2015)

bimble said:


> Nice idea but sky pie.  "the cost of the free bus experiment also almost quadrupled in ten years.."   Hasselt cancels free public transport after 16 years



Is it pie in the sky? I disagree. If its pie in the sky then there is something wrong with the society as it works now.

There has been much mudslinging on this thread about class. But when I make practical suggestion to actually make a difference to inequality/ class Im told its pie in the sky.

I would suggest that the well meaning but now failing road closures and also the attempt to use the Dutch road system in other parts of  London like Walthamstow could be failing as it does not go far enough.

As someone pointed out to me the Congestion charge when brought in is a kind of regressive tax to pay to go through London.

Its the less well off that will be deterred from going through central London.

Under the present way society is run , as my more hard left acquaintances tell me, reforms don’t work in the end.

Moves away from an urban space dominated by the car will not work unless more radical reforms go on alongside it. ie cheap/ free public transport.

Unless this is done its not unreasonable for the less well off- ie on Loughborough estate - to feel that this is about catering for  needs of middle classes.

Im all for having a go at the middle classes, and have been called on other thread "ignorant" for doing it. But what is annoying me is superficial attacks on middle class. ie cyclists are selfish middle class people.

In a wealthy country like this a redistribution of wealth would mean that cheap/ free public transport is feasible.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 9, 2015)

"LJ Road Madness" have posted a 30+ page response to the road closures on Facebook here, which is mostly gleaned from their petition responses.

Among the evidence is a stat showing that well over two thirds (69.2%) of the 4,000 or so petition responses came from people living outside of the local area (Coldharbour, Vassell, Herne Hill wards.)


----------



## critical1 (Nov 9, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> "LJ Road Madness" have posted a 30+ page response to the road closures on Facebook here, which is mostly gleaned from their petition responses.
> 
> Among the evidence is a stat showing that well over two thirds (69.2%) of the 4,000 or so petition responses came from people living outside of the local area (Coldharbour, Vassell, Herne Hill wards.)



Are they not citizens... but statistically the majority did come from the affected areas... Stats are strange things


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> "LJ Road Madness" have posted a 30+ page response to the road closures on Facebook here, which is mostly gleaned from their petition responses.
> 
> Among the evidence is a stat showing that well over two thirds (69.2%) of the 4,000 or so petition responses came from people living outside of the local area (Coldharbour, Vassell, Herne Hill wards.)


It's written in the style and format of an objective "report" but looking through it quickly it seems that it's just repeating the claims that are being made in the petition comments and on facebook etc.

I could see several places where it was stated as "fact" that traffic on CHL has increased substantially, as well as various side roads. Maybe it has but I'd rather make that judgement based on the actual traffic counts (and that onjective measure has probably been sucessfully sabotaged by bringing the mid-way review forward along with this strong pressure to abandon things before we get to see the real long-term results).

It also states that the traffic count things can't distinguish between cars and bicycles (and therefore won't be able to tell us anything about increasing/decreasing cycle usage). I thought it was pretty standard that they can - but I may be wrong.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2015)

One of the letters in that report.

Seems to me that the problem here is not that it's difficult to get to the address, but that it is difficult to get there for someone trying to navigate with GPS. And that the problem could be fairly easily solved if the closures were included properly in satnav maps. I don't know what the process is for that to happen, but if there would have been a way of making sure that happened when the closures came in it would have saved a lot of hassle.

Looking at the route to Mr Workshops from Streatham - there's no great diversion. You just have to know the right way to go.

One of the other businesses (garage) talks about customers not being able to get through. Again, the problems seems to be to do with finding their way there. This is a genuine problem but one, it seems to me, that could be solved without abandoning the whole scheme.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Lambeth Official Consultation Survey  dated 13th November has now been CLOSED


Why?...
Was there too many complaints about the road closures or too many about the consultation?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 10, 2015)

In my opinion it would be better if to travel the extra mile than abandoning the whole experiment. After all it is an experiment a very expensive one.

If vehicles and other modes of transportation are effectively banned, this would possibly drive (excuse the pun) a mass exodus from the LJ area, it would no doubt be replaced by younge healthy affluent residents who would relish the prospect of living in the middle of a city with no other means of transportation apart from bipedal transport.

The resultant large amount of cyclists would then have to ponder where to store their bikes, deliveries will have to be by mule & cart or some sort of cycle contraption. The resultant healthy options for those who are ill will probably see that they are supported by the community of cycle volunteers who would take them out shopping and to hospital appointments in a speedy and comfortable manner. 

Delivery of heavy items would have to be left at special points at the edge of the experiment. If your business is in the area obviously you would have a special team of cyclists to move your goods in and out of the exclusion area.

The resultant extra business would then be for bike parts and spares which the majority are imported, but there may well be opportunities to start manufacturing bikes in the industrial areas that are vacant. After all you can't have a good bike and no spares. 

New buildings would have to be artisan hand crafted works, and materials would be brought into the area by train. As for raw materials for bricks I hear London clay is very near the surface in Loughborough so maybe a brick factory maybe in order.

Examples of self sufficient communities are everywhere but mostly found outside of cities, I think Detroit is a fine example of lack of infrastructure a fine place to have a bicycle post peak oil, peak solar power...


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'd rather make that judgement based on the actual traffic counts (and that objective measure has probably been successfully sabotaged by bringing the mid-way review forward along with this strong pressure to abandon things before we get to see the real long-term results).



'Successfully sabotaged' ?

The current page says: "Traffic counts have been taken at 71 different locations in the surrounding area to measure the impact on neighbouring roads". The document that lists the original measuring points (the before measurements) has 203 locations for traffic counts.
Is it saboteurs who made 132 of them disappear?

These minimal traffic counts seem to have been done pretty much entirely during the recent half term holiday.
That's directly against their own established guidelines for how to get useful measurements.
Unsurprisingly I got no response from George Wright when I asked him about this.

There was always going to be a 3 month review of the scheme.
Yes the council chose to bring it forward by one month as a sort of gesture but can you really blame saboteurs for the decision to count the cars at less than half the before spots and during the 2 week school holiday in direct contravention of their own rules?

I for one am very annoyed that the results of the traffic counting will probably be useless because the methodology used was shambolic.
Counting cars was always meant to be their main way of assessing the success or otherwise of the experiment.
Given the general level of incompetence displayed at every turn in the implementation of this thing, I suppose it's not surprising that this too has been completely bungled but i do resent you blaming it on 'sabotage'.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> If its pie in the sky then there is something wrong with the society as it works now.


I think you're onto something there.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 10, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Delivery of heavy items would have to be left at special points at the edge of the experiment. If your business is in the area obviously you would have a special team of cyclists to move your goods in and out of the exclusion area.


Sure.... Brixton has a Doddle now. Obviously time for one in LJ to broaden our "offer"


----------



## irf520 (Nov 10, 2015)

Maybe this is all a clever way to solve the unemployment problem. Instead of one person driving a lorry or van delivering goods, you could have 6 people on one of those ridiculous 'PediBus' things I sometimes see pedaling around near Borough market holding everyone up.

There you go, a promising new career option - "Pack Horse".


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Maybe this is all a clever way to solve the unemployment problem. Instead of one person driving a lorry or van delivering goods, you could have 6 people on one of those ridiculous 'PediBus' things I sometimes see pedaling around near Borough market holding everyone up.
> 
> There you go, a promising new career option - "Pack Horse".



And the construction of Higgs etc could employ loads more people if it adopted the traditional Indian method where getting women to carry bricks by head is cheaper than using petrol. Everyone's a winner.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2015)

Sorry to interrupt you all in the middle of channelling your inner (or outer) Clarksons.



bimble said:


> The document that lists the original measuring points (the before measurements) has 203 locations for traffic counts.


Which document is this?


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

That one that I have no idea how to upload / share. Long spreadsheet received from someone's freedom of info request


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 10, 2015)

I would also like to point out that PRIOR to the Road closures 71 traffic counts were taken.
This review they have taken 23!
Not 71,		 23   and as we all know  they were  during the school holidays!
Barrington Road from Loughborough Road end along it was NOT counted yet loads of vehicles were using it and cutting through the small private estate road to get out onto St James's Crescent therefore bypassing Angell Road/St James's Crescent turning which is very narrow.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> And the construction of Higgs etc could employ loads more people if it adopted the traditional Indian method where getting women to carry bricks by head is cheaper than using petrol. Everyone's a winner.


I asked this question once... Why do you use people instead of machinary? Answer was People are cheap!


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> This review they have taken 23!


!
If you have documents showing that it was 23 not 71 please post em up, because Lambeth website says 71..   
23 would be..properly pathetic.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> !
> If you have documents showing that it was 23 not 71 please post em up, because Lambeth website says 71..
> 23 would be..properly pathetic.


LJAG receive a response from Councillor Lib Peck with regard to experimental road closure | Loughborough Junction Action Group


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2015)

> Traffic counts have been taken at 71 different locations in the surrounding area to measure the impact on neighbouring roads and repeat counts will be taken in key locations. This data will form part of the review, the results of which should be known in mid-November.
> 
> The review will also take into account;
> 
> ·  Traffic survey counts (including speed and volume surveys from 23 locations, and video surveys at six locations to assess the changes in volumes of motor traffic and cycling)



It's not entirely clear what it means but I would understand that as saying 71 locations, 23 of which have certain extra types of information.

Not 23 instead of 71.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> LJAG receive a response from Councillor Lib Peck with regard to experimental road closure | Loughborough Junction Action Group


This was LJAG spinnning - "holding Lambeth Council to account"

If I was Lib Peck I would have written back saying "Can't you make your mind up?"
I represented Thornton Ward once, and clearly as my successor in title so to speak Lib Peck deserves my encouragement.

Lib Peck has however done a very BAD THING. 
*"The final decision on whether to proceed will be made by the Cabinet Member and will be based on a comprehensive report which will include officer recommendations."*
is about as undemocratic as you can get.

_"What about the workers?"_ I say. *What indeed?* says Lib Peck


----------



## critical1 (Nov 10, 2015)

CH1 said:


> This was LJAG spinnning - "holding Lambeth Council to account".......
> 
> Lib Peck has however done a very BAD THING.
> *"The final decision on whether to proceed will be made by the Cabinet Member and will be based on a comprehensive report which will include officer recommendations."*
> ...



Who?


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> LJAG receive a response from Councillor Lib Peck with regard to experimental road closure | Loughborough Junction Action Group


Lib Peck letter is odd. But just the traffic counting bit:

"Traffic survey counts (including speed and volume surveys from 23 locations, and video surveys at six locations to assess the changes in volumes of motor traffic and cycling)
·  Review of traffic flows (using the Council’s CCTV system to carry out a review of traffic flows on the key route of Coldharbour Lane.)"

teuchter Maybe we're not reading the same thing?
It absolutely looks to me like she's saying that only 23 locations had speed & volume 'surveys' (& surveys definitely does just mean those rubber lines) during the closures.
Plus another 6 locations were 'studied' using CCTV cameras. Those mostly on coldharbour lane.
?
It seems to me that any ambiguity in the writing is completely on purpose to be honest but ..  if they had just done the obvious thing and used the same locations to measure before and after there would be no need for any such silliness. No?


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Lib Peck has however done a very BAD THING.
> *"The final decision on whether to proceed will be made by the Cabinet Member and will be based on a comprehensive report which will include officer recommendations."*
> is about as undemocratic as you can get.


Seriously, it really is amazing (to me) that the decision on this rests with one person alone, Cllr jenny Braithwaite.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

Here's a picture of George Wright and Jennifer Braithwaite having a happier day, 
It's from when Lambeth received the prize for ‘Best New Public Space’ at the London Planning Awards, for the Clapham Old Town Regeneration Project, last year. Can imagine this may have given them a certain confidence to plough on.
GW has the weirdest posture. Like a slack string puppet.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> Lib Peck letter is odd. But just the traffic counting bit:
> 
> "Traffic survey counts (including speed and volume surveys from 23 locations, and video surveys at six locations to assess the changes in volumes of motor traffic and cycling)
> ·  Review of traffic flows (using the Council’s CCTV system to carry out a review of traffic flows on the key route of Coldharbour Lane.)"
> ...


71 traffic count locations (number of vehicles)
23 counted speed as well.
6 included video survey

There's nothing that suggests to me that the number of locations surveyed (to whatever extent) has been different before and "after".

But we will hopefully find out once the actual info comes out in the next couple of weeks.






Could be a slogan for the whole thread.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> Seriously, it really is amazing (to me) that the decision on this rests with one person alone, Cllr jenny Braithwaite.


And one who hugs proponents of the scheme at a previous meeting.
Advised by one whose job could be on the line if it doesn't go through.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 71 traffic count locations (number of vehicles)
> 23 counted speed as well.
> 6 included video survey
> 
> There's nothing that suggests to me that the number of locations surveyed (to whatever extent) has been different before and "after".



Just wow. I like a guinness as much as the next person but.. really?
1) this bit says the number of 'before counts" seems to be 71.
It then says "repeat counts will be taken in KEY LOCATIONS".

This is not saying they will measure them again one day in the future, it's saying that for the review (i.e. this review now) they have only done 'key locations'.
I agree the tenses are a bit messy but I blame that on incompetence/ obscurantism .


2) It then says

What are you seeing here that I'm not? It says 23 locations have been surveyed for speed & volume during the closures. Not 71. 23. You think that some other sort of mysterious measuring was used at the missing 48?
What people noticed in the area a couple of weeks ago was sets of double rubber lines. These measure speed & volume.
Because they were in so few locations (& different from the 'before' counts) I mistakenly assumed they were not to do with this road closure thing at all but instead something to do with the 20MPH introduction, but seems I was just wrong about that.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

CH1 said:


> And one who hugs proponents of the scheme at a previous meeting.
> Advised by one whose job could be on the line if it doesn't go through.


Who do you think most stands to loose their job?


----------



## prunus (Nov 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> What are you seeing here that I'm not? It says 23 locations have been surveyed for speed & volume during the closures. Not 71. 23. You think that some other sort of mysterious measuring was used at the missing 48?



I think he does think that, yes - just volume measuring. The simplest kind of rubber strip measuring just counts vehicles. The next level up measures the speed of each one as well - it's more complex and hence the kit is more expensive, hence it's not unlikely that more pure volume (which is after all the main measure of interest here) sites than combined sites would be used. 

However, having said that - the original text in the link posted above is *highly* ambiguous as to how many sites are/were used before and/or during the active period - it's really not clear if it was 71 before and after, or just 23 (possibly 'key'?) after, possibly plus 6 video, or if the 23 and/or the 6 are a subset of the 71 with the others still active as just volume measures, or what. I don't think one can tell from that text.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

prunus said:


> I think he does think that, yes - just volume measuring. The simplest kind of rubber strip measuring just counts vehicles. The next level up measures the speed of each one as well - it's more complex and hence the kit is more expensive, hence it's not unlikely that more pure volume (which is after all the main measure of interest here) sites than combined sites would be used.
> 
> However, having said that - the original text in the link posted above is *highly* ambiguous as to how many sites are/were used before and/or during the active period - it's really not clear if it was 71 before and after, or just 23 (possibly 'key'?) after, possibly plus 6 video, or if the 23 and/or the 6 are a subset of the 71 with the others still active as just volume measures, or what. I don't think one can tell from that text.



Fair and reasonable as always, prunus.
Anybody who has noticed SINGLE RUBBER LINES across their street in the last few weeks please help us out & put your hand up!


Angellic said:


> More double sets of rubber lines on Fyfield St and Angell Park Gardens. I found this on the worldwideweb:
> 
> 1 strip = monitoring traffic volume
> 2 strips = monitoring traffic volume and/or average speed
> 3 strips = speed enforcement (usually a car or van parked nearby with camera and/or Police)


But also, out of curiosity:
Where do you stand then, on whether this piece of work by the leader of the council which we are puzzling over is an example of someone who is just not very good at writing or whether it is actually quite a clever purposeful bit of obscurantism ?


----------



## prunus (Nov 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> Fair and reasonable as always, prunus.
> Anybody who has noticed SINGLE RUBBER LINES across their street in the last few weeks please help us out & put your hand up!
> 
> But also, out of curiosity:
> Where do you stand then, on whether this piece of work by the leader of the council which we are puzzling over is an example of someone who is just not very good at writing or whether it is actually quite a clever purposeful bit of obscurantism ?



Absolutely just bad writing. It reads like it was written hurriedly, and I suspect with a bunch of copy-and-pastes from other documents (hence some repetitive elements that don't quite gel - the bullet points in particular). It doesn't actually obscure anything, just leaves the answer in doubt - to obscure it it would have to leave us thinking we had the answer but in fact have the wrong one. And in any case it will all be out in the open in a few weeks, months at most, so what would be the point? They'd have to simultaneously be being darkly cunning and stupidly sloppy. That it's just the latter is much more likely. There is no conspiracy 

Edited to remove a 'much' - too much hyperbole.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

prunus Agree completely about the cut and pastes, and I defer to your greater reasonableness.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> Who do you think most stands to loose their job?


GW. He is a traffic engineer.
LJ has been a PR disaster.
Rosendale road has been withdrawn.
Streatham is delayed whist the flack on LJ dies down.

How is he value for money right now (as a head of section)?


----------



## xsunnysuex (Nov 10, 2015)

I got a cab this morning from Kabbee.  My driver was very vocal in his disgust.  Made it quite clear he wouldn't be coming to take me anywhere again.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 10, 2015)

PS the implementation of our review is not an appeal.
It is a delaying tactic akin to dealing with something following a complaints procedure. Can't see the review recommending the scheme be abandoned.

Let's hope I am a gnarled old cynic - and  completely wrong.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

xsunnysuex said:


> I got a cab this morning from Kabbee.  My driver was very vocal in his disgust.  Made it quite clear he wouldn't be coming to take me anywhere again.


I had the same thing on Saturday, cab driver from addison lee took notes on how to contact the relevant people at Lambeth !


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Let's hope I am a gnarled old cynic - and  completely wrong.



I feel the same way CH1. A lot of more informed people though do seem to be saying that they expect the decision on 19th to be to revoke the closures. I am watching various spaces.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 10, 2015)

On the subject of the traffic counts.
George Wright said they were only doing a limited number of traffic counts for the review at key points.
That is the 23. 71 had been done PRIOR to the closures.


----------



## AlexH (Nov 10, 2015)

bimble said:


> Just wow. I like a guinness as much as the next person but.. really?
> 1) this bit says the number of 'before counts" seems to be 71.
> It then says "repeat counts will be taken in KEY LOCATIONS".
> View attachment 79437
> ...


Thank you Bimble for a forensic dissection of this: that is how a Judge in Court is likely to read it. Teuchter you are wrong on this point I'm afraid.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

teuchter


concerned1 said:


> On the subject of the traffic counts.
> George Wright said they were only doing a limited number of traffic counts for the review at key points.
> That is the 23. 71 had been done PRIOR to the closures.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

Funny little moment just now: The CCTV car is parked below my window & it's dark, so quite hard to spot him, but a car approaching the NO ENTRY sign on Gordon grove managed to react in time, a sort of standoff for a bit before the car managed one of those Uturns that have become an art form here.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 10, 2015)

People keep saying about it is not early enough to know about the road closures and their effects, let them settle in  blah blah  well on Lambeth's own site  "Loughborough Junction all you need to know" it states:
"Road changes such as these experimental closures always take time to ‘bed in’ and settle down – true reflections of their impact would take at least three weeks after the closures begin. Therefore we would encourage respondents to wait until further into the study to make representations, people can contact the project manager on"
Oh I see   3 weeks  THREE for anyone not able to read  3 weeks for "true reflections of their impact"  guess an 8 week review will show sufficient "true reflections"  and I guess all those opposing it have been commenting on "true reflections of their impact"!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Thank you Bimble for a forensic dissection of this: that is how a Judge in Court is likely to read it. Teuchter you are wrong on this point I'm afraid.


I said it was unclear. Are "key locations" a subset of the 71 locations or the same thing? I don't know.

When it says following that, "also...traffic survey counts...including 23..." the "also" suggests that the counts which include the 23 are additional to the number that may be 71 or less.

The whole thing is so unclear it's not worth doing forensics on it. The only conclusion we can come to is that it doesn't really tell us anything. Like I say, we will find out what information is going to be presented, once it is presented. Debating about the meaning of an ambiguously worded statement will not change anything. 

My point remains







Things, at any rate.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> People keep saying about it is not early enough to know about the road closures and their effects, let them settle in  blah blah  well on Lambeth's own site  "Loughborough Junction all you need to know" it states:
> "Road changes such as these experimental closures always take time to ‘bed in’ and settle down – true reflections of their impact would take at least three weeks after the closures begin. Therefore we would encourage respondents to wait until further into the study to make representations, people can contact the project manager on"
> Oh I see   3 weeks  THREE for anyone not able to read  3 weeks for "true reflections of their impact"  guess an 8 week review will show sufficient "true reflections"  and I guess all those opposing it have been commenting on "true reflections of their impact"!


(1) "at least" 3 weeks
(2) The closures were not actually enforced until several weeks in.


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

prunus said:


> post: 14205502, member: There is no conspiracy
> Edited to remove a 'much' - too much hyperbole.


Am I right that the only possible place for a redacted much was after  'it doesn't actually obscure anything [   ][/QUOTE]


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2015)

If we want to do forensics, why aren't we examining at those petition stats from the LJroadnutters report? The ones that show that the substantial majority of respondents are from outwith the immediate area?

The official consultation results have been dismissed on the grounds that around 50% of respondents live outside the consultation area.

So what about the 69% of the petition signatories who live outside the consultation area?


----------



## bimble (Nov 10, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Things, at any rate.


things and time will tell


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 10, 2015)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 79413
> 
> One of the letters in that report.
> 
> ...



The problem is people relying on GPS. Being me I have the old fashioned A to Z. Met someone last night who had used GPS to get to the gym/ boxing club in one of the arches. She, as part of her training, had gone a a run and could not find her way back. Asked her road she wanted. She said she used GPS to get there and could not remember name of road or had any idea where it was.

GPS may seem useful. But its not that good if one has a problem. It also means that people get out of practise of using maps and finding alternative routes. Most people I know who do deliveries do not use them much. It like Black Cab drivers- you get to learn a sense of direction.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 10, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Examples of self sufficient communities are everywhere but mostly found outside of cities, I think Detroit is a fine example of lack of infrastructure a fine place to have a bicycle post peak oil, peak solar power...



Detroit is an interesting case. This was a city which at times a good public transport system. A complicated history which mixes lack of public funding with race and class ( as the black workers were mainly working class.)

A quote from the war years:




> But at the same time, ridership of Detroit's streetcars doubled during the war, from 30.8 million in 1940 to a whopping 57.2 million four years later.
> 
> "You couldn't get cars, you couldn't get gas, you couldn't get tires," said Joel Stone, senior curator for the Detroit Historical Society. "That meant everybody rode public transportation."
> 
> ...



Goes to show that its political decisions and change in economy that alter transport. Its not inevitable that car ownership or use is the only way.

And this on the race issue:



> And that was the same year the fiery Coleman Young took office as Detroit's first black mayor.
> 
> There was no way, in that environment, that a move to fund regional public transit — and possibly make it easier for the poor or African Americans to enter the suburbs — was going to pass. The Detroit News wrote about a SEMTA planning meeting where suburbanites protested over the "undesirables, transit crime and low-income housing" that they believed public transit would bring to their communities.



As a friend pointed out to me a few days ago the reason that London has a good bus system is down to Red Ken.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 10, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Detroit is an interesting case.


I was there a couple of times around 1992/3. The bus service was pretty good at that time. Not all the doom and gloom people assume. They also had the 1 hour tickets (transfers) promised by our own Labour Mayoral aspirant Sadiq Khan.

There is also a high level elevated railway in the central business district.


As regards racial issues - I went into black restaurant early morning near the station - there was ice on the ground and breakfast sounded a good idea.
I was offered "grits" (apparently a black person's food) - and there was general amusement when I accepted. It was a type of porridge - welcome on a freezing morning. I would say porridge has no nationality (apologies to the teuchter


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 10, 2015)

My admittedly unscientific look at CHL. Been going down to Kings a lot recently. The traffic towards Camberwell back up at the two sets of traffic lights at times. Then after the two bridges the road clears until Camberwell. Looks to me that the timing on the lights needs altering.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> The problem is people relying on GPS. Being me I have the old fashioned A to Z. Met someone last night who had used GPS to get to the gym/ boxing club in one of the arches. She, as part of her training, had gone a a run and could not find her way back. Asked her road she wanted. She said she used GPS to get there and could not remember name of road or had any idea where it was.
> 
> GPS may seem useful. But its not that good if one has a problem. It also means that people get out of practise of using maps and finding alternative routes. Most people I know who do deliveries do not use them much. It like Black Cab drivers- you get to learn a sense of direction.



Yeah, I am the same, don't like to rely on it and use it as little as possible so that I can retain some sense of direction and understanding of where I am.

But I think it maybe is a useful technology when it comes to driving. If most people are using it, it allows more efficient/clever traffic management. It means that you can put in systems that help keep certain streets quiet, that 15 years ago might not have been feasible, because they would have caused too much confusion for drivers that didn't know the area. It's now an affordable technology. If you can afford a car you can afford a GPS device.

I suspect that it allows people to drive more safely when they are in unfamiliar territory, too. Fewer sudden turns at the last minute, or distracted drivers looking for signs or trying to look at maps when they should be watching the road.

We're entering a (probably very extended) transitional phase where technology will be taking over more and more of what car drivers have been doing up until now. Hopefully one day humans won't be driving cars any more at all, because they're rubbish at it. And once that day comes we can get rid of all these physical traffic management systems and all the clutter that goes with them. If you could have a adjustable and totally reliably enforced speed limit on all streets, there'd be no need to have no-entry points to stop rat runs - you'd just tweak the speed limits to make sure those routes weren't any faster than the ones designed for the job.


----------



## bimble (Nov 11, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> As a friend pointed out to me a few days ago the reason that London has a good bus system is down to Red Ken



Not complaining about the buses, definitely much improved compared to years ago but don't think it's very 'red', having ten different private companies running different routes in the city, and competing to outbid each other for the business & profits


----------



## bimble (Nov 11, 2015)

this is odd. Looks like the plan was only to look at 12-15 locations for this review, so if we've had 26 of them we're lucky. (?)


----------



## LadyV (Nov 11, 2015)

teuchter said:


> (1) "at least" 3 weeks
> (2) The closures were not actually enforced until several weeks in.



I'm not sure they are actually enforcing, there are no cameras and I seem to remember reading somewhere that they haven't issued any fines at all


----------



## CH1 (Nov 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> Not complaining about the buses, definitely much improved compared to years ago but don't think it's very 'red', having ten different private companies running different routes in the city, and competing to outbid each other for the business & profits
> View attachment 79451


If your are going to be purist like that - how about the leasing companies which own the physical buses? The operating companies are simply the bus equivalent of NPower, British Gas, Talktalk etc which provide our services on top of a leased infrastructure. The whole thing is designed to give a mirage of competetion/and/or uniformity as the case may be while allowing money to be extracted for investors.

*Back to Loughborough Parkway*
There is inspiration in your moan about financialisation:

We should tell LJAG and Lambeth Transport Control to come to their senses and make Loughborough Parkway into a toll road. The Dulwich Estate trustees could give advice, based on their experience of this type of venture in former times. This would go down well with LJAG and the council who have a penchant for upmarket consultations. 

There are amazing opportunities here, because pricing could be variable.

Motorists from outside Lambeth could be charged penal rates, and those from outside Coldharbour could be charged merely criminally outrageous rates.

Obviously Loughborough Estate residents, and some residents from neighbouring streets ought to get it free. But not those on the south side of Coldharbour Lane who have caused all this misery.   

The charging booth would be operated by apprentice Inland Revenue inspectors - from Angell Town or Loughborough Estates, under Evgeny Lebedev's estate rescue scheme. 

If Boris can do it for bikes, surely we can do it for community safety?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 11, 2015)

BTW back in the real world I ask a Darth Vader look-alike traffic warden this morning when or if they were reopening the road and he said they are still operating on the basis of a 6 months trial.
Obviously the traffic wardens are provided by another company (Veolia perhaps) but clearly they are not in the loop if any developments are afoot.


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> the traffic wardens are provided by another company (Veolia perhaps) .



I think its this lot
About Us | NSL


----------



## bimble (Nov 11, 2015)

CH1 said:


> BTW back in the real world I ask a Darth Vader look-alike traffic warden this morning when or if they were reopening the road and he said they are still operating on the basis of a 6 months trial.
> Obviously the traffic wardens are provided by another company (Veolia perhaps) but clearly they are not in the loop if any developments are afoot.


Don't know if there's even a loop to be in (seeing as GW & Braithwaite seem to have had trouble communicating with each other on really basic stuff like when is the review over) .


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 11, 2015)

This scheme has brought together an amazing amount of really wonderful people.
I read with delight each day the dissecting of each morsel that arises from someone's finding's and Lambeth have loads on offer all with assorted variations, and the dessemination of it by the wide audience here.
The varied topics this has brought up have been in some instances quite hilarious but on the other hand some quite serious and others very indepth.
I have learnt daily of some very interesting facts and also some have given some great new ideas and possibilities.
For example the technology and the advancement of it re travel and I look forward to the day we go even further in travel and can move ourselves without a vehicle or any physical contraption but via the mind.
I could just POP up anywhere.   The mind is far from being used to it's fullest capacity yet.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 11, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> I have learnt daily of some very interesting facts and also some have given some great new ideas and possibilities.
> For example the technology and the advancement of it re travel and I look forward to the day we go even further in travel and can move ourselves without a vehicle or any physical contraption but via the mind.
> I could just POP up anywhere.   The mind is far from being used to it's fullest capacity yet.


----------



## bimble (Nov 11, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I'm not sure they are actually enforcing, there are no cameras and I seem to remember reading somewhere that they haven't issued any fines at all


It's all a bit weird. I haven't heard anyone say they've received an actual fine yet either but the CCTV car is definitely still doing its thing, parking up here on the corner after dark to see who crosses the no entries.
And I still don't know why the great big digital £130 fine signs were removed coincidentally the morning after all that press coverage and have not returned.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 11, 2015)

bimble said:


> It's all a bit weird. I haven't heard anyone say they've received an actual fine yet either but the CCTV car is definitely still doing its thing, parking up here on the corner after dark to see who crosses the no entries.
> And I still don't know why the great big digital £130 fine signs were removed coincidentally the morning after all that press coverage and have not returned.


The sign might have been stolen


----------



## CH1 (Nov 11, 2015)

The *Hero of Switzerland* gets a couple of mentions in the  CAMRA "London Drinker" current issue.

page 38 - Just to illustrate that pubs have other threats than developers, this pub a Good Beer Guide entry in 2000 faces being isolated by a controversial road closure scheme. The pub's landlord told the Evening Standard "Business is quiet anyway, so this could well finish us."

page 54 Hero of Switzerland (ex Punch Taverns) cask beer discontinued.


----------



## Angellic (Nov 12, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The *Hero of Switzerland* gets a couple of mentions in the  CAMRA "London Drinker" current issue.
> 
> page 38 - Just to illustrate that pubs have other threats than developers, this pub a Good Beer Guide entry in 2000 faces being isolated by a controversial road closure scheme. The pub's landlord told the Evening Standard "Business is quiet anyway, so this could well finish us."
> 
> page 54 Hero of Switzerland (ex Punch Taverns) cask beer discontinued.



Do people drive to the Hero? Always struck me a local pub for local people. Wouldn't a new Boulevard de George Wright be more tempting as people pass by on their evening stroll?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 12, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Do people drive to the Hero? Always struck me a local pub for local people. Wouldn't a new Boulevard de George Wright be more tempting as people pass by on their evening stroll?


Like the idea of a Boulevard - you have hit on an idea with that je ne c'est quois.
..... slow line Double Posting issues......


----------



## CH1 (Nov 12, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Do people drive to the Hero? Always struck me a local pub for local people. Wouldn't a new Boulevard de George Wright be more tempting as people pass by on their evening stroll?


Like the idea of a Boulevard - you have hit on an idea with that je ne c'est quois.

Regarding the pub and the route closure - I don't know what that is all about. Maybe you and I are looking from the perspective of one who likes to drink beer (in which case the Beehive or the Fox on the Hill would be a much better bet).

I guess the Hero must do excellent teas!


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 12, 2015)

They actually hold a lot of wedding/funeral and birthday events and they used to get a portion of custom from the passing traffic, not saying the driver is the one drinking! The closures have not only caused cut backs for those events but they cannot even have the regular delivery of drinks as the large lorry cannot manouvere the small roads left open to reach the pub. They now have added costs as their deliveries are now having to use a smaller vehicle and making several visits instead of all in one.
The local newsagents cannot have daily deliveries of milk and bread, the company refuses to drive the longer and more congested routes  on a daily basis and they are restricted to a couple of deliveries a week now.
These closures have had a detrimental effect on most people in various ways.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 12, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Do people drive to the Hero? Always struck me a local pub for local people. Wouldn't a new Boulevard de George Wright be more tempting as people pass by on their evening stroll?



Lunch time trade? A lot of pubs are running on narrow margins - even a small reduction in trade can be disastrous.


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> The local newsagents cannot have daily deliveries of milk and bread, the company refuses to drive the longer and more congested routes  on a daily basis and they are restricted to a couple of deliveries a week now.These closures have had a detrimental effect on most people in various ways.


Hadn't considered that delivery drivers would just refuse to do the extra mileage to regular clients.
I can completely see how people on small margins will go bust if they have no milk and papers to sell.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 12, 2015)

Angellic said:


> Do people drive to the Hero? Always struck me a local pub for local people. Wouldn't a new Boulevard de George Wright be more tempting as people pass by on their evening stroll?


I used to see a few cabs and black taxis there... for the more serious boozers


----------



## critical1 (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> Hadn't considered that delivery drivers would just refuse to do the extra mileage to regular clients.
> I can completely see how people on small margins will go bust if they have no milk and papers to sell.



I found out the other day that a lot of traders are operating on 15p-30p margins... Additional time and fuel costs can make it or break it////   in these days of austerity.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> they cannot even have the regular delivery of drinks as the large lorry cannot manouvere the small roads left open to reach the pub. They now have added costs as their deliveries are now having to use a smaller vehicle and making several visits instead of all in one.
> The local newsagents cannot have daily deliveries of milk and bread, the company refuses to drive the longer and more congested routes  on a daily basis and they are restricted to a couple of deliveries a week now.



I'm sceptical that this is the entire truth.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> some cabs now will not drop anyone in these areas,



Which companies are these, by the way?


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'm sceptical that this is the entire truth.


Time for a Teuchter Investigates special report I think.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 12, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which companies are these, by the way?


Are you willing to phone them up and have a word?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> Time for a Teuchter Investigates special report I think.



I think he just likes his Pork Pies.... and his Guinness


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 12, 2015)

I can assure teuchter that what I said is the truth from the owner of the Sun Newspaper shop and Colin from the Hero of Switzerland and his wife.
I spoke with them and that is the present situation for them.
That group of shops has the nice little slip road in front of them making it very easy for the once passing traffic to pull off Loughborough Road and be able to shop there quite easily. Now a lot of the traffic are no longer passing there,  they are stuck on CHL or Denmark Road or St James's Crescent or further afield! A new Cafe/Restaurant had opened, Prestige, a few months ago and again depended not just on locals but passing or visiting traffic to them again this amount of loss of customers will see them and others soon go out of business. Obviously no other business would prosper in the same area.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 12, 2015)

Some news from the LJAG website..

LJAG send a response to Councillor Lib Peck’s email about the road closures  | Loughborough Junction Action Group


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Some news from the LJAG website..
> 
> LJAG send a response to Councillor Lib Peck’s email about the road closures  | Loughborough Junction Action Group


Very interesting letter from Anthea particularly the last bit- shows she is completely aware of the damage this has done to LJAG and tries to put the responsibility for the disastrous consultation back where (I agree) it belongs.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 12, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Some news from the LJAG website..
> 
> LJAG send a response to Councillor Lib Peck’s email about the road closures  | Loughborough Junction Action Group



Well, I don't suppose she drinks in the Hero, and probably doesn't use any of the other businesses in the cordoned off zone. So I guess she doesn't give two shits if they close down.
I suspect she'd rather see the whole area razed and replaced with upmarket housing. Just think how much it would add to the value of her house. And then she has the brass neck to pretend she cares about what local residents think.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 12, 2015)

Wow, such judgement.


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

On the question of existing local businesses and their relationship with the closures, this innocuous looking bit from the call in response document is interesting.



I mean, how do you make a 'greater mix of retail outlets' omelette in LJ without breaking a few car repair / takeaway / minimart  eggs?



EDIT: In case it looks like I'm being nice about this, I don't mean to be, not at all.

This place will change very fast very soon all by itself, as you can see by watching week by week what is happening like a wave of wine bars coming up Coldharbour Lane from The Village.
If it happens 'organically', through the inevitable pressure of the housing market etc then it happens: I'm very much against Lambeth Council using what little money they have actively pushing to artificially speed up the process.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 12, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Well, I don't suppose she drinks in the Hero, and probably doesn't use any of the other businesses in the cordoned off zone. So I guess she doesn't give two shits if they close down.
> I suspect she'd rather see the whole area razed and replaced with upmarket housing. Just think how much it would add to the value of her house. And then she has the brass neck to pretend she cares about what local residents think.



Hold on mate she does really care....as to what local residents think

1. The level of non-compliance on Loughborough Road especially from north-travelling vehicles is now much higher with many vehicles now passing through the pedestrian zone. Anecdotal evidence

2. The congestion along Coldharbour Lane, which was being blamed on the road closures, is now back to normal levels since the works to the traffic lights at the bottom of Herne Hill Road have been completed. This has now led to rat running through the kettled in area, especially Loughborough estate, can we not totally address this and seal the area off.

3.  I have anecdotal evidence from Clare Neely that parents walking their children to St Saviour’s school are reporting lower levels of traffic along Herne Hill Road. I have no idea where the traffic has dispersed to, but that doesn't matter.

4.  Reports of rat-running along St James Crescent, Southwell Road and Denmark Road have been exaggerated, as traffic monitoring will validate, Please ignore that youtube video from the residents of those roads, I will stake my reputation on it.

5.  There is no evidence of rat-running along Loughborough Park, as I reside there and can most certainly vouch for that 

It is my view as LJAG has not had a meeting as yet, that after a shaky start residents of which I have spoken to many are in full support are only now beginning to see the benefits of quieter streets with less through traffic and that now the congestion along Coldharbour Lane is no longer an issue and diverted along the side roads there will be an attendant lower level of air pollution, which was our primary objective.

Nonetheless, we are disappointed that this issue has so divided our community and that LJAG, as supporters of the experiment, has borne the brunt of local opposition.  It is also very unfortunate that the issue has become elided with fears about gentrification and that inclusive community projects, in particular the Loughborough Farm, have been accused of being the moving force behind the scheme. Although the pedestrian zone space outside the farm, which I campaigned for is not a reason to validate any claims against the farm regarding gentrification.

I am also concerned that once again there has been poor distribution of leaflets inviting residents to fill in Lambeth’s survey.  In some cases these have been delivered in Lambeth Talk, which some people may not read.  There have also been photographs in social media showing piles of leaflets dumped in streets and in foyers of tower blocks. It was stated in one social media article that we would have our pedestrian zone on Loughborough Road with children play in the street with buses, ambulances, fire trucks, and police cars, to date no children only the latter.

If the experiment is to continue for the full six months we would seek reassurances from Lambeth council that its communications team would mount a rigorous public relations campaign to explain the scheme, its benefits and how it fits into plans to improve and create a town centre for Loughborough Junction. As you know the garages have to be closed and to make a New Town Centre requires space, unfortunately Loughborough Junction lacks this, but we do have a lovely new Co-op and a Tesco Local, but it does not really fit in with the local demographic we so much want to invite into Loughborough, I hear that you no longer have a Town Hall as its been decentralised so maybe you would like to make a start by moving council services to Loughborough Junction and be one of the early adopters, away with the old and in with the new so to speak.

Best wishes


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

critical1 said:


> As you know the garages have to be closed and to make a New Town Centre requires space, unfortunately Loughborough Junction lacks this


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Well, I don't suppose she drinks in the Hero,


Just for the record - one of the couple of times I have met her, was sat around a table having some drinks in the Hero, about 2 or 3 months ago.


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Just for the record - one of the couple of times I have met her, was sat around a table having some drinks in the Hero, about 2 or 3 months ago.


Out of silly curiosity what's her poison do you remember what Anthea had to drink?
I may be wrong but imagine she's no longer welcome there now (because of this road closure debacle, as she notes in her letter)


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which companies are these, by the way?


concerned1 which are the cab companies you claim won't drop people in the area?


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

teuchter said:


> concerned1 which are the cab companies you claim won't drop people in the area?


I know you weren't talking to me teuchter but: I had an interesting chat late on Saturday night with a (female!) taxi driver from Addison Lee, which I think is London's largest cab company. She explained that from her perspective what this scheme means is enough added time & expense to throw their existing pricing and time algorithms so far out of sync that is is now not worth her while to drive me home even at 2am. She felt strongly enough about it to take down more than one email address at Lambeth. .


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> I know you weren't talking to me teuchter but: I had an interesting chat late on Saturday night with a (female!) taxi driver from Addison Lee, which I think is London's largest cab company. She explained that from her perspective what this scheme means is enough added time & expense to throw their existing pricing and time algorithms so far out of sync that is is now not worth her while to drive me home even at 2am. She felt strongly enough about it to take down more than one email address at Lambeth. .


How does that work? Isn't their pricing done centrally? Do individual drivers get to turn down jobs if they don't like them?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> I know you weren't talking to me teuchter but: I had an interesting chat late on Saturday night with a (female!) taxi driver from Addison Lee, which I think is London's largest cab company. She explained that from her perspective what this scheme means is enough added time & expense to throw their existing pricing and time algorithms so far out of sync that is is now not worth her while to drive me home even at 2am. She felt strongly enough about it to take down more than one email address at Lambeth. .



teuchter now heads off to phone Addison Lee as to the benefits of LJ Road Closures....


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

teuchter said:


> How does that work? Isn't their pricing done centrally? Do individual drivers get to turn down jobs if they don't like them?


It was an enlightening chat - yes Addison Lee is apparently quite a decent employer in that you can turn down jobs if you don't want them.
But more generally, seems cab drivers, like milk delivery drivers,  have decisions to make when running on small margins where the cost of extra fuel & time makes a real difference.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> It was an enlightening chat - yes Addison Lee is apparently quite a decent employer in that you can turn down jobs if you don't want them. But more generally, seems cab drivers like milk delivery drivers have decisions to make when running on small margins.



Clearly then the solution is to let "natural market forces" kill off these crappy low margin businesses and replace them with nice, resilient high margin businesses. Like maybe a little Waitrose?


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Clearly then the solution is to let "natural market forces" kill off these crappy low margin businesses and replace them with nice, resilient high margin businesses. Like maybe a little Waitrose?


Yes. So it's wine bars all the way. That's the only obvious way to make the price per square foot pay, per glass?
 
Make Profits with Wine Saver PRO


----------



## irf520 (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes. So it's wine bars all the way. That's the only obvious way to make the price per square foot pay, if you look at per bottle and per glass?



But those wine bars are going to have trouble shifting their stock at their vastly inflated prices if the pool of potential customers consists mainly of cash-strapped council tenants ... so the logical conclusion is ...


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

irf520 said:


> But those wine bars are going to have trouble shifting their stock at their vastly inflated prices if the pool of potential customers consists mainly of cash-strapped council tenants ... so the logical conclusion is ...


Well.. exactly. Is why i object to Lambeth Council and or Network Rail trying to artificially force these changes.


----------



## prunus (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> Well.. exactly. Is why i don't understand why Lambeth Council is trying to artificially force these Brewtique changes.



Is there any evidence, bar one mockup photo that was probably the brainchild of a 'creative' at a PR agency, that they are?


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

prunus said:


> Is there any evidence, bar one mockup photo that was probably the brainchild of a 'creative' at a PR agency, that they are?



If you have time, I've got a really interesting thing in PDF which would require your messaging / conversationing me. It's an academic paper by an expert on the G word, lecturer in urban studies at Birkbeck - on the relationship between Lambeth Council and the developers who have built the thing called Oval Quarter over at Myatts Fields.

 It helped me to understand the symbiotic relationship between a cash-strapped council and the the private developers and to see why they can't help but share a desire to drive up the value of every square foot.


----------



## prunus (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> If you have time, I've got a really interesting thing in PDF which would require your messaging / conversationing me. It's an academic paper on the relationship between Lambeth Council and the developers who have built the thing called Oval Quarter over at Myatts Field. It helped me to understand the symbiotic relationship between a cash-strapped Lambeth council and the the private developers and to see why they can't help but share a desire to drive up the value of every square foot.



Sounds interesting. Very happy to have pm on it if you like, although why the cloak-and-dagger?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 12, 2015)

prunus said:


> Is there any evidence, bar one mockup photo that was probably the brainchild of a 'creative' at a PR agency, that they are?



Nahh probably not.. after all Atlantic road arches rents aren't going up are they!


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

prunus said:


> Sounds interesting. Very happy to have pm on it if you like, although why the cloak-and-dagger?


No cloaks no daggerin, just a fat PDF  Have attempted to send it to you.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> It was an enlightening chat - yes Addison Lee is apparently quite a decent employer in that you can turn down jobs if you don't want them.
> But more generally, seems cab drivers, like milk delivery drivers,  have decisions to make when running on small margins where the cost of extra fuel & time makes a real difference.


So she's free to turn down the job if her perception is that it's such an unwieldy journey to make that she isn't paid enough for it. That doesn't tell us very much about the reality though. I really don't see that if, say you were getting a cab from central London at 2am to somewhere around Flaxman Rd, the journey now is going to be much longer than before. The difference in journey times, if anything, is going to be pretty minor compared to the variation in journey time caused by unpredictable delays.

The test of course is whether, if you call a cab via Addison Lee, there are so few drivers willing to take that job, that you can't get a cab or have to wait for longer than you usually would. I can't test that because I don't want to take a cab right now. Looking on the AL website though, the price for a taxi from central London to Gordon Grove (just N of the closures) is exactly the same as the price to Eastlake Rd (just S of the closures).


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So she's free to turn down the job if her perception is that it's such an unwieldy journey to make that she isn't paid enough for it.


Yep. Which when you apply same logic to the people who deliver milk & newspapers etc to local shops becomes a problem for the local shops, right?


----------



## prunus (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> No cloaks no daggerin, just a fat PDF  Have attempted to send it to you.



Thanks   Won't be able to read immediately (it's not short) but abstract looks promising. Will report back...


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yep. Which when you apply same logic to the people who deliver milk & newspapers etc to local shops becomes a problem for the local shops, right?


Yes. But it's not necessarily logic - it's perception, which isn't the same thing as reality. What are the most efficient routes may have changed of course but people and systems adapt. There will inevitably be some problems when things get changed but that doesn't mean that a new way of doing things can't be found.

Ultimately delivery companies want to keep their customers. It may be that they change their routines. They might start using a slightly smaller vehicle, or they might start doing a larger delivery every second day, or whatever. Once things have adapted, the system won't necessarily function worse than before. Maybe having fewer deliveries per week is good for the people who live along the routes those vehicles travel. Smaller vehicles may be better too. Some things might change for the worse, some better. As I have said many times before, I think the disruption of changes is often very much overestimated, and people tend to panic a bit when they are faced with having to change the way they do things. Then they find solutions and things settle down.

I wouldn't want to deny that these changes may have caused a lot of hassle for some businesses and their delivery arrangements. But the thing is, it's pretty much impossible to judge how severe those effects really are based on some secondhand comments. If shopkeepers have been resolutely against the changes (on account of fears that people like me say are probably unjustified) then they are probably going to overstate or play up the difficulties they have. If after some negotiation with the delivery companies it turns out that with a few changes things can run fine, and they aren't going to put up their prices after all, then this is not going to get reported.

Of course it could also be that I'm totally underestimating the difficulties because I amn't a shopkeeper and have no idea about all sorts of logistical practicalities that can't be resolved.

If I was in charge of running this experiment (and paid enough to do so properly) then I would certainly want to go and talk to these businesses and get as good an understanding as possible about the reality of the situation. I would want to look in some detail at the problems they complain about and do a bit of research to make sure they stack up and are reasonable. Do Lambeth have the resources or competency to do this properly? Probably not, sadly. So we are left trying to make a guess about what the reality of the situation is.

I am a sceptic by nature. Where people have talked about certain specific effects of this scheme, that are easy for me to check out, I've done so. I've gone to look at the claimed massive increase in traffic in side streets for example, and my observation has been that it doesn't really exist. I note that the LJAG statement posted above says similar. So, my observation is that there seems to be a fair bit of exaggeration about the negative impacts of this thing. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect there may be an element of that in comments that are reported here, second hand. Especially when reported by posters who've shown earlier in the thread a fondness for conspiracy theory.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 12, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Yes. But it's not necessarily logic - it's perception, which isn't the same thing as reality. What are the most efficient routes may have changed of course but people and systems adapt.....
> 
> I am a sceptic by nature. Where people have talked about certain specific effects of this scheme, that are easy for me to check out, I've done so. I've gone to look at the claimed massive increase in traffic in side streets for example, and my observation has been that it doesn't really exist. I note that the LJAG statement posted above says similar............



Hmm Reality vs Fantasy...








​


----------



## bimble (Nov 12, 2015)

teuchter said:


> people and systems adapt. There will inevitably be some problems when things get changed but that doesn't mean that a new way of doing things can't be found


Yes, sure, a new way will be found. Life adapts and I'm a big fan of Darwin. Still, the question here (i think) is about what changes are being forced upon LJ and if the celestial omelette you're waiting for justifies the immediate broken eggs.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Hmm Reality vs Fantasy...
> 
> ​




For 9 minutes, on some day since the traffic changes were implemented, two drivers failed to resolve a situation where one of them needed to reverse a bit so that others could get by.

This tells us more about how some people can behave when they get behind a steering wheel, than it does about the road closures.

Every single time I've gone to look at that road since, I have failed to see stand-offs, gridlock or even busy traffic.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> For 9 minutes, on some day since the traffic changes were implemented, two drivers failed to resolve a situation where one of them needed to reverse a bit so that others could get by.
> 
> This tells us more about how some people can behave when they get behind a steering wheel, than it does about the road closures.
> 
> Every single time I've gone to look at that road since, I have failed to see stand-offs, gridlock or even busy traffic.



And have you been there every single day?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 13, 2015)

I've been along St James's Crescent 3 times recently between 4pm and 6pm on a weekday. You see clusters of 6 or 7 cars at a time going down St James's Crescent every couple of minutes or so. I reckon maybe 25% of the original Loughborough Rd traffic now goes along Barrington Rd/St James's Crescent. The rest is dispersed between various routes:

Gresham Rd
Denmark Rd
Railton Rd/Atlantic Rd
Brixton centre
Denmark Hill
Loughborough Rd ignoring the signs


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

Morning rush hour. All these photos taken between 0800 and 0825.


CHL at station



CHL by station



Bottom of Hinton Rd



CHL looking east



CHL towards Brixton, from junction with Loughborough Rd



Top end of Loughborough Rd where it meets CHL (nb CCTV car)


 
Looking N along Loughborough Rd



St James Crescent looking west


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

Angell Rd looking N



Angell Rd on the right, St James Crescent on the left



Looking W along St James Crescent



St James Crescent from junction with Fyfield Rd



Fyfield Rd looking N



St James Crescent, looking N/E



This is the estate cut-through which bypasses the Barrington Rd closure. I did see a couple of vehicles use it.



Barrington Rd at junction with St James Crescent, looking towards CHL junction



Barrington Rd, junction with CHL


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

CHL looking towards Brixton



CHL/Gresham rd junction



CHL/Barrington Rd Junction




CHL/Gresham Rd Junction. Quite a few cars turning right onto Gresham Rd here. Don't know if any more than pre-closures.



Looking N up Gresham Rd



CHL looking E, back towards LJ



CHL, to the east of LJ, looking towards Camberwell.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I've been along St James's Crescent 3 times recently between 4pm and 6pm on a weekday. You see clusters of 6 or 7 cars at a time going down St James's Crescent every couple of minutes or so.



Not what I saw this morning - looking from my photo times I spent 8 minutes walking along St James Crescent and Barrington Rd. There were a few cars, mostly coming individually with gaps in between. Definitely not in clusters of 6 or 7. It actually didn't seem any busier than the occasions when I've been there at lunchtime over the last few weeks.




irf520 said:


> I reckon maybe 25% of the original Loughborough Rd traffic now goes along Barrington Rd/St James's Crescent.



I reckon this is nonsense. No way was that amount of traffic using it this morning (or the other day when I did the evening rush hour photos). If there had been that much traffic, it wouldn't have been possible for me to photograph long stretches of the road with no cars at all.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I reckon this is nonsense. No way was that amount of traffic using it this morning (or the other day when I did the evening rush hour photos). If there had been that much traffic, it wouldn't have been possible for me to photograph long stretches of the road with no cars at all.


I reckon you are supporting turning Barrington Road/Gresham Road/Coldharbour Lane/Moorlands Road 5 way junction into a death trap because of your wish to civilise us plebs by converting Loughborough Road into a park.

I warn you tecyhter: you may think you are re-running The Good Life with Tom and Margot etc.
But there is a nasty side to all that - Comrade Bala is currently on trial at Southwark Crown Court. 
Suggest you buy the Independent and read the juicy details - or even put in an appearance at Soutbwark yourself.

That is the future - for an idealist who cannot come to terms with the real world.
Nietsche's Superman ended up in an asylum, but Comrade Bala is up in court.


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2015)

Got to say LJ looks almost pretty in teuchter's pictures, lovely light.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I reckon you are supporting turning Barrington Road/Gresham Road/Coldharbour Lane/Moorlands Road 5 way junction into a death trap because of your wish to civilise us plebs by converting Loughborough Road into a park.
> 
> I warn you tecyhter: you may think you are re-running The Good Life with Tom and Margot etc.
> But there is a nasty side to all that - Comrade Bala is currently on trial at Southwark Crown Court.
> ...



I'm a cult leader who wants to kill people. Because I am pointing out (by providing photographic evidence) that the traffic mayhem, that some claim has resulted from this trial, doesn't actually exist.

Amazing.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Not what I saw this morning - looking from my photo times I spent 8 minutes walking along St James Crescent and Barrington Rd. There were a few cars, mostly coming individually with gaps in between. Definitely not in clusters of 6 or 7. It actually didn't seem any busier than the occasions when I've been there at lunchtime over the last few weeks.
> 
> I reckon this is nonsense. No way was that amount of traffic using it this morning (or the other day when I did the evening rush hour photos). If there had been that much traffic, it wouldn't have been possible for me to photograph long stretches of the road with no cars at all.



The traffic levels are odd at the moment and seem to vary day to day, my schedule has been different this week and I've been walking to Brixton at different times between 7.45am and 8.30am along CHL and I have seen much more traffic than in your pictures, but then Fridays are always quieter as it's a popular work at home day. Traffic numbers do seem to be quite inconsistent, whether that is people still investigating new routes or less cars on the road full stop, I don't know. 

What I can say is that Brixton Road, along the main stretch definitely seems to be busier and that is very unpleasant, much like CHL was when the temporary traffic lights were still in. And the junction of Gresham Road and Brixton Road is taking forever. I beat 5 buses on foot on Wednesday from Western Road to the tube station, I don't think the buses had even got round the corner. That is a problem, the cars have different options as to routes taken, buses don't and if you're going beyond the tube station, that stretch can add a good 20 minutes to your journey in the morning, more if you're on the 35 as that has to get all the way round the one way.

In some ways, I would say that the one group of people that have been affected by the closures the most is bus users, bus journeys going through Brixton are taking much longer, especially going towards Brixton, the reverse journey is not so bad. I often used to take the bus to Brixton as I'm a lazy so and so but now unless I've got lots of bags or it's chucking it down, I walk, it just takes too long. 

More anecdata for the pot I guess


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

LadyV said:


> The traffic levels are odd at the moment and seem to vary day to day, my schedule has been different this week and I've been walking to Brixton at different times between 7.45am and 8.30am along CHL and I have seen much more traffic than in your pictures, but then Fridays are always quieter as it's a popular work at home day. Traffic numbers do seem to be quite inconsistent, whether that is people still investigating new routes or less cars on the road full stop, I don't know.
> 
> What I can say is that Brixton Road, along the main stretch definitely seems to be busier and that is very unpleasant, much like CHL was when the temporary traffic lights were still in. And the junction of Gresham Road and Brixton Road is taking forever. I beat 5 buses on foot on Wednesday from Western Road to the tube station, I don't think the buses had even got round the corner. That is a problem, the cars have different options as to routes taken, buses don't and if you're going beyond the tube station, that stretch can add a good 20 minutes to your journey in the morning, more if you're on the 35 as that has to get all the way round the one way.
> 
> ...


The further away from LJ you get the harder it is to know whether delays are being caused by this or other issues. There are major roadworks going on at the other end of Brixton Rd, at Oval, and there's also major work going on at the junction at Stockwell (which is roughly the same distance from the Gresham Rd / Brixton Rd junction as LJ is).

All this, of course is why it's important to look at things over a longer rather than shorter period.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

Hasn't it always been the case that buses take ages to get from Gresham Rd to the tube station? This is why I hardly ever bother getting the bus to Brixton. It's generally quicker to walk and it's been like that for at least the last 5 years.

Also I can't see that traffic going from Gresham Rd towards Brixton is traffic that previously would have used another route. Traffic going along Gresham Rd and then turning right onto Brixton Rd towards Oval, yes, but not turning left.

Unless an increase in right-turning traffic is clogging the junction up generally.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The further away from LJ you get the harder it is to know whether delays are being caused by this or other issues. There are major roadworks going on at the other end of Brixton Rd, at Oval, and there's also major work going on at the junction at Stockwell (which is roughly the same distance from the Gresham Rd / Brixton Rd junction as LJ is).



It's polite chaos in Stockwell at the moment due to the roundabout works. Colleagues who previously drove to work through that junction have temporarily given up and are taking the bus.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'm a cult leader who wants to kill people. Because I am pointing out (by providing photographic evidence) that the traffic mayhem, that some claim has resulted from this trial, doesn't actually exist.
> Amazing.


Not kill - control. Like Comrade Bala you want to control a whole suburb!!
As for your photos - they look idyllic. But they are not representative.
You can stand there waiting for a gap in the traffic - just as other posters have posted photos of traffic congestion.

If your photos are valid, then so are theirs.

Stop spinning - we are in the age of new new Labour.


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2015)

This is interesting (not to do with cars to do with industrial workspaces in London and how they are being squeezed out by council planning decisions) 
https://justspacelondon.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/workspacehandbook_lowres.pdf


----------



## LadyV (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Hasn't it always been the case that buses take ages to get from Gresham Rd to the tube station? This is why I hardly ever bother getting the bus to Brixton. It's generally quicker to walk and it's been like that for at least the last 5 years.
> 
> Also I can't see that traffic going from Gresham Rd towards Brixton is traffic that previously would have used another route. Traffic going along Gresham Rd and then turning right onto Brixton Rd towards Oval, yes, but not turning left.
> 
> Unless an increase in right-turning traffic is clogging the junction up generally.



Yes it has but not as much as it is right now. I don't know what's going on, I'm just sharing what I've seen. I don't know if it's an increase in people going down Gresham Road to go across to then go towards Oval or if it's just a backlog caused by the increase in traffic on Brixton Road, as I said just anecdata for the pot, not fact, just my opinion.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> This is interesting (not to do with cars to do with industrial workspaces in London and how they are being squeezed out by council planning decisions)
> https://justspacelondon.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/workspacehandbook_lowres.pdf


Which is what happened at Higgs, but sadly there was not as much interest in that as there is in the traffic scheme.

As you will be bored of me saying by now.


----------



## Angellic (Nov 13, 2015)

I wandered up Angell Rd at around 8.30am this morning and then onto Loughborough Rd. Passed St James's Crescent etc and it seemed fairly quiet.
No photographic evidence tho.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Not kill - control. Like Comrade Bala you want to control a whole suburb!!
> As for your photos - they look idyllic. But they are not representative.
> You can stand there waiting for a gap in the traffic




You're right, I can wait for a gap, and it would be reasonable for people to assume that I may have done so. I've tried to take plenty of photos that show a long stretch of road. It is possible to do this when traffic is intermittent, but not in a steady stream that is being held up by congestion. So, it would be reasonable to assume that my photos could reflect intermittent traffic.

The words that have been used to describe traffic on some of these streets have included "gridlock", "chaos", and "havoc". If any of those were appropriate adjectives then I wouldn't have been able to take the photos I have.

The photos are deliberately taken at the busiest time of the day. You can see from the timing in the photo filenames that I have not had to stand there for 20 minutes waiting for an anomalous gap in a steady stream of traffic. In addition I can give you my word that walking along, say, St James Crescent, I did not observe a steady stream of traffic. I did not have to wait to take the images I did.




CH1 said:


> - just as other posters have posted photos of traffic congestion.



Where are these photos? For example, St James Crescent, or Angell Rd, Fyfield Rd or Barrington Rd? I haven't actually seen any. Other than that yotube video (which shows a standoff, not regular congetsion).


----------



## irf520 (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which is what happened at Higgs, but sadly there was not as much interest in that as there is in the traffic scheme.
> 
> As you will be bored of me saying by now.



That's because people generally only react when something slaps them in the face. Like going out and being confronted with no entry signs which weren't there yesterday. The full horror of Higgs only becomes apparent once they start building it (or maybe once it's finished).


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Which is what happened at Higgs, but sadly there was not as much interest in that as there is in the traffic scheme.
> As you will be bored of me saying by now.


I think Higgs is an example of where I'm more cynical than you teuchter: Once the land was sold to the developers it never seemed likely to me that any amount of opposition would change the basics of what happens next, ie maximum return on investment through high density housing.

And the Mayor's target for new homes to be built in Lambeth over the next 10 years is 15,594 apparently, that's a lot of flats. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2598_Redacted.pdf


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Where are these photos? For example, St James Crescent, or Angell Rd, Fyfield Rd or Barrington Rd? I haven't actually seen any. Other than that yotube video (which shows a standoff, not regular congetsion).


Here's one of the exact junction I am complaining about Dr Pangloss


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

That's a photo of an RTA at the junction, yes. Doesn't tell us anything except that an RTA happened there once, as they have happened at the LR junction in the past. But



teuchter said:


> Where are these photos? For example, St James Crescent, or Angell Rd, Fyfield Rd or Barrington Rd? I haven't actually seen any. Other than that yotube video (which shows a standoff, not regular congetsion).


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> That's a photo of an RTA at the junction, yes. Doesn't tell us anything except that an RTA happened there once, as they have happened at the LR junction in the past. But


If you look in the Brixton News/Gossip thread it was posted (not by me) around 24th October - one of three (of the aftermath of the same accident)

Of course it is just an accident that this accident happened to occur after the road closures were implemented. Obviously the driver was from Birmingham attending a domino tournament against Hastings at the Domino Club - I don't think.

I have no photos of traffic on the estate at all.
Does that mean that it didn't exist?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I have no photos of traffic on the estate at all.
> Does that mean that it didn't exist?


No - but you said in response to my photos of quiet streets on the estate at rush hour -



> You can stand there waiting for a gap in the traffic - just as other posters have posted photos of traffic congestion.
> 
> If your photos are valid, then so are theirs.



Just wondering where those photos are. I don't remember seeing them. Apart from a rather vague one of someone's dashboard, with cars in the background, in the dark, on Denmark Rd (which I didn't include in my survey this morning).


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2015)

Can't we just have faith please that the 12-15, or 26,  or 71, .. official traffic counts done during the school holiday will settle this argument once and for all?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Morning rush hour. All these photos taken between 0800 and 0825.
> 
> View attachment 79543
> CHL at station



That must have been the quickest 25mins ever, even I cant cover all those locations in 25mins. 
I must say your photographic timing is impeccable  I call rush hour 7:30 - 8:30am.
Did you take a random timing of your photos over the time period.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 13, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I'm a cult leader who wants to kill people. Because I am pointing out (by providing photographic evidence) that the traffic mayhem.........
> 
> Amazing.


Your so called evidence is contradicted  by the amazing hundreds of photographs and videos depicting the contrary. 
A pin in a haystack is irrelevant in this serious situation.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 13, 2015)

This may be of interest to some here - about 'Mini Holland' in Enfield - and the wider subject of reclaiming space for people, which was once reserved for people in cars.

Most people support the idea of a more cycling-friendly city

With London’s population growing by 120,000 a year, there are only two ways to stop the place coming to a halt. The first is to build more roads, which is politically (and physically) impossible. The second is to encourage more people on to vehicles such as bikes, which take less space.​


----------



## irf520 (Nov 13, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> This may be of interest to some here - about 'Mini Holland' in Enfield - and the wider subject of reclaiming space for people, which was once reserved for people in cars.
> 
> Most people support the idea of a more cycling-friendly city
> 
> With London’s population growing by 120,000 a year, there are only two ways to stop the place coming to a halt. The first is to build more roads, which is politically (and physically) impossible. The second is to encourage more people on to vehicles such as bikes, which take less space.​



"Encourage" or force? By closing so many roads that the remaining ones are permanently jammed?

Maybe the problem is the population growth? It seems obvious that you can't keep cramming more and more people into an already crowded space.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

And here we go again....


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> This may be of interest to some here - about 'Mini Holland' in Enfield - and the wider subject of reclaiming space for people, which was once reserved for people in cars.
> Most people support the idea of a more cycling-friendly city
> With London’s population growing by 120,000 a year, there are only two ways to stop the place coming to a halt. The first is to build more roads, which is politically (and physically) impossible. The second is to encourage more people on to vehicles such as bikes, which take less space.​


​That man has blood on his hands. How can you trust someone extolling cycling schemes when they are apparently implicated in the death of a "source"?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> "Encourage" or force? By closing so many roads that the remaining ones are permanently jammed?
> Maybe the problem is the population growth? It seems obvious that you can't keep cramming more and more people into an already crowded space.


Maybe only men with vasectomies should be allowed to drive cars?
Might cut down on accidents at least.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> "Encourage" or force? By closing so many roads that the remaining ones are permanently jammed?
> 
> Maybe the problem is the population growth? It seems obvious that you can't keep cramming more and more people into an already crowded space.


London is not a very dense city.

https://files.lsecities.net/files/2011/11/2011_chw_2050_01.gif


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> ​That man has blood on his hands. How can you trust someone extolling cycling schemes when they are apparently implicated in the death of a "source"?



An ad hominem attack doesn't make his piece any less valid.


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2015)

Crispy said:


> London is not a very dense city.
> 
> https://files.lsecities.net/files/2011/11/2011_chw_2050_01.gif


 Because most of it is made up of rows upon rows of commuter houses.. with driveways , and garages ?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Because most of it is made up of rows upon rows of commuter houses.. with driveways , and garages ?


Partly. But even inner London is not very dense. Look at the core of New York compared to London.


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Partly. But even inner London is not very dense. Look at the core of New York compared to London.


Of course, yes. We're working on it though, with the new homes targets and all.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 13, 2015)

Crispy said:


> London is not a very dense city.
> 
> https://files.lsecities.net/files/2011/11/2011_chw_2050_01.gif



With the possible exception of New York, do we want it to resemble any of those other cities?


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> With the possible exception of New York, do we want it to resemble any of those other cities?


Most of new york looks similar to most of London; suburbia.
Manhattan is an island, not representative / comparable to anything really.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2015)

Central Paris is much denser than most of London.

Of course, it's known as a horrible place to live.


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2015)

Er..
Was it not 19th November that Braithwaite's big decision & the review data was supposed to be announced ?

The council's page on the closures now says "results should be known by 26th'.
Is this new?
Is it a misunderstanding?
Does it mean the results of the monkey survey and/or the car counting or does it mean her decision?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> Er..
> Was it not 19th November that Braithwaite's big decision & the review data was supposed to be announced ?
> View attachment 79601


If they brought the end of the "consultation" forward from 13th to 6th November, surely we should be having the decision this very day?

How long does it take to cook the books?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> An ad hominem attack doesn't make his piece any less valid.


If you had any friends who committed suicide you might feel differently.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 13, 2015)

Future London goes back in time. Postal delivery times may vary...

Couriers deliver packages riding horses in N China - People's Daily Online


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Future London goes back in time. Postal delivery times may vary...
> 
> Couriers deliver packages riding horses in N China - People's Daily Online


I suggest you form a consultancy - "Equine Solutions". Council grant, office in Pop Brixton - you're away.
And no more road issues - ever.


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2015)

I'm still puzzling on this review date thing:
There was always going to be a 3 month review.
The closures started on 29th August and 3 months from that is 29th November.
There's been all this fuss about 'look we are bringing it forward to an 8 week review" as the website still announces boldly:

Some people have blamed the fiasco of the crap evaluation on the 'successful sabotage' of the planned review date. 
But.. 26th November is not 8 weeks in, it's actually 3 days short of 12 weeks.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 13, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I suggest you form a consultancy - "Equine Solutions". Council grant, office in Pop Brixton - you're away.
> And no more road issues - ever.



Plus free fertilizer for Anthea's farm.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 13, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm still puzzling on this review date thing:
> There was always going to be a 3 month review.
> The closures started on 29th August and 3 months from that is 29th November.
> There's been all this fuss about 'look we are bringing it forward to an 8 week review" as the website still announces boldly:
> ...



So what do you reckon? No-one knows what the hell they're doing? Or we're all being jollied along?


----------



## bimble (Nov 13, 2015)

irf520 said:


> So what do you reckon? No-one knows what the hell they're doing? Or we're all being jollied along?


 I tend to err on the side of no-one has a clue what they're doing. . But the scale of the cluelessness here is such that .. I don't know, haven't a clue


----------



## critical1 (Nov 13, 2015)

Pork Pies for everyone.
\


----------



## critical1 (Nov 13, 2015)

.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 13, 2015)

Bart would never say anything so banal.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 13, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> Bart would never say anything so banal.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 13, 2015)

I don't mind being called a liar when I'm lying, or about to lie, or just finished lying, but NOT WHEN I'M TELLING THE TRUTH.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 13, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> I don't mind being called a liar when I'm lying, or about to lie, or just finished lying, but NOT WHEN I'M TELLING THE TRUTH.


It was not in this case directed at you, they know who they are the spin artists, those who speak with forked tongues...


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 13, 2015)

There are frankly more important things right now.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 13, 2015)

snowy_again said:


> There are frankly more important things right now.


YEP Like Beer & Pharmaceuticals on a Friday the 13th evening...
It wont stop those who spin or talk with forked tongue tho..

Not forgetting our friends in France....


----------



## CH1 (Nov 13, 2015)

critical1 said:


> YEP Like Beer & Pharmaceuticals on a Friday the 13th evening...
> It wont stop those who spin or talk with forked tongue tho..
> 
> Not forgetting our friends in France....


Personally I agree with snowy - I used to stay in cheap hotels near Place de la Republique. It it as gross as 7/7 IMHO.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 14, 2015)

This is all very depressing...
All these types of atrocities are cleverly designed to fuel anti-muslim hatred, which in turn causes muslim oppression, which in turn drives some muslims to become militants and some more sick people join up with these terrorist organisations. It's all part of the "ISIS" agenda, they are winning, it's getting worse....
The only way out of this loop is to stop the Muslim hatred.
No doubt "Britain First" must be loving this. They are probably organising anti-Muslim marches right now.
Very sad that they are too thick to realise they are part of the problem.


----------



## bimble (Nov 14, 2015)

Many dead in coordinated Paris shootings and explosions


----------



## bimble (Nov 16, 2015)

Just posting this here (don't know when it was announced) that the meeting of the planning Forum on wednesday will have network rail there ... 
Meeting on the future of the Loughborough Junction Arches, Weds 18th Nov


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 16, 2015)

teuchter said:


> How does that work? Isn't their pricing done centrally? Do individual drivers get to turn down jobs if they don't like them?



If they do they are likely to lose there bonus. If not there job. Turning down a job is a no no at AL.

Addison Lee is big company run by big mouth boss. The drivers are paid poorly and have to work a lot of hours to make up the number of of jobs to get the bonus. The "bonus" being not having to pay the "rental" for the car they drive for Addison Lee.

Addison Lee pay there drivers poorly in order to undercut Black Cabs.

The problem for the AL driver is that if a job takes longer they are unlikely to get paid more for it. Unlike how Black Cabs work. AL the company still take there cut plus rental for car. They do not lose.

So the problem is not the road closures but the way large ( and small) companies, typical of this country, exploit the workers.

A problem with schemes like this is that in the way this country works - ie cut throat capitalism- its the little people who first bear the brunt. Does not mean the concept is wrong.

As an aside AL are suffering due to Uber. There is a glut of private hire cars in London. Not enough work to go around. Black Cabs cost more ( and can use bus lanes. Much to the annoyance of big mouth) but you know the driver is making a decent wage at end of week.

AL drivers also do not have the "Knowledge". I have had to give them directions in West End as they rely on Satnav and it does not work that well in West End.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2015)

teuchter said:


> That's a photo of an RTA at the junction, yes. Doesn't tell us anything except that an RTA happened there once, as they have happened at the LR junction in the past. But



I took those. As you say its just an accident that has nothing to do with road closures. Accidents often happen at junctions.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2015)

bimble said:


> It was an enlightening chat - yes Addison Lee is apparently quite a decent employer in that you can turn down jobs if you don't want them.
> But more generally, seems cab drivers, like milk delivery drivers,  have decisions to make when running on small margins where the cost of extra fuel & time makes a real difference.



I also talk to passenger car drivers. Not what I hear.

Unlikely to bad mouth employer to a client in case it gets back to office.

AL , like all courier companies, offloads risk onto the drivers. For example in any accident the driver has to pay the first £500 of any damage. Standard practise across the industry.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2015)

LadyV said:


> The traffic levels are odd at the moment and seem to vary day to day, my schedule has been different this week and I've been walking to Brixton at different times between 7.45am and 8.30am along CHL and I have seen much more traffic than in your pictures, but then Fridays are always quieter as it's a popular work at home day. Traffic numbers do seem to be quite inconsistent, whether that is people still investigating new routes or less cars on the road full stop, I don't know.
> 
> What I can say is that Brixton Road, along the main stretch definitely seems to be busier and that is very unpleasant, much like CHL was when the temporary traffic lights were still in.



Brixton Road is being affected by the major works at Oval for the cycle scheme. (Though the new cycle highway from Oval to towards Victoria is finished and its a delight to cycle out of traffic.)

I agree traffic numbers are inconsistent.

I have been getting bus or cycling to Kings a lot recently at different times and have had no problem going that way.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2015)

I don't know anything about addison lee apart from what she told me (that driver last week) & only mentioned what she said because it surprised me a lot but could well be she's just an exceptionally cheery glass half full person.


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2015)

Please post here when there's news like Braithwaite's decision if it happens on Thursday (?) and the forum meeting tomorrow with network rail (going away for 4 days work thing so will miss all the fun).


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 17, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Brixton Road is being affected by the major works at Oval for the cycle scheme. (Though the new cycle highway from Oval to towards Victoria is finished and its a delight to cycle out of traffic.)
> 
> I agree traffic numbers are inconsistent.
> 
> I have been getting bus or cycling to Kings a lot recently at different times and have had no problem going that way.



It's pleasingly quiet in and around LJ these days. I cycle and walk frequently using various methods, to and from the station and Brixton tube and up to town most days at key rush hour times, and sometimes drive, and each journey these days seems far quicker than I ever remember it. Even driving to Clapham last Thursday evening at 7pm was faster than I've experienced in a long time (and this was down CHL to Brixton and round the town hall).  

It's almost as if someone, or something, had brought in traffic calming measures that now seem to be working. Oh, wait.......


----------



## bimble (Nov 17, 2015)

oh my actual god. I got an email from Helen Hayes Herself.
(have not sent anything to anyone for a couple of weeks at least but this arrived today.. assume others have version of the same?
Look at paragraph 3 in particular.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 17, 2015)

Yes, I got the same thing.


----------



## concerned1 (Nov 17, 2015)

Makes no sense suggesting you fill in the survey when it closed on the 6th November!


----------



## CH1 (Nov 17, 2015)

concerned1 said:


> Makes no sense suggesting you fill in the survey when it closed on the 6th November!


I don't suppose Lambeth Council told her that. Who is she anyway - she's only an MP after all.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 18, 2015)

Heads will roll....

AC Waugh - Cycled to home last night and to work this morning feeling I had been chain smoking. That's a shame given that I last smoked as a student and I want to think that cycling is good for me. Brixton Road was especially bad as the buses were backed up a very long way, but still spewing diesel emissions ++. 

Many cyclists were getting off and walking along the pavement but I thought I would stick it out along with other cyclists breathing the air from the buses in front and behind me. This is the problem with the creation of what Lambeth Cycling call "the Cell" that stretches from Brixton Road in the West, Coldharbour Lane to the South East and Camberwell New Road to the north.
All of these roads are jammed (they were before and it is even worse now) and all major roads leading off them are more often gridlocked at peak times. No-one at the Council or at Lambeth Cyclists/LCC seems to have asked where the traffic was meant to go when Loughborough Road was shut to traffic given that the surrounding roads were already at their capacity.
These are the roads buses, vans, ambulances and cars all need, but which we also need to cycle along (assuming we want to leave the Cell). And even within the Cell the pollution can only drift in the air (not even Lambeth Council can stop the wind).

I felt for the woman who posted on the Change.org petition that she cannot now open her child's bedroom window because of her child's asthma (itself a life-threatening condition).
The carrots on Loughborough farm may taste better, but being on the other side of the railway line cannot stop the pollution they absorb.
I would buy one of those black masks to wear but they do nothing for NO2 levels - of which Brixton had among the highest level in London and Europe before this mad scheme. God only knows what they are now.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 19, 2015)

The silence is deafening..... But here our local Cllr speaks volumes.

Dear Mr King

Thank you very much for getting in touch with us about the road closures. I take all your points on board, and wanted to let you know that thousands of other local residents and businesses have said similar things.

I opposed the closures when they were first suggested as it seemed to me that they had been poorly thought through, and most importantly that "the community had not been consulted. Unfortunately my worst fears have come to pass and the scheme has proved to be a disaster."

I am pleased to say that Cllr Brathwaite as the responsible cabinet member has agreed to bring the review date for the scheme forwards and is due to make a decision about whether or not to continue the 'experimental' scheme this Thursday 19th November. It is my hope that she will listen to the huge number of people asking her to stop the scheme now and do exactly that.

With kind regards,

Councillor Rachel Heywood


----------



## CH1 (Nov 19, 2015)

The closures have been scrapped - apart from Calais St and Padfield Road.

Having examined all the evidence presented in the eight-week review report, I have taken the decision to re-open Loughborough Road, Barrington Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove from Wednesday 25 November.

Padfield Road and Calais Street will remain closed under a new Experimental Traffic Management Order.

The road closures were part of a wider vision to improve the public space in Loughborough Junction, make it a safer and more pleasant place to live and help the area become a destination in its own right, rather than a busy through road for traffic to and from central London.

That ambition for Loughborough Junction is clearly shared, even though it appears that a majority of residents remain opposed to particular road closures.

It was important to trial this ambitious scheme as an experiment so we could monitor the impacts closely.

Having reviewed the evidence and listened to a wide variety of people in the area; it is clear that changes are needed but that the ultimate vision remains.

I hope to utilise the passion and strength of opinion that has been demonstrated on all sides over the last few months and bring people together to help guide the future of Loughborough Junction.

Over the coming weeks I will invite representatives from local businesses, ward councillors, community groups including LJAG, Loughborough Estate Management Board, Loughborough Estate TRA and the newly formed LJ Road Madness to join me and council officers on a steering group to begin the design work for public space improvements.

We will start with an open mind and welcome all ideas and contributions; there is money to spend from Transport for London, which if we work together and get it right, can make a positive and lasting difference to Loughborough Junction.

The experimental nature of the road closures made it difficult to communicate the wider benefits and vision for the area, and signage in some areas at the start of the trial was either unclear or ignored. Also, by focusing communications on the residents of Loughborough Junction, road users who travel through the area from further afield felt uninformed which undoubtedly led to confusion in the early stages.

However, it is clear from the review that more people are making journeys by foot and by bicycle through the area and I sincerely hope that continues.

Eight weeks was not enough time to provide any empirical evidence regarding response times and the Ambulance Service and Police did not oppose the continuation of the scheme, but the recent formal objection raised by the London Fire Brigade and anecdotal reports of increasing response times cannot be ignored.

That is why we will reopen Loughborough Road, Barrington Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove.

The process of removing signs and road markings will take a few days so to avoid confusion all restrictions will remain in place until Wednesday 25 November.

The full report, which includes traffic survey data, official submissions from the emergency services and other important groups, a summary of public representations and the results of survey work undertaken by the Stockwell Partnership, is published below.


Loughborough Junction Review Report

Loughborough Junction Masterplan
Last updated on Thursday 19 November 2015


----------



## critical1 (Nov 19, 2015)

Breaking NEWS...

Cllr Jenifer Braithwaite...
"Having examined all the evidence presented in the eight-week review report, I have taken the decision to re-open Loughborough Road, Barrington Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove from Wednesday 25 November."

Loughborough junction - what you need to know | Lambeth Council


----------



## bimble (Nov 19, 2015)




----------



## bimble (Nov 19, 2015)

I think that's a great letter / statement. 
Could be headed "Loughborough junction public space improvement : Consultation Begins."


----------



## LadyV (Nov 19, 2015)

CH1 said:


> The closures have been scrapped - apart from Calais St and Padfield Road.
> 
> Having examined all the evidence presented in the eight-week review report, I have taken the decision to re-open Loughborough Road, Barrington Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove from Wednesday 25 November.
> 
> ...



Interesting that Ambulance and Police did not oppose the continuation of the scheme but the Fire Brigade did, that would be the nail in the coffin I would imagine. If they hadn't said anything I bet she might have pushed to leave them in place for the rest of the trial. My dad who is ex fire brigade said that it would come down to the emergency services, if they didn't object it would continue but the second one of them complain, the council can't ignore them.

Wonder how they are going to engage with the community and other road users to collect other ideas and contributions, we should refer them to here, we've had a few over the last 12 months


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Nov 19, 2015)

Gutted. 

A victory for pollution, congestion, traffic and dangerous streets.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 19, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Gutted.
> 
> A victory for pollution, congestion, traffic and dangerous streets.



Agree , I hope they can rethink the scheme and make a better implementation. As it says the "Ambulance Service and Police did not oppose the continuation of the scheme." i feel like traffic is getting worse not better sometimes.


----------



## bimble (Nov 19, 2015)

The ambulance service and police as far as I know were both strongly opposed but not much point arguing about that now.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 19, 2015)

What a total fucking shambles


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 19, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Agree , I hope they can rethink the scheme and make a better implementation. As it says the "Ambulance Service and Police did not oppose the continuation of the scheme." i feel like traffic is getting worse not better sometimes.



Realistically that is not going to happen. 

Brixton Hatter is blunt but correct. This is a victory for the motorist and a set back to make London a city less dominated by motorised traffic. 

Having attended public meetings and here it never was just about road closures. It was also mixed up with fears of gentrification ( correct imo). 

It was a mistake by Council to link traffic calming/ road closures to making LJ a "destination". As I told LJAG last night the people on the Estate did not want a "parklet".

I was talking to a Council Tenant from another estate in Lambeth about LJ road closures (she is active in there TRA)- she said anything to do with parking and cars leads to ructions. And she was saying this as non car owner who is pro public transport and reducing dominance of car.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 19, 2015)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Gutted.
> 
> A victory for pollution, congestion, traffic and dangerous streets.



I agree. This was flawed scheme. But for once the Council were at least trying.

One can however feel better at success of the Cycle Superhighway. Im not a Tory but Boris pushed this forward against a lot of opposition.

How supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures) is supporting the working class is beyond me.

This all does show that "green" issues do not fit easily with class issues. Though imo opinion they are complementary.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 19, 2015)

bimble said:


> The ambulance service and police as far as I know were both strongly opposed but not much point arguing about that now.


The report demonstrates that they weren't. The idea that the ambulance service were opposed was widely circulated by various people as "fact" but as I suspected that idea was manufactured. As with many other objections.

I wonder if a lot of people living along Loughborough Road will shortly find themselves a little surprised by how much traffic has appeared on their doorsteps, having got used to it not being there.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 19, 2015)

The ones living in Loughborough road from fiveways to Brixton road will. As its been lot less gridlocked in morning due to less traffic.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 19, 2015)

By the way I noted that in the report, the Fire Brigade's justification for their objection to the continuation of the scheme included mention of "gridlock" on various roads, including Herne Hill Road. There has not been "gridlock" on Herne Hill Rd. I'm pretty sure about that because I see it from my window every day.


----------



## ricbake (Nov 19, 2015)

The public responses to the early review showed 44% of  people making more journeys by foot and bicycle. It is a shame that the hysterical reaction of people being asked to adapt to an experiment demonstrating what is an essential policy of central and local government is to be lost.
Certainly it could have been done very much better but it was done the way it was and should have been given enough time to be properly assessed.
The police and ambulance service did not comment on the closures. Unofficially ambulance personel and hospital personel commented because it affected their journeys to work. 
There is a real need for a reduction in car journeys in this area.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 19, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I felt for the woman who posted on the Change.org petition that she cannot now open her child's bedroom window because of her child's asthma (itself a life-threatening condition).
> The carrots on Loughborough farm may taste better, but being on the other side of the railway line cannot stop the pollution they absorb.
> I would buy one of those black masks to wear but they do nothing for NO2 levels - of which Brixton had among the highest level in London and Europe before this mad scheme. God only knows what they are now.



In which case a local resident has called for the proposed Ultra Low Emission Zone to be extended to Lambeth. Would you support this?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 19, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Wonder how they are going to engage with the community and other road users to collect other ideas and contributions, we should refer them to here, we've had a few over the last 12 months



And what do you suggest?

What I am no longer clear about is the position of the those here who opposed from the start this experiment.

From opposing this scheme appears to me that it slipped into opposing any reduction of car traffic. That roads should be left open so motorised traffic can find its way through London in the most "efficient" manner. That any interference with this will produce problems.

So my question is do you oppose changes to road use that will affect motorised traffic?

For example one of the earlier discussions here was that these road closures were in working class areas and why not reduce through traffic by doing it in "middle class" areas. Such as at Hinton road? To deter through traffic?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> By the way I noted that in the report, the Fire Brigade's justification for their objection to the continuation of the scheme included mention of "gridlock" on various roads, including Herne Hill Road. There has not been "gridlock" on Herne Hill Rd. I'm pretty sure about that because I see it from my window every day.


But yet St James Cress is an Isle of tranquillity as observed by yourself and refuted by the many who live there.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2015)

ricbake said:


> The public responses to the early review showed 44% of  people making more journeys by foot and bicycle. It is a shame that the hysterical reaction of people being asked to adapt to an experiment demonstrating what is an essential policy of central and local government is to be lost.
> Certainly it could have been done very much better but it was done the way it was and should have been given enough time to be properly assessed.
> The police and ambulance service did not comment on the closures. Unofficially ambulance personel and hospital personel commented because it affected their journeys to work.
> There is a real need for a reduction in car journeys in this area.


The question is 44% of what sample and what was the base line before?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> And what do you suggest?
> 
> What I am no longer clear about is the position of the those here who opposed from the start this experiment.
> 
> ...



Roads should be used as roads and pavements as pavements.....

Until infrastructure improves and the death of the MegaCity, it will be so.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2015)

ricbake said:


> .......The police and ambulance service did not comment on the closures. Unofficially ambulance personel and hospital personel commented because it affected their journeys to work.
> There is a real need for a reduction in car journeys in this area.



I think  you'll find yourself sadly misinformed, the Ambulance service was never about personal journeys... unless your talking about your personal 999 call outs?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 20, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Roads should be used as roads and pavements as pavements.....
> 
> Until infrastructure improves and the death of the MegaCity, it will be so.



Not an answer. Meaningless post.

To edit. It answers what I thought. That some of those who opposed the road closures said they want reduction in traffic, but not this scheme, but in reality support the status quo in a fatalistic there is nothing that can be done kind of way.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Not an answer. Meaningless post.
> 
> To edit. It answers what I thought. That some of those who opposed the road closures said they want reduction in traffic, but not this scheme, but in reality support the status quo in a fatalistic there is nothing that can be done kind of way.


Why didnt you initialy say what you thought, rather than attempt to bait! if that was your initial intention.

The status quo is as you say not so fatalistic as totally ephemeral, these road closures should have as several have said previously been consulted on, this would have obviously opened a fantastic array of traffic calming measures which may not have included road closures. It's imperative that roads serve a function is it not. A Road is indeed a road and serves its purpose well, it most certainly not for picnics or making "parklets" but if that's what they want let em ave it!

Ideally it would be great to have all electric vehicles, cycles.. but the reality is we're not yet at that point.. maybe one day. No more Blood Lithium please.
"The War is Worth Waging": Afghanistan's Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas


----------



## alfajobrob (Nov 20, 2015)

Teuchter is too polite.

I'll just come out and call you all cunts. I don't even cycle anymore but hope you rot in traffic and your children enjoy all the stunted growth and asthma that traffic brings.

Enjoy your car journey and bless the kids


----------



## ricbake (Nov 20, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I think  you'll find yourself sadly misinformed, the Ambulance service was never about personal journeys... unless your talking about your personal 999 call outs?


There was no representation on any official level from the ambulance service.
The paramedic who stood up at that meeting was unable to be contacted afterwards because although he was in uniform he was giving his own opinion.
Just another car driver objecting to having his commute altered.
If you have any evidence to the contrary please let us see it.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 20, 2015)

bimble said:


> I think that's a great letter / statement.
> Could be headed "Loughborough junction public space improvement : Consultation Begins."



Fuck that. I hope it's the end of the consultation and LJ Road becomes a car superhighway. That's what you wanted wasn't it? Freedom to move and roads be roads.

For me, I don't care. I've got what I wanted, which was Padfield Road remaining closed. My nice middle class bit of gentrified south LJ is even quieter now. And I benefit from LJ being reopened, as I can now drive north, without being marginally, and only marginally, inconvenienced by going via Brixton or Camberwell. And the cycling won't be too bad (albeit more fumey), because the roads around north LJ and Fiveways will be gridlocked, making cycling the best way to get around.  So I'm a clear beneficiary of this. 

But it was never just about me. It was being able to stand a make a statement that people were prepared to experiment and trial new ways of traffic flows, and think about ways of limiting car usage and improving pedestrian and cycling facilities. I fear that's gone for ever. But at least people can drive to the Hero of Switzerland now.


----------



## bimble (Nov 20, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> Fuck that. I hope it's the end of the consultation and LJ Road becomes a car superhighway. That's what you wanted wasn't it? Freedom to move and roads be roads.
> 
> For me, I don't care. I've got what I wanted, which was Padfield Road remaining closed. My nice middle class bit of gentrified south LJ is even quieter now. And I benefit from LJ being reopened, as I can now drive north, without being marginally, and only marginally, inconvenienced by going via Brixton or Camberwell. And the cycling won't be too bad (albeit more fumey), because the roads around north LJ and Fiveways will be gridlocked, making cycling the best way to get around.  So I'm a clear beneficiary of this.
> 
> But it was never just about me. It was being able to stand a make a statement that people were prepared to experiment and trial new ways of traffic flows, and think about ways of limiting car usage and improving pedestrian and cycling facilities. I fear that's gone for ever. But at least people can drive to the Hero of Switzerland now.


I think you're confusing me with someone else. I really hope you don't mean it when you say 'fuck that, I hope the consultation is over' if you have ideas for alternatives to the particular measure that has just been trialled.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 20, 2015)

ricbake said:


> The police and ambulance service did not comment on the closures.


Just to point out that at the LJAG/Network Rail meeting on Wednesday several of the tenants running businesses in the arches on Ridgeway Road were imploring Network Rail to speak up on their behalf to the council. 

Understandably the nerdy and feckless Network Rail claimed they could not do so because Network Rail is a government body.

Maybe the Police and the Ambulance Service are government bodies? Or maybe just feckless? Who am I to say as a local resident whose Dad was a lorry driver.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 20, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> But it was never just about me. It was being able to stand a make a statement that people were prepared to experiment and trial new ways of traffic flows, and think about ways of limiting car usage and improving pedestrian and cycling facilities.


It was about removing a freedom people IN SOCIAL HOUSING had enjoyed since their estate was built in 1956. And moreover the advocates of this barmy scheme were not social tenants, and not living n the affected area.

It was also damaging local businesses run by working class black and white people who did not have the benefit of university education like you.

If you want to be genuinely egalitarian do the Athens scheme - odd number car and even number cars on alternate days of the week.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 20, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> In which case a local resident has called for the proposed Ultra Low Emission Zone to be extended to Lambeth. Would you support this?



If redesigning just one small area has such a negative impact on traffic and pollution as the opponents to this scheme claim then extending the LEZ, or indeed the Congestion charging zone has to be part of the solution.  Clearly a broader set of measures is required.

It's outrageous that literally thousands of lives are being cut short in London every year due to air pollution.  The people hit hardest by air pollution are usually the less well off - who have no option but to live on polluted roads where accommodation is cheaper.  Residents who have to endure the pollution on a daily basis seem to take second place to anyone wishing to drive through their neighbourhood.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It was about removing a freedom people IN SOCIAL HOUSING had enjoyed since their estate was built in 1956. And moreover the advocates of this barmy scheme were not social tenants, and not living n the affected area.
> 
> It was also damaging local businesses run by working class black and white people who did not have the benefit of university education like you.
> 
> If you want to be genuinely egalitarian do the Athens scheme - odd number car and even number cars on alternate days of the week.



What freedom?  Do you refer to a freedom that's only available to anyone privileged enough to have access to a car?  I certainly haven't experienced freedom through driving in any part of London.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2015)

ricbake said:


> There was no representation on any official level from the ambulance service.
> The paramedic who stood up at that meeting was unable to be contacted afterwards because although he was in uniform he was giving his own opinion.
> Just another car driver objecting to having his commute altered.
> If you have any evidence to the contrary please let us see it.



DUH! he's the Team Leader and did submit his report? This is the last bit of "evidence" I'm going to show you ricbake.

Watch from 10.30mins in


----------



## LadyV (Nov 20, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> And what do you suggest?
> 
> What I am no longer clear about is the position of the those here who opposed from the start this experiment.
> 
> ...



What do I suggest? On previous posts I've listed numerous things that could be done instead. My focus would be slowing traffic down but still keeping it moving. So things I've suggested in the past....

Controlled parking, residents only, then 3 hour limit for visitors so as not to affect trades, visitors, shoppers etc. but would deter the people that come and park in the area to be closer to the station or the tube. Also down by Myatts field, Knatchbull Road is a nightmare to negotiate on a bicycle or a car because of parked cars.
More zebra or pelican crossings
Raised table from Tescos to Co-op on CHL and then to the farm on Loughborough Road and up a bit on Herne Hill Road and Hinton Road.
Enforce the speed limit, more speed bumps etc
Remove one side of parking from Loughborough Road to Fiveways, build out proper cycle path there. Look at where else that could happen. Some roads are far too narrow but it's worth looking and seeing if removing parking could help.
Double yellows/no parking on at least one side of Loughborough Road from Fiveways to Brixton Road
Ditto Akerman Road from Fiveways
Look into roads that could be changed to one way for traffic to reduce the cut throughs

I'm not opposed to change, I just don't like being kettled, which if this plan had been implemented properly is how I think I would have felt. I don't feel like that right now or even during the trial because it wasn't done properly, there was still too much traffic due to the lack of cameras or enforcement. Much of my initial resistance to the scheme was a safety aspect, in my opinion (and before anyone asks, no I don't have the appropriate studies to back it up because I can't be bothered to go and find them and quite frankly I work in research so know how studies can be interpreted to comply with any agenda), passing traffic can offer a level of natural surveillance and therefore increase a feeling of security, with the loss of traffic, I thought that this would be reduced. As it came to pass, during the trial, I have still felt safe but like I said that was mostly due to the lack of compliance of the trial due to it's shocking implementation.

As for air quality, it's very hard for me to comment, I'm too close to the junction of CHL and LR I think to have noticed as air quality on CHL and that end of LR didn't improve. Neither did it improve on Brixton Road, and those are the two roads I walk along the most.

I would not have been opposed to the trial being completed as like many on here, I feel it needed to run it's course to be properly assessed but due to the way it was done, it was never going to succeed.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 20, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> So my question is do you oppose changes to road use that will affect motorised traffic?



Not at all but I feel it should be properly thought out and people consulted in a much more comprehensive way than this was


----------



## LadyV (Nov 20, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> Fuck that. I hope it's the end of the consultation and LJ Road becomes a car superhighway. That's what you wanted wasn't it? Freedom to move and roads be roads.



Not at all but I don't want to be kettled either. For me it's better to keep traffic moving, all this did was create bottlenecks and frustration. It's the council's fault that this didn't work, if they had consulted properly, implemented it properly, then maybe there wouldn't have been so much resistance but they didn't, so you reap what you sow.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> It was about removing a freedom people IN SOCIAL HOUSING had enjoyed since their estate was built in 1956. And moreover the advocates of this barmy scheme were not social tenants, and not living n the affected area.
> 
> It was also damaging local businesses run by working class black and white people who did not have the benefit of university education like you.
> 
> If you want to be genuinely egalitarian do the Athens scheme - odd number car and even number cars on alternate days of the week.


The gist of your post is that this scheme was against the interests of those in social housing etc because it is being argued for by people from the other side of the tracks. But this doesn't affect the validity of the many arguments that have been presented to say that this kind of scheme is in the interests of those who are less well off. You too, as far as I understand, are speaking from the other side of the tracks and not as a social housing tenant or working class business owner. And you seem to be defending the supposed rights of the minority of those social housing tenants who can afford to run a car. If you're going to apply the "middle class resident presuming to speak for the interests of estate residents" objection to others then it has to be applied to you and your opinions too.

And let's not forget that those most vocal in the opposition to this scheme included a QC from Dulwich and an ex-UKIP motorists' rights campaigner from Croydon.

I object to the implication that those of us who have been arguing in favour of these measures are doing so because of our own interests rather than a genuine belief that they can bring benefits to a much wider group of people. ChrisSouth pointed out that the closures wouldn't have benefitted him directly. It's the same for me - I wouldn't see any major benefits personally, other than the potential for less traffic passing through LJ generally. Without the closures, on the few occasions where I drive, I'll retain the small benefit of taking that route towards Stockwell rather than having to go via Brixton, leaving my small contribution to air pollution on the doorsteps of those who live along Loughborough Rd. Along with the twice-daily contributions of those who live in the leafier parts of south London who choose to drive to work when it would be quite feasible for them to switch to other modes. A switch they aren't going to make in a London where we capitulate to the demands of the motorist lobby as Lambeth have effectively done here. They didn't even dare to complete the experimental period that could have given us the more solid evidence to counter the various unsubstantiated claims that have been used to kill this scheme, and which in my opinion have been used to scare local people into acting on fears many of which are misplaced.


----------



## Beasley (Nov 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> evidence to counter the various unsubstantiated claims that have been used to kill this scheme



There were so many objections because the scheme itself was based on 'unsubstantiated claims'.  

Now, at last there is the possibility of a new beginning and something good may come of it all.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The gist of your post is that this scheme was against the interests of those in social housing etc because it is being argued for by people from the other side of the tracks. But this doesn't affect the validity of the many arguments that have been presented to say that this kind of scheme is in the interests of those who are less well off. You too, as far as I understand, are speaking from the other side of the tracks and not as a social housing tenant or working class business owner. And you seem to be defending the supposed rights of the minority of those social housing tenants who can afford to run a car. If you're going to apply the "middle class resident presuming to speak for the interests of estate residents" objection to others then it has to be applied to you and your opinions too.
> 
> And let's not forget that those most vocal in the opposition to this scheme included a QC from Dulwich and an ex-UKIP motorists' rights campaigner from Croydon.
> 
> I object to the implication that those of us who have been arguing in favour of these measures are doing so because of our own interests rather than a genuine belief that they can bring benefits to a much wider group of people. ChrisSouth pointed out that the closures wouldn't have benefitted him directly. It's the same for me - I wouldn't see any major benefits personally, other than the potential for less traffic passing through LJ generally. Without the closures, on the few occasions where I drive, I'll retain the small benefit of taking that route towards Stockwell rather than having to go via Brixton, leaving my small contribution to air pollution on the doorsteps of those who live along Loughborough Rd. Along with the twice-daily contributions of those who live in the leafier parts of south London who choose to drive to work when it would be quite feasible for them to switch to other modes. A switch they aren't going to make in a London where we capitulate to the demands of the motorist lobby as Lambeth have effectively done here. They didn't even dare to complete the experimental period that could have given us the more solid evidence to counter the various unsubstantiated claims that have been used to kill this scheme, and which in my opinion have been used to scare local people into acting on fears many of which are misplaced.


Unlike you I used to be a councillor - and don't find it a problem representing the views of others in a less fortunate situation than myself.

As neither you or ChrisSouth would have personally benefited from these measures why were you so vocal in supporting them - against opposition to not only the residents concerned, but their elected councillors also?

You (plural) are not being logical. You appear to have environmental beliefs which may be good in themselves, but become oppressive if applied without the consent of the "masses". You wish to take the short-cut method to political salvation like Stalin - but we do still live in a democracy. Maybe a few days in the public gallery at the trial of Regina v Comrade Bala might bring you down to earth. [Southwark Crown Court - court 4]


----------



## teuchter (Nov 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Unlike you I used to be a councillor - and don't find it a problem representing the views of others in a less fortunate situation than myself.
> 
> As neither you or ChrisSouth would have personally benefited from these measures why were you so vocal in supporting them - against opposition to not only the residents concerned, but their elected councillors also?
> 
> You (plural) are not being logical. You appear to have environmental beliefs which may be good in themselves, but become oppressive if applied without the consent of the "masses". You wish to take the short-cut method to political salvation like Stalin - but we do still live in a democracy. Maybe a few days in the public gallery at the trial of Regina v Comrade Bala might bring you down to earth. [Southwark Crown Court - court 4]



What I had been supporting was the proper implementation of the experimental period so that the decision about whether or not the scheme should continue could have been made on the basis of decent evidence about its effects, rather than speculation and scareongering. I have been quite careful to make clear that I would not have supported continuation of the full scheme regardless of the results.

I feel that the direction your comments are trying to take is one which is to lead me into a situation where I end up saying that the "masses" are stupid, don't know what is good for them, and that I (portrayed as naive middle class do-gooder) simply know better, and that's the end of the matter. You even go so far as to compare me to a repressive dictator, a murderer and a cult leader. 

My position is pretty straightforward - I have a long standing interest in transport issues and the problems of car dependancy which means that in addition to having done a certain amount of reading on these subjects, for many years I have observed attempts to implement various measures which tip the advantage away from private motorists and toward those dependent on other modes. And if you observe enough of these things, the arguments and tactics used to oppose become quite familiar. Many of these arguments are based on falsehoods - either to do with disregarding precedent and evidence gathered now over a number of decades - or by simple exaggeration or misrepresentation of the reality of the effects.

It's my opinion that both of those things have happened here, and it's why I've been trying to make an argument on this thread that's based on the extensive knowledge we already have, and also on an examination of whether the problems being presented to people as fact actually match up with reality.

You talk of the "masses" - firstly I don't accept that it's a given that the majority of local residents strongly opposed the trial. They may have done but we don't have enough information to be sure. The results of the official consultation may not have been representative but neither were the petitions.

But even if there were a majority of locals in opposition, I believe that much of that opposition was based on fears about problems that aren't real. This is because I have been watching the claims made by the anti- campaign and I have seen plenty that simply isn't true. I would not say that the "masses" are stupid but I'm not afraid to say they may have been misinformed. You talk about their democratically elected representatives. I don't think those representatives have been doing their job. They do not to me appear to have been making proper efforts to check basic factual information and filter out what is essentially propaganda put out by those with an interest in scuppering the scheme. We now see that they have opted to abandon the whole trial, so as to satisfy a vocally expressed opinion largely based on emotive and unsubstantiated claims, instead of completing the trial period which would have allowed us to make a decision based more on reality. It's what I would call intellectual cowardice and I note that something similar seems to have affected our favourite local community news website which has been unusually silent on this whole matter.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 20, 2015)

And by the way on the subject of intellectual cowardice - I want to give a thumbs-up to Gramsci who has demonstrated the opposite by sticking to his guns on this debate despite finding himself at odds with many people who on other issues he might normally be aligned with. And he has to defend his views in the real world too, unlike me ranting mostly from behind a screen of internet anonymity.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2015)

My general observations this afternoon at 3:15pm of Loughborough Junction, Coldharbour Lane, Barrington Road and Loughborough Road. 


Loughborough Juction 


Loughborough Road


Barrington Road 

Barrington Road. A car undecided whether to go through or not.


 Barrington Road


Barrington Road 



Coldharbour Lane


----------



## CH1 (Nov 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You talk about their democratically elected representatives. I don't think those representatives have been doing their job. They do not to me appear to have been making proper efforts to check basic factual information and filter out what is essentially propaganda put out by those with an interest in scuppering the scheme. We now see that they have opted to abandon the whole trial, so as to satisfy a vocally expressed opinion largely based on emotive and unsubstantiated claims, instead of completing the trial period which would have allowed us to make a decision based more on reality. It's what I would call intellectual cowardice and I note that something similar seems to have affected our favourite local community news website which has been unusually silent on this whole matter.


I think on the contrary the councillors were doing their job - articulating the concerns of their constituents.

As for Gramsci conducting the debate in a civilised way and having regard to the evidence - how can I disagree. Out of anybody he probably has the most experience of the various traffic schemes in London from the perspective of a road user, and also contacts in various areas concerned.

But the fact remains the Loughborough Road scheme was supremely compromised in terms of what evidence could be used to assess it.  This being the case the evaluation for local people was based on "how has it made my life better?" - and many people thought it actually made their life worse.

I agree that car ownership should be reduced in London, in England, and in the world.
But why pick on a council estate in Brixton to apply this strategy in a micro environment? That is discrimination.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> But the fact remains the Loughborough Road scheme was supremely compromised in terms of what evidence could be used to assess it.  This being the case the evaluation for local people was based on "how has it made my life better?" - and many people thought it actually made their life worse.



I don't think anyone could make a proper evaluation of this in the time allowed (and that incudes people like me who support this stuff in principle). This is the whole reason it was supposed to run for 6 months. With many of these things, a significant amount of the opposition dissipates when people find either that the predicted horrors don't materialise, or that problems experienced imediately after implementation disappear once people settle into new patterns.

We had already started to see the congestion on CHL reduce - and this congestion was one of the major reasons for the objections.

Such a waste of time, money and most of all, opportunity, to chuck it all in, once the investment had already been made, and just at the point where we were starting to see the initial problems subside.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 20, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I agree that car ownership should be reduced in London, in England, and in the world.
> But why pick on a council estate in Brixton to apply this strategy in a micro environment? That is discrimination.



You are (yet again) making out like this was unprecedented and unique. It's neither. There are lots of small schemes like this around London, either already implemented, proposed, or failed like this one. There was the attempt to make closures on Rosendale Rd, somewhere with a completely different demographic. That was scuppered too. This is not about "picking on" anyone. It was taking an opportunity where there was one, and I don't accept your premise that it would make life worse for people on the council estate. It could have made things better.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I don't think anyone could make a proper evaluation....(that is why you went out to take photos as "evidence" as you claim at 8:30am)
> 
> We had already started to see the congestion on CHL reduce - and this congestion was one of the major reasons for the objections. (It was a bit more than that have you seen the video above for what people were saying!)
> 
> Such a waste of time, money and most of all, opportunity, to chuck it all in, once the investment had already been made, and just at the point where we were starting to see the initial problems subside.



Initial problems was lack of consultation and it continues, even today at 3:30pm the side roads are congested, just look at the images I posted today.

It appears that the new Experimental road closures have not been consulted, but have just appeared.

A wasted opportunity yes, due to lack of proper engaging consultation.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 20, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Initial problems was lack of consultation and it continues, even today at 3:30pm the side roads are congested, just look at the images I posted today.


Every one of your photos shows a lengthy open stretch of road in front of you. These are not very convincing illustrations of congestion. Given that you are motivated to time your photos to show maximum congestion, you haven't done very well.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Every one of your photos shows a lengthy open stretch of road in front of you. These are not very convincing illustrations of congestion. Given that you are motivated to time your photos to show maximum congestion, you haven't done very well.



As I was in a moving vehicle returning to my abode it was not possible to time my shots as you claim, unlike yourself who took time to compose your photos.

I just took photos as they appeared if you noticed the road in front of me on Coldharbour Lane is full of traffic just that I hadn't met the lights.

As previously stated it was not at rush hour, so ther you go.... Half congestion on the side roads then, and at rush hour full congestion.

In any case I was just showing the amount of traffic on the side roads especially Barrington Road and Loughborough Road, due to the current closures.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 20, 2015)

From a casual observers perspective, it just shows traffic - neither bad or good traffic. I could point out that in most of the photos there's no traffic in front of you, but anecdata as we know isn't something to make policy on.

IMO - this is a lost opportunity - the original consultation and the explanation of what the scheme was intended to do was done badly - and as a result the scheme was always destined to fail.

LB Lambeth's ineptitude; I guess as a consequence of poor planning/management/communication and a lack of financial resources to fix their initial fuck ups.

Plus every stakeholder Councillor; on seeing it's temporarily unpopular (as it changes ingrained habits) is going to make a knee jerk response that ensures they get elected again.

What was tried isn't new - it's happening across the whole country in response to research based evidence from across Europe to reduce CO2 levels, increase average life expectancy and create a better living environment.

If lots of people think it was for Andrea's own personal gain and the gentrification of LJ; then it needs to go back and start consulting again on what the people who live on the estates and the areas around them want their homes and communities to be like. If they decide that streets made for all of us are in fact owned and controlled by private vehicles* so be it. People can live with the consequences.

*Buses / Emergency services / delivery / traders should be treated differently through thinking differently about permission to drive on some streets / junctions.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 20, 2015)

I'm now hearing a lot of....


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 20, 2015)

Eight weeks is a ridiculously short to time to allow a scheme such as the Coldharbour one to bed in.  Its a shame that the politicians in Lambeth appear to have bottled it. Hoping that the success of some of the other schemes going in elsewhere in London can give Lambeth politicians a bit more courage to persist. In addition to the Walthamstow and Blackhorse Road area road closures there is a big new scheme being consulted on in Hackney.

Citizen Space -	 						Cycle Superhighway Route 1: Motor traffic reduction scheme for the De Beauvoir area


----------



## Barrie (Nov 20, 2015)

Spin it may be but no one who has supported the scheme has answered the question 'why should the residents around Loughborough Rd benefit from a reduction in traffic to the cost of others who subsequently receive it?'
It's such a selfish point of view as we all need to share the burden.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 21, 2015)

Barrie said:


> Spin it may be but no one who has supported the scheme has answered the question 'why should the residents around Loughborough Rd benefit from a reduction in traffic to the cost of others who subsequently receive it?'
> It's such a selfish point of view as we all need to share the burden.


Your question, which is based largely on a false premise, has been addressed multiple times in the course of this thread.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 21, 2015)

Barrie said:


> Spin it may be but no one who has supported the scheme has answered the question 'why should the residents around Loughborough Rd benefit from a reduction in traffic to the cost of others who subsequently receive it?'
> It's such a selfish point of view as we all need to share the burden.



Traffic is not a zero sum game.  That is a big part of the idea. 

Disappearing traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Traffic Evaporation
Taking Road Space Away From Cars Won't Create Traffic Jams

It does take time for schemes to bed in and for drivers to find alternatives though.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 21, 2015)

And more spin...


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 21, 2015)

Thanks for helping not to reduce polluting motorised traffic in built up inner city residential areas. Said no one ever.


----------



## Beasley (Nov 21, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> there is a big new scheme being consulted on in Hackney.



De Beauvoir Town has been mentioned several times in this thread and it was cited by Lambeth cyclists as their inspiration. I cycled over there during the consultation period to take a look and found a very different area from Loughborough Junction. It does have road closures but two of the principal roads are presently left open for through traffic which includes buses. The road closure scheme there looks to have been more sensitively planned when originally set up about 10 years ago.

Quite likely, the new proposals for further road closures in De Beauvoir Town will have a better chance of success than the Loughborough Junction scheme. This must be in part because the changes there have been gradual and the area is much more residential, much less industrial and not already divided up by Victorian railway lines.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 21, 2015)

toblerone3 said:


> Traffic is not a zero sum game.  That is a big part of the idea.
> 
> Disappearing traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Traffic Evaporation
> ...



The reverse is also certainly true.  Build more roads, get more traffic.  On the announcement of a £15bn 'upgrade' to the M25...

Don't believe it? Well neither did the Major government in the 1990s.

Faced with opposition to their own road-building plans, Major commissioned a report seeking to disprove the theory beloved of environmentalists, that new roads simply induced new traffic.

Instead they found extensive evidence that "induced traffic" can and does occur when roads are built or widened. They found that when trunk roads are already running beyond capacity, widening them simply exacerbates the original problem.​George Osborne's £15 billion road to nowhere


----------



## critical1 (Nov 21, 2015)

Beasley said:


> De Beauvoir Town has been mentioned several times in this thread and it was cited by Lambeth cyclists as their inspiration. I cycled over there during the consultation period to take a look and found a very different area from Loughborough Junction. It does have road closures but two of the principal roads are presently left open for through traffic which includes buses. The road closure scheme there looks to have been more sensitively planned when originally set up about 10 years ago.
> 
> Quite likely, the new proposals for further road closures in De Beauvoir Town will have a better chance of success than the Loughborough Junction scheme. This must be in part because the changes there have been gradual and the area is much more residential, much less industrial and not already divided up by Victorian railway lines.



De Beauvoir is also probably not pushed onto the residents but consulted upon properly, I notice a lot of consultations especially with TFL occur in other areas with much smaller traffic flow.
Was it considered a done deal in Loughborough.. just push it through, we know whats best for them attitude. Because that is what appears to have happened and been defeated by the obviouse responses

The consultation process seems to be remarkably well run by TFL as opposed to the sloppy joes organised by Lambeth and (poor) LJAG


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You are (yet again) making out like this was unprecedented and unique. It's neither. There are lots of small schemes like this around London, either already implemented, proposed, or failed like this one. There was the attempt to make closures on Rosendale Rd, somewhere with a completely different demographic. That was scuppered too. This is not about "picking on" anyone. It was taking an opportunity where there was one, and I don't accept your premise that it would make life worse for people on the council estate. It could have made things better.



I know someone who lives in Rosendale road area. They had the Tories coming around knocking on doors to whip up opposition to the proposals for that area. Told them he was Labour voter. 

As you say its an area with different demographic to LJ.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2015)

LadyV said:


> What do I suggest? On previous posts I've listed numerous things that could be done instead. My focus would be slowing traffic down but still keeping it moving. So things I've suggested in the past....
> 
> Controlled parking, residents only, then 3 hour limit for visitors so as not to affect trades, visitors, shoppers etc. but would deter the people that come and park in the area to be closer to the station or the tube. Also down by Myatts field, Knatchbull Road is a nightmare to negotiate on a bicycle or a car because of parked cars.
> More zebra or pelican crossings
> ...



Fair comments.

The problem I see is any changes will be generate opposition. 

Controlled parking/ removing parking is likely to be opposed by local business. Its also likely to be opposed by those are used to free parking. 

Changing roads to one way system to deter traffic using it as through route is used in other areas. Its would have same effect of causing annoyance to car drivers as this scheme has. It would work imo to reduce through traffic.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2015)

Barrie said:


> Spin it may be but no one who has supported the scheme has answered the question 'why should the residents around Loughborough Rd benefit from a reduction in traffic to the cost of others who subsequently receive it?'
> It's such a selfish point of view as we all need to share the burden.



I live in CHL and I didnt see it as selfish.


----------



## bimble (Nov 21, 2015)

Have been away from my beloved keyboard for the last few days. It's felt like having mittens on.
I'm going to write something proper trying to explain why this apparent victory (for me as a non-driving, anti-pollution opponent to this scheme as executed) doesn't feel like a victory in the way I thought it might.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2015)

critical1 said:


> De Beauvoir is also probably not pushed onto the residents but consulted upon properly, I notice a lot of consultations especially with TFL occur in other areas with much smaller traffic flow.
> Was it considered a done deal in Loughborough.. just push it through, we know whats best for them attitude. Because that is what appears to have happened and been defeated by the obviouse responses
> 
> The consultation process seems to be remarkably well run by TFL as opposed to the sloppy joes organised by Lambeth and (poor) LJAG



‘War’ breaks out in De Beauvoir over road closures

Unlike LJ this is not about trial closure.

Similar arguments about it going on up there.

All these schemes that are being planned or constructed in London are starting to be opposed. The De Beauvoir scheme is partly Hackney Council and TFL. Roads are shared between Councils and TFL. With TFL in charge of all main roads. So this is joint scheme between Council and TFL.



> Anna Butler, who lives in Southgate Road, said CS1 was supposed to be an eco initiative but was becoming “very ungreen”.
> 
> She said: “Surely simple logic says, if you have 10 cars and 10 streets, it’s better to send one car down each, than have 10 all stuck in the same queue. Journeys are shorter, stationary traffic is reduced, pollution is able to dissipate and the burden is shared.
> 
> “Neighbours are pitted against each other – often in the same street – vociferously accusing one another of sneakily pressuring the council to increase their own house prices at others’ expense.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 21, 2015)

I don't think the closures proposed for the De Beauvoir area are entirely comparable to the LJ scheme. An approximate equivalent to the LJ scheme in that area would be closing Southgate Road.


----------



## Beasley (Nov 21, 2015)

irf520 said:


> An approximate equivalent to the LJ scheme in that area would be closing Southgate Road.



I agree, and would add Englefield Road: they both carry bus routes.

However, I do now understand that the changes currently proposed there are more drastic than I first thought.
See: Citizen Space -							 Cycle Superhighway Route 1: Motor traffic reduction scheme for the De Beauvoir area


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> If you want to be genuinely egalitarian do the Athens scheme - odd number car and even number cars on alternate days of the week.



This is done in other cities. My Brazilian friend says that what happens is that the better off buy a second car. So they have one with odd and one with even numbers.So its not that egalitarian.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I just took photos as they appeared if you noticed the road in front of me on Coldharbour Lane is full of traffic just that I hadn't met the lights.



There are temporary lights on the junction of CHL and Atlantic road. Temporary lights make a difference to how traffic can move. 

Friday night I walked up to the Coop. On way up CHL traffic was backing up towards Brixton on way back the road was clear. How traffic moves on CHL can change quickly.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I don't think the closures proposed for the De Beauvoir area are entirely comparable to the LJ scheme. An approximate equivalent to the LJ scheme in that area would be closing Southgate Road.



What is interesting about the objections to the scheme is that they are similar to what you and others here have posted in relation to LJ scheme. As said in the article I posted up.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2015)

CH1 said:


> You (plural) are not being logical. You appear to have environmental beliefs which may be good in themselves, but become oppressive if applied without the consent of the "masses". You wish to take the short-cut method to political salvation like Stalin - but we do still live in a democracy. Maybe a few days in the public gallery at the trial of Regina v Comrade Bala might bring you down to earth. [Southwark Crown Court - court 4]



Same could be said of Boris Ultra Low Emission Zone. I have van driving for a living friend who regard this as just another threat to his way of earning a living. He cannot afford to get a low emission vehicle. Unlike big outfits like DHL who already use electric vehicles in central London.

So its possible that small business could be pushed out of the delivery market to be replaced by bigger outfits like DHL who can plan and afford the change.

But the "masses" are likely to gain overall from better health outcomes.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 21, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Same could be said of Boris Ultra Low Emission Zone. I have van driving for a living friend who regard this as just another threat to his way of earning a living. He cannot afford to get a low emission vehicle. Unlike big outfits like DHL who already use electric vehicles in central London.
> 
> So its possible that small business could be pushed out of the delivery market to be replaced by bigger outfits like DHL who can plan and afford the change.
> 
> But the "masses" are likely to gain overall from better health outcomes.


I don't think it a good idea to preserve highly polluting vehicles. Actually a case could be made for subsidising small businesses to upgrade if they demonstrate they cannot afford to do so unassisted.

John Prescott tried to make central heating boiler upgrades more feasible like this - though in his case of course he did not means test the hand-out.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 21, 2015)

Beasley said:


> I agree, and would add Englefield Road: they both carry bus routes.
> 
> However, I do now understand that the changes currently proposed there are more drastic than I first thought.
> See: Citizen Space -							 Cycle Superhighway Route 1: Motor traffic reduction scheme for the De Beauvoir area



Including permanently closing bottom of Pitfield street ( where there are a lot of shops and business bit like LJ. Probably why they have put in new loading bay nearby. ) turning it into cycle and pedestrian area only. Which will in practise stop traffic being able to go through the De Beauvoir area easily. As this route took one over the canal straight into De Beauvoir. So it is drastic.

There are business in the De Beauvoir area. Printing, advertising and photography.  Its a mixture of Council housing and private if one includes area just north of Pitfield street.

The total effect of scheme will be to make traffic use the main roads. With non main roads like Southgate potentially getting more traffic. Also some road space will be taken by cycle highway. Looks to me like the east side of Old street roundabout will lose road space as well to wider pavements.

Same is happening in Whitehall. With the cycle scheme there and as well as improved pavement space for pedestrians.

All these things will add up to affecting the motorist in central London.

The objections to LJ scheme are not unique to this particular scheme is the point I was making. When its happening in ones own area then it raises a lot of strong feelings either way.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 21, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Including permanently closing bottom of Pitfield street ( where there are a lot of shops and business bit like LJ. Probably why they have put in new loading bay nearby. ) turning it into cycle and pedestrian area only. Which will in practise stop traffic being able to go through the De Beauvoir area easily. As this route took one over the canal straight into De Beauvoir. So it is drastic.



Looks to me like the closure at the southern end of Pitfield St is easily circumvented by using Coronet St and Boot St. Although now you will only be able to get as far as Downham Rd before you have to turn off.



Gramsci said:


> Same is happening in Whitehall. With the cycle scheme there and as well as improved pavement space for pedestrians.



Haven't heard about that one yet.



Gramsci said:


> The objections to LJ scheme are not unique to this particular scheme is the point I was making. When its happening in ones own area then it raises a lot of strong feelings either way.



Agreed. However the thing which particularly struck me about the LJ scheme is the fact they wanted to close such a busy road. I don't drive around the De Beauvoir area that often, but when I have done so it didn't seem as busy as Loughborough Rd. If they had just suggested closing Padfield Rd and Calais St from the beginning I doubt there would have been anywhere near the level of opposition.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

Having had a couple of days to ponder why the announcement didn’t make me want to dance round the kitchen shouting "we’ve won!” basically it’s a bit like this:

If this scheme had been a well designed and well explained environmental measure to reduce unnecessary car use and improve air quality I personally would have been all for it.

Now that it’s been scrapped there seems to no longer be any scrutiny of the actual closures we’ve been discussing here for months and instead the whole thing's being painted as a noble progressive environmental measure that’s been defeated by a bunch of vociferous motorists. And that’s just wrong.

Lambeth Council have made a complete pigs ear of the whole thing from start to finish, it's been a total shambles at every point from its inception to its scrapping,  with no clarity whatsoever as to why they introduced it, why they decided to close the roads they closed, what the effects of it actually were or why exactly they have now scrapped it.
So what exactly has been lost or won is totally unclear to me - but it is clear that the people who feel they are the 'losers' in this decision are ignoring all the specifics and just seeing it as a black & white cars versus clean air issue eg  .





Brixton Hatter said:


> A victory for pollution, congestion, traffic and dangerous streets.



The available evidence does not support that view at all.
Admittedly, due to the pigs ear made of this throughout, the evidence doesn't say anything much either way but if this had been a properly thought through environmental/ pollution reduction measure the whole thing would have  played out completely differently.

For a start, they would have had the guts to measure the traffic properly.
As it is, the ‘results’ we have - as to what difference this scheme made to traffic locally - are a joke:
The report says “ Speed and volume traffic counts were taken at 23 locations across the project area between 15 October and 21 October. ”
That is exactly in the middle of half term, as we know.
It goes on to announce that “These measurements yielded the result that there’s been on average “ a 5% reduction in traffic."
Which tells us absolutely nothing, seeing as  apparently (according to Department of Environment and Transport)  "school runs" account for 20 per cent of vehicles on the road during the morning peak in London as a whole.
So, we know nothing at all about whether or not this scheme actually reduced car use.

We also know nothing about whether it improved air quality, because all the report has to say on this subject is the very impressive: "No reliable air quality data can be established. Having consulted experts, a correlation between traffic congestion and air quality can be assumed" 

Just to be clear, I AM happy the closures are being reversed, particularly as the corner I live on is acknowledged in Lambeth's report as an example of where the road has been made significantly more dangerous by the changes. I'm really looking forward to the 7 NO ENTRY signs outside my window being removed.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2015)

Yes, Lambeth are largely to blame for making a pig's ear of it.

But the reason we don't have much useful information is that the scheme was not allowed to run for the period it needed to.

And that's partly because a lot of people were too impatient to wait for that to happen, and that I think includes you.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

As I tried to say above, if this was a well thought through and defensible environmental measure they would have stuck to their guns and persevered until some useful data could have been amassed. As others have pointed out, every scheme that restricts traffic faces strong opposition. If this one had been a good solid scheme with rational planning behind it I don't see why they would have buckled under pressure from opposition voices.

If Lambeth believed in this scheme they should have defended it, at least for 6 months. So, why didn't they?
One answer is that they just looked at the amount of angry messages they were getting and decided it wasn't worth loosing their footing on the greasy pole. The other is that they had no solid basis from which to defend the scheme. Either way, the blame lies with the council, not 'people like me'.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

Burning paint really stinks. (who'd have guessed). But


----------



## irf520 (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> As I tried to say above, if this was a well thought through and defensible environmental measure they would have stuck to their guns and persevered until some useful data could have been amassed. As others have pointed out, every scheme that restricts traffic faces strong opposition. If this one had been a good solid scheme with rational planning behind it I don't see why they would have buckled under pressure from opposition voices.
> 
> By the way, found this a while ago and it kind of underlines what I mean:
> The Ranty Highwayman: The Cycle Of Acceptance
> ...



The problem with this scheme was it was purely based on ideology and didn't solve any real world problems. As far as I remember there was never a problem with congestion on Loughborough Road. It was busy, yes, but not congested. So why push traffic from there into the centre of Brixton which does have a problem with congestion? How could you defend such a choice?


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> As I tried to say above, if this was [a] well thought through



The point of trials is that they don't have to be well thought through. That's why things are being trialled, to see if they work. If it was 100% thought through, will all consequences (intended and unintended) modelled and assessed, it wouldn't be a trial and it would just be implemented there and then, with no consultation.

I think that you misunderstand what trialling and piloting is.

So this was quite an innovative way of piloting something to assess its impact. I’ve never known Lambeth do that before. I actually think they should be applauded for relatively low cost trialling. But we’ll never know its impact because you contributed to the calls for it to end early.

Because of that am I meant to have my heart strings tugged because you’re not dancing round the kitchen?

And of course burning paint stinks. But it doesn’t stink as much, and isn’t as toxic, as petrol and diesel being consumed in an engine. But that’s what you’ve championed, a return to high volume traffic down LJ Road, stinks and toxicity and all. And very probably outside your window.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> The other is that they had no solid basis from which to defend the scheme.



What kind of "solid basis" would have convinced you (and other objectors) that completing the trial period would have been worthwhile?


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

ChrisSouth I don't think there's much point arguing with you here seeing as you are not interested in any alternatives or in what happens next.


ChrisSouth said:


> Fuck that. I hope it's the end of the consultation and LJ Road becomes a car superhighway. For me, I don't care. I've got what I wanted, which was Padfield Road remaining closed. My nice middle class bit of gentrified south LJ is even quieter now. .



What I was trying to point out in my post above is that if they believed in the trial they should not have ended it after 3 months. That they decided to do so is really not my fault, honest.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2015)

irf520 said:


> The problem with this scheme was it was purely based on ideology and didn't solve any real world problems. As far as I remember there was never a problem with congestion on Loughborough Road. It was busy, yes, but not congested. So why push traffic from there into the centre of Brixton which does have a problem with congestion? How could you defend such a choice?


It's as if the previous 116 pages of discussion on this thread didn't exist.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What kind of "solid basis" would have convinced you (and other objectors) that completing the trial period would have been worthwhile?


One thing that would have helped a lot for me would have been a proper plan for assessing both traffic and pollution, for example..


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> One thing that would have helped a lot for me would have been a proper plan for assessing both traffic and pollution, for example..


70-odd before and after traffic count locations weren't enough for you, then?

How many would have been enough?


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> 70-odd before and after traffic count locations weren't enough for you, then?
> How many would have been enough?


My idea (correct me if I'm missing something here) was that in order to get an idea of what has changed you should measure the same places before and during.
Not just do an unspecified amount before, and then do 23 in the middle of the school holidays.

Do you have any comment to make on the statement in the council's report about air pollution? The one that goes "No reliable air quality data can be established. Having consulted experts, a correlation between traffic congestion and air quality can be assumed"


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> What I was trying to point out in my post above is that if they believed in the trial they should not have ended it after 3 months. That they decided to do so is really not my fault, honest.



I think they did believe in it. The Lambeth guy was trying to explain their aims and methods of assessment at that meeting but couldn't actually do so because so many people were shouting over him. I think they decided to end it because it was clear that so many people weren't even interested in the results of the trial. They didn't want to find out about the real effects. And you were posting your survey of whether people wanted the scheme to continue, just a week or two from the start. Why would you do that if you had any real desire to encourage people to give the experiment a fair chance?


----------



## irf520 (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> My idea (correct me if I'm missing something here) was that in order to get an idea of what has changed you should measure the same places before and during.
> Not just do an unspecified amount before, and then do 23 in the middle of the school holidays.
> Do you have any comment to make on the statement in the council's report about air pollution? The one that goes "No reliable air quality data can be established. Having consulted experts, a correlation between traffic congestion and air quality can be assumed"



Yes, there is a correlation between traffic congestion and air quality. So taking traffic away from a freely flowing route and adding it (or even a bit less if some people decided to walk instead) to an already congested route will make overall pollution worse, even if it improves it on the closed road.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I think they did believe in it. The Lambeth guy was trying to explain their aims and methods of assessment at that meeting but couldn't actually do so because so many people were shouting over him. I think they decided to end it because it was clear that so many people weren't even interested in the results of the trial. They didn't want to find out about the real effects. And you were posting your survey of whether people wanted the scheme to continue, just a week or two from the start. Why would you do that if you had any real desire to encourage people to give the experiment a fair chance?


Ok. It's all my fault, not Lambeth's.
They clearly had no choice but to bow to the pressure of me and a bunch of people like me.
It's also my fault that they had to count cars in the school holidays at only 23 locations. The consultation process is probably my fault too come to think of it and also the fact that there was absolutely no plan in place at any point to assess the impact this scheme would have on pollution. Sorry.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> My idea (correct me if I'm missing something here) was that in order to get an idea of what has changed you should measure the same places before and during.
> Not just do an unspecified amount before, and then do 23 in the middle of the school holidays.



They did, as far as I understand, about 70 before, and the intention was to do the same 70 at the end, once the scheme had had a reasonable time to bed in. The mid-way count was brought forward because of the pressure to do so, and in any case was only a mid-way count which can't tell us much about what would have been happening  3 or 4 months in the future.



bimble said:


> Do you have any comment to make on the statement in the council's report about air pollution? The one that goes "No reliable air quality data can be established. Having consulted experts, a correlation between traffic congestion and air quality can be assumed"



I think it's reasonable to say that. Conclusions about pollution could certainly have been drawn from full traffic count results at the end. Certainly, it could be assumed that streets with much less traffic on them would enjoy lower pollution levels.

Maybe they could have done much more extensive pollution surveys. But they would have cost money.

It may have been that at the end of the experimental period, there would be some locations where there were reasonable concerns that pollution had increased. In which case some resources could have been focussed on those in an attempt to determine the level of the problem.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> Ok. It's all my fault, not Lambeth's.
> They clearly had no choice but to bow to the pressure of me and a bunch of people like me.



I've made it pretty clear that I think Lambeth messed up. They messed up with the consultation, they messed up with the implementation and they messed up by bowing to pressure once a significant amount of time and money had already been invested in the experiment.

But it's convenient for those ideologically opposed to the scheme to use Lambeth's incompetency as a scapegoat. I don't think you're one of the pro-motoring lobby who is doing this - but I do feel your attitude has been to throw the baby out with the bathwater, rather than trying to take the opportunity to make the most of this scheme given all the effort already invested in it.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I've made it pretty clear that I think Lambeth messed up. They messed up with the consultation, they messed up with the implementation and they messed up by bowing to pressure once a significant amount of time and money had already been invested in the experiment.
> 
> But it's convenient for those ideologically opposed to the scheme to use Lambeth's incompetency as a scapegoat. I don't think you're one of the pro-motoring lobby who is doing this - but I do feel your attitude has been to throw the baby out with the bathwater, rather than trying to take the opportunity to make the most of this scheme given all the effort already invested in it.



Thanks for noticing that I'm not Jeremy Clarkson.
I don't want to throw the baby out. This particular bathwater was useless though.

I really hope that this board might soon become a place where people discuss Loughborough Junction Public Space Improvements.

Here's an idea for instance, taken straight form Lambeth Cyclists website, who are pretty magnanimous in their defeat:
_'We will be pressing Lambeth to introduce alternative measures such as child-friendly segregated cycle tracks on Loughborough Road and measures to reduce traffic on Hinton Road that will make the roads safer and continue to encourage more people to walk and cycle in the area.'_


----------



## irf520 (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> Thanks for noticing that I'm not Jeremy Clarkson.
> Here's an idea for instance, taken straight form Lambeth Cyclists website, who are pretty magnanimous in their defeat:
> _'We will be pressing Lambeth to introduce alternative measures such as child-friendly segregated cycle tracks on Loughborough Road and measures to reduce traffic on Hinton Road that will make the roads safer and continue to encourage more people to walk and cycle in the area.'_



Is that being magnanimous? Sounds more like they want another bite at the cherry.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Is that being magnanimous? Sounds more like they want another bite at the cherry.


Personally I'm up for proper cycle lanes , would help me as a scaredy cyclist. Mostly though I wanted to say that I'm not against change , or babies.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 23, 2015)

I was more referring to the "reduce traffic on" (I assume that means close) Hinton Rd.
We already know that would have been the next target if they'd got away with the LR closure. This looks like they're still trying to get their "cell" but formed in a different order.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> Thanks for noticing that I'm not Jeremy Clarkson.
> I don't want to throw the baby out. This particular bathwater was useless though.


We agree the bathwater was useless. The point is, the baby has now been thrown out too. 

The baby was the opportunity to see the real world results of a fairly ambitious traffic restriction scheme.

Of course we can now start to discuss whittled-down alternatives. But that discussion could have been a lot more productive and well informed if the experiment had been completed. 

As it is, we are probably further back than we were before the trial. We can discuss those whittled-down alternatives but without the evidence that could have come out of the trial, which could have helped to argue in favour of certain measures short of full closure. Any reduced measures are also going to find opposition, repeating all the same arguments that ignore the kind of evidence and precedent I've been trying to offer up on this thread. Look at irf520 above - he's started already with the "thin end of the wedge" line, and it's clear from his previous comments that he isn't, for example, interested in the "traffic evaporation" phenomenon - something we could have demonstrated really happens "in the real world" by means of results from the experimental period.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> We agree the bathwater was useless. The point is, the baby has now been thrown out too.
> 
> The baby was the opportunity to see the real world results of a fairly ambitious traffic restriction scheme.
> 
> ...




I think Crispy expressed the situation very well when he said, and I quote.


Crispy said:


> What a total fucking shambles


----------



## irf520 (Nov 23, 2015)

teuchter said:


> ... the "thin end of the wedge" line ...



I'm not making anything up. I'm merely taking what has previously been said at face value.



teuchter said:


> As it is, we are probably further back than we were before the trial.



Yes. A lot of unnecessary ill feeling has been created and nothing has really been gained.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Yes. A lot of unnecessary ill feeling has been created and nothing has really been gained.


I've met lots of people locally whom I'd probably otherwise never have met, and discovered the mixed blessings of U75. So that's something at least.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> I've met lots of people locally whom I'd probably otherwise never have met, and discovered the mixed blessings of U75. So that's something at least.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 23, 2015)

irf520 said:


> The problem with this scheme was it was purely based on ideology and didn't solve any real world problems. *As far as I remember there was never a problem with congestion on Loughborough Road. *It was busy, yes, but not congested. So why push traffic from there into the centre of Brixton which does have a problem with congestion? How could you defend such a choice?



Clearly you havent tried to get down Loughborough road from Fiveways to Brixton road in the morning.

As for ideology- I expect a comment like that from you. For you the supporter of the motorist are just as ideological as anyone else. Do I need to quote your earlier post? Its been put up here several times.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 23, 2015)

bimble said:


> Now that it’s been scrapped there seems to no longer be any scrutiny of the actual closures we’ve been discussing here for months and instead the whole thing's being painted as a noble progressive environmental measure that’s been defeated by a bunch of vociferous motorists. And that’s just wrong.
> 
> Lambeth Council have made a complete pigs ear of the whole thing from start to finish, it's been a total shambles at every point from its inception to its scrapping,  with no clarity whatsoever as to why they introduced it, why they decided to close the roads they closed, what the effects of it actually were or why exactly they have now scrapped it.
> So what exactly has been lost or won is totally unclear to me - but it is clear that the people who feel they are the 'losers' in this decision are ignoring all the specifics and just seeing it as a black & white cars versus clean air issue eg  .
> .



Not how I saw your position change from a lets see how it goes to outright opposition.

The black and white issue for me is how those who were supporting it / giving it a chance were given a hard time on and off boards.

You for example at one point accused teuchter  of working for the Council.

People being barred from the Hero of Switzerland - which several people told me about.

The worst being accusing people of being middle class ie for example cyclists being "middle class". Something you took part in.

All part of the rough and tumble of the boards. But I could do without the reasonable tone now you have got your way.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 23, 2015)

irf520 said:


> I was more referring to the "reduce traffic on" (I assume that means close) Hinton Rd.
> We already know that would have been the next target if they'd got away with the LR closure. This looks like they're still trying to get their "cell" but formed in a different order.



Actually something that came up at one the meetings about LJ early on.

It got support from all sides as better alternative than "kettling" LJ estate. Why Lambeth didn’t look into it more I don’t know. 

So to try rubbish this idea as yet another target of the ideological militant cyclists is wrong.

Also some of the LJ Estate residents I talked to wanted less traffic going through there estate but not done in the way it was. So Hinton road was alternative to reduce throught traffic.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 23, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Yes. A lot of unnecessary ill feeling has been created and nothing has really been gained.



You have your road open again. So you have gained something.

I see nothing in your posts here that you support making London a city not dominated by road traffic.

The growing opposition to schemes like this to at least attempt to reduce traffic is growing imo across London. This is a setback and will likely mean that Lambeth will give up on its policy to put pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport first. So the gain is for the motorist.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Actually something that came up at one the meetings about LJ early on.
> 
> It got support from all sides as better alternative than "kettling" LJ estate. Why Lambeth didn’t look into it more I don’t know.
> 
> ...



How would you stop people going round via Herne Hill Rd junction instead, though?

I reckon closing the bottom of Herne Hill Rd, and disallowing going straight across from Hinton Rd into Loughborough Rd (except for cyclists) would work better and create a more useful pedestrianised area.

I'd have a vested interest in that though as it would mean less traffic going past my door.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 24, 2015)

Lambeth has a certain philosophy.... 
With public money.....


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2015)

Kind of yes but in a good way I thought (from Braithwaite's statement on Friday I mean) ? 
"We will start with an open mind and welcome all ideas and contributions; there is money to spend from Transport for London, which if we work together and get it right, can make a positive and lasting difference to Loughborough Junction."


----------



## Beasley (Nov 24, 2015)

I have found a parallel discussion about this on the East Dulwich Forum. It began in September just after the closures. Quite an interesting read as it covers the same spectrum of views but from further afield, so more on the route through LJ.

The East Dulwich Forum


----------



## critical1 (Nov 24, 2015)

bimble said:


> Kind of yes but in a good way I thought (from Braithwaite's statement on Friday I mean) ?
> "We will start with an open mind and welcome all ideas and contributions; there is money to spend from Transport for London, which if we work together and get it right, can make a positive and lasting difference to Loughborough Junction."



Sounds reminiscent of LJAG speak.. 
Maybe (Brainwash) Braithwaite  should have said "We can come together, unite and create a foundation that will give us all a voice"


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2015)

I'm trying to be LESS cynical after this whole experience.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 24, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm trying to be LESS cynical after this whole experience.


I would have thought the lesson is that council decisions can be changed - but in this case we are talking mainly about quality of life and little financial implication (for the council).

It will be a different story for council tenants whose estates are being redeveloped. Although that said it seems some areas such as Stockwell Park Estate and the Robsart Estate seem to have no problem accommodating 20 storey tower blocks largely devoted to private apartments.

BTW caught the P5 to Elephant today. It is very obvious cruising through on that bus that the Akerman Health Centre was built to provide services to the private Oval Quarter development - as marketed in Singapore etc. Pity we had to lose the only doctors surgery in Coldharbour Ward to attract in all the affluent oriental buy-to-let merchants.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I would have thought the lesson is that council decisions can be changed .


What i'm trying to do (in my head, in the attempt to be less and not more cynical) is to imagine that the change was made because they reviewed the evidence and drew a conclusion from that.
What I actually think is that they scrapped the trial because they counted the number of objectors and decided it wasn't worth losing their toehold up the greasy pole to westminster.
You're singularly well placed to opine on this so, what do you reckon?


----------



## CH1 (Nov 24, 2015)

bimble said:


> What i'm trying to do (in my head, in the attempt to be less and not more cynical) is to imagine that the change was made because they reviewed the evidence and drew a conclusion from that.
> What I actually think is that they scrapped the trial because they counted the number of objectors and decided it wasn't worth losing their toehold up the greasy pole to westminster.
> You're singularly well placed to opine on this so, what do you reckon?


I think that Rachel Heywood particularly and Matt Parr also indicated they had no confidence in the changes - on the basis that constituents were largely opposed. I would imagine that they thought that if people did not want the changes they should not be imposed.

I don't see any of the Coldharbour councillors as ambitious young new Labour types hungry for constituencies - they seem altogether too mellow for that.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 24, 2015)

CH1 said:


> I think that Rachel Heywood particularly and Matt Parr also indicated they had no confidence in the changes - on the basis that constituents were largely opposed. I would imagine that they thought that if people did not want the changes they should not be imposed.
> 
> I don't see any of the Coldharbour councillors as ambitious young new Labour types hungry for constituencies - they seem altogether too mellow for that.



Rachel did tell me now she is no longer in Cabinet she is much more free to take up issues in her Ward and express an opinion. I have seen her do it at meetings about Rec.

Not sure about mellow but there has been distinct change in Coldharbour Ward Cllrs. There are almost becoming an opposition in absence of any LDs. Which is surprise as Coldharbour Ward was always ward where Labour would put loyalists up for election. As its sure bet win.

There views on Libraries, Leisure centres etc also appear to be out of line with the ruling group.

Get feeling from some of the things they have said recently that they feel the less well off population of Coldharbour Ward ( which is majority despite the image that central Brixton projects)  views do not get represented enough. That they see with all the "austerity" the majority of there constituents getting hammered.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Not sure about mellow


Compared to Matthew Bennett or Jane Edbrooke?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2015)

So people, what things have you already done this week, that you couldn't have done while the closures were in, that have made your life better?


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> Get feeling from some of the things they have said recently that they feel the less well off population of Coldharbour Ward ( which is majority despite the image that central Brixton projects)  views do not get represented enough. That they see with all the "austerity" the majority of there constituents getting hammered.


That's about how I see it too. A lot of people I talk to on my estate feel that they've been forgotten by Labour who only seem interested in courting the incoming 'entrepreneurs' and all the nu-money.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 25, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So people, what things have you already done this week, that you couldn't have done while the closures were in, that have made your life better?


Well technically they were only lifted this morning but if I'm honest, it didn't affect me that much either way. I'm primarily a pedestrian and the only difference I really noticed was an increase in nastiness of the air quality on CHL and Brixton Road. Those who live further up Loughborough Road might have noticed an improvement in air quality but I don't walk up that way very often so can't comment.

The one thing I will be interested in seeing is whether the removal of the road closures makes a difference to bus journeys as that was another area I'd noticed a difference in.


----------



## bimble (Nov 25, 2015)

I'm looking forward to seeing this evening if they've remembered to take the 500 watt light bulbs out of the poles (the 8 foot tall ones which just had their 'no entry' red circles removed). Those have been lighting my flat for me all night and it will be a real joy when they're gone.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Well technically they were only lifted this morning but if I'm honest, it didn't affect me that much either way.


Wasn't it you who said they felt "kettled"?

Did you feel less "kettled" this morning?

I'm keen to know what being un-kettled has opened up for you.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 25, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So people, what things have you already done this week, that you couldn't have done while the closures were in, that have made your life better?



Drove the entire length of LR all the way from CHL to Jamm this morning on the way to work. It was like the return of an old friend


----------



## SpamMisery (Nov 25, 2015)

bimble said:


> I'm looking forward to seeing this evening if they've remembered to take the 500 watt light bulbs out of the poles (the 8 foot tall ones which just had their 'no entry' red circles removed). Those have been lighting my flat for me all night and it will be a real joy when they're gone.



Surely you've made a killing not having to light your own flat?!! Jeesh, some people are never happy


----------



## AlexH (Nov 25, 2015)

Now thinking about libraries


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2015)

AlexH said:


> Now thinking about libraries


Could be better used as car parks?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 26, 2015)

Entertainment... or Not...


----------



## critical1 (Nov 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Could be better used as car parks?


Don't you mean a Multistorey Bike Park, those overcrowded monsters. That when when you get back, some antisocial cyclist has crammed their bike in where it doesn't belong and you have to fight to get yours out. Hate it!


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Don't you mean a Multistorey Bike Park, those overcrowded monsters. That when when you get back, some antisocial cyclist has crammed their bike in where it doesn't belong and you have to fight to get yours out. Hate it!


Sorry that was probably me, with my big middle class wicker basket and everything.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 26, 2015)

bimble said:


> Sorry that was probably me, with my big middle class wicker basket and everything.



Yes I'm sure I saw you the other day, you looked a bit lost...


----------



## LadyV (Nov 26, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Wasn't it you who said they felt "kettled"?
> 
> Did you feel less "kettled" this morning?
> 
> I'm keen to know what being un-kettled has opened up for you.



Well, see this is the thing, I did say that but I didn't feel all that kettled tbh but I think that was due to the crappy implementation. I used to live over in Peckham on a street that was blocked and you had to go completely round the houses to get anywhere if you weren't on foot and I thought it would be like that, which was a little like being in a locked room that you can't escape from, it was one of the reasons I moved. But in that instance the road was completely blocked, not left open for buses etc. 

So no I didn't feel less kettled yesterday or this morning but interestingly I also haven't seen a massive rise in traffic yesterday or today down LR so maybe the closure did do some good and get people using methods of transport.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Nov 26, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yes I'm sure I saw you the other day, you looked a bit lost...



I'd always thought Bimble was a boy.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 26, 2015)

Feeling a bit grumpy here as the temporary lights at Ackerman Rd and Loughborough Rd are ABSOLUTELY FCUK amazing... They work like Penguins doing Swan Lake on drugs, totaly useless and uncoordinated. With h drivers and cyclists starting to ignore them.

Some idiot has also outside of Loughborough Primary school removed one a the children crossing signs by the Pelican crossing and twisted the other one so as to obscure it from the road!!! Who would do such a thing?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 26, 2015)

ChrisSouth said:


> I'd always thought Bimble was a boy.



I always thought Bimble was a little bit ambidextrous


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2015)




----------



## Angellic (Nov 26, 2015)

critical1 said:


> I always thought Bimble was a little bit ambidextrous



A nimble Bimble.


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2015)

I feel really important and and mysterious today


----------



## AlexH (Nov 26, 2015)

Bimble is everywhere and nowhere. Elusive. Wicker basket is all we know


----------



## bimble (Nov 26, 2015)

everything is all about me ! hurrah! But we the bimbles are legion.


----------



## AlexH (Nov 26, 2015)

As are Teuchters - or do they hibernate?


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 26, 2015)

CH1 said:


> Compared to Matthew Bennett or Jane Edbrooke?



I do feel a bit sorry for Rachel. As someone said to me recently now she has gone off message she is being treated poorly by the ruling Cllrs such as the above. 

Was at meeting recently where her and Edbrooke were present. No love lost there.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 26, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Well, see this is the thing, I did say that but I didn't feel all that kettled tbh but I think that was due to the crappy implementation. I used to live over in Peckham on a street that was blocked and you had to go completely round the houses to get anywhere if you weren't on foot and I thought it would be like that, which was a little like being in a locked room that you can't escape from, it was one of the reasons I moved. But in that instance the road was completely blocked, not left open for buses etc.
> 
> So no I didn't feel less kettled yesterday or this morning but interestingly I also haven't seen a massive rise in traffic yesterday or today down LR so maybe the closure did do some good and get people using methods of transport.



I saw the same on LR to my surprise. So wonder if there has been an effect.

As for Peckham. I think I know where you mean there is complicated one way system. Been that way for a while. Well that is the other alternative to outright closure. It was an alternative put to me by Loughborough estate resident. Make some roads one way only. To reduce traffic on roads around the estate.

It also around Camberwell. With a van driver recently who tried to take shortcut to by pass the junction at Camberwell green and it didnt work out.

These are all ways to reduce/ discourage traffic to use side roads and keep them on the main roads. As I have said before any alteration to roads to discourage traffic will get opposition.

So my concern is that with this scheme being scrapped no alternative will be brought forward. The car user lobby is more influential than one might imagine.

Had my van driver friend now complaining about the cycle highways. His view is that private car drivers should no longer use central London as they clog up roads for people like him.

Cycle ways are being upgraded and motorised traffic is losing space in central London. ie new one upgraded in Bloomsbury now both ways for cyclists leaving one way street for traffic. Some Councils are doing more schemes than Lambeth. All reduces car motor traffic in areas. Which does make them less dominated by cars. Which is good imo. Make London more pleasant place to be. The one in Bloomsbury is mixture of shops/ private and social housing.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 26, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> I do feel a bit sorry for Rachel. As someone said to me recently now she has gone off message she is being treated poorly by the ruling Cllrs such as the above.
> 
> Was at meeting recently where her and Edbrooke were present. No love lost there.



Integrity always incurs a cost. That's one of the reasons so few people have it.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2015)

LadyV said:


> interestingly I also haven't seen a massive rise in traffic yesterday or today down LR so maybe the closure did do some good and get people using methods of transport.


It'll gradually return to previous levels I expect - will not be an immediate effect for the same reason that the traffic patterns took time to adjust when the closure went in.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> It'll gradually return to previous levels I expect - will not be an immediate effect for the same reason that the traffic patterns took time to adjust when the closure went in.


True true, would be nice if we could at least keep some of the reduction in traffic though


----------



## LadyV (Nov 27, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> As for Peckham. I think I know where you mean there is complicated one way system. Been that way for a while. Well that is the other alternative to outright closure. It was an alternative put to me by Loughborough estate resident. Make some roads one way only. To reduce traffic on roads around the estate.




I think looking at possibilities for one ways might be a good option and also a few more double yellows or CPZs on LR between Fiveways and Brixton Road. The CHL end of LR can cope with traffic but that section is a nightmare with the parked cars.



Gramsci said:


> Cycle ways are being upgraded and motorised traffic is losing space in central London. ie new one upgraded in Bloomsbury now both ways for cyclists leaving one way street for traffic. Some Councils are doing more schemes than Lambeth. All reduces car motor traffic in areas. Which does make them less dominated by cars. Which is good imo. Make London more pleasant place to be. The one in Bloomsbury is mixture of shops/ private and social housing.



I work near Bloomsbury so I'm seeing those changes coming together, I think it's easier for Camden to get those through because although there are residential properties in the area, I would imagine car ownership levels are very low due to where they are. Plus add in the high numbers of students in the area means there are less people to consult.

Can I ask what your thoughts on the cycle super highways are? I was out with some friends last night who regularly cycle from Surrey into Central London and their comments were not that positive


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2015)

LadyV said:


> True true, would be nice if we could at least keep some of the reduction in traffic though


So you want to have your cake and eat it.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2015)

LadyV said:


> a few more double yellows or CPZs on LR between Fiveways and Brixton Road. The CHL end of LR can cope with traffic but that section is a nightmare with the parked cars.



What you are proposing is a measure to increase convenience to car drivers, and the traffic capacity of that section of road, and therefore increase the amount of traffic on LR. Is that what you want?

Or do you mean removing the parked cars and replacing them with dedicated cycle lanes, so that cyclists can benefit from being separated from the congestion caused by unecessary motor vehicle journeys?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Can I ask what your thoughts on the cycle super highways are? I was out with some friends last night who regularly cycle from Surrey into Central London and their comments were not that positive



The old ones are a mixture of OK and Shite.

I join CS7 at Oval and follow it all the way to the City. There's very little dedicated infrastructure, and some places where you'd never believe there was a dedicated cycle route at all. Some favourite  moments as captured on Google Streetview are:

this pinch point ahead of Elephant, which is always full of traffic and cyclists trapped in narrow gaps
then, just after that, there's a bus stop which forces weaving of bikes and buses. There's room for an island bus stop here, which would be a great help.
this isolated row of 8 terraced houses in Zone 1 getting on-street parking instead of a cycle lane.
this very busy junction has effectively zero improvements for cyclists. all the cycle lanes disappear. This is a common fault with all the "on-road" superhighways. They're all subservient to motor vehicles. Cars need a turning lane! Better stop the cycle lane then. >_<
tourist coach parking is more important than the cycle lane
so is motorbike parking. the road is really wide just before here, and this could easily be moved. sail across the bridge in the segregated lane and then....
good luck lol (good news is this junction will be on the new E/W superhighway so will be massively improved soon)

The new Oval junction is an absolute marvel and the whole route should be like that.

The new E/W and N/S routes are going to be fantastic. Actual proper segregated cycle infrastructure in the heart of London. More please


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2015)

The main problem with the older ones is that they can give you a false sense of security, for teh reasons that Crispy describes. It would make more sense to reserve the blue-coloured lanes for proper continuous segregated routes that aren't suddenly going to throw you into a complicated junction, or disappear, or weave you with traffic lanes. And colour everything else green. Then people know what they're signing up for when they join a route.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 27, 2015)

Cycle route not...


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2015)

The two-way markings on that thing are a joke.


----------



## bimble (Nov 27, 2015)

it is really daunting for a beginner (I mean, I can ride a bike fine, obviously, but navigating the city is seriously scary). Especially if you lack a certain aggression / ownership of the road stance which I think only comes with time.


----------



## bimble (Nov 27, 2015)

Read about this a while back... I love the idea, though apparently it's been scrapped because completely impractical? 
SkyCycle (proposed transport project) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Winot (Nov 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> it is really daunting for a beginner (I mean, I can ride a bike fine, obviously, but navigating the city is seriously scary). Especially if you lack a certain aggression / ownership of the road stance which I think only comes with time.



Some boroughs offer free cycling training. Don't know whether it's been hit by austerity.


----------



## bimble (Nov 27, 2015)

Winot said:


> Some boroughs offer free cycling training. Don't know whether it's been hit by austerity.


I did do one of those courses, but they don't have trucks to roar alongside you for practice etc


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> Read about this a while back... I love the idea, though apparently it's been scrapped because completely impractical?
> SkyCycle (proposed transport project) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Utterly stupid idea that ignores all sorts of practical, technical and political issues.


----------



## bimble (Nov 27, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Utterly stupid idea that ignores all sorts of practical, technical and political issues.


But .. Oh ok.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2015)

Previously ripped to shreds here: 'Skycycle' - Proposed £220m cycle lanes above the railways of London


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> it is really daunting for a beginner (I mean, I can ride a bike fine, obviously, but navigating the city is seriously scary). Especially if you lack a certain aggression / ownership of the road stance which I think only comes with time.


Yes, it is. Which is why creating a network of quiet routes for cyclists could make a big difference to encouraging more people to start cycling. It's a shame so many Londoners seem to want to trash the potential for that though isn't it?


----------



## bimble (Nov 27, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Previously ripped to shreds here: 'Skycycle' - Proposed £220m cycle lanes above the railways of London


No, I know. Just liked the whole Disney magic of it


----------



## LadyV (Nov 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> So you want to have your cake and eat it.


Yup I guess I do! Although I don't really mind either way tbh, what will be will be.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What you are proposing is a measure to increase convenience to car drivers, and the traffic capacity of that section of road, and therefore increase the amount of traffic on LR. Is that what you want?
> 
> Or do you mean removing the parked cars and replacing them with dedicated cycle lanes, so that cyclists can benefit from being separated from the congestion caused by unecessary motor vehicle journeys?



No if anything I would prefer to make it less palatable for drivers to drive down that section of road and reduce the number of cars, so make it one way for cars and remove some parked cars to create more space for everyone who wishes to use the road, cars, bicycles, skateboards anything, at the moment it's not good for anyone.

And we're on the same page about unnecessary car journeys, there are far too many of them, it's just the definition of what is unnecessary that we're still working out!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2015)

LadyV said:


> No if anything I would prefer to make it less palatable for drivers to drive down that section of road and reduce the number of cars, so make it one way for cars and remove some parked cars to create more space for everyone who wishes to use the road, cars, bicycles, skateboards anything, at the moment it's not good for anyone.



But what about the people who have parked near their homes on that stretch for ever? You are going to take this privilege away from them, you Stalinist?

And if you make it one way, then aren't you effectively making a road closure (in one direction)?

Or, if you're proposing another road takes the traffic in the opposite direction, then aren't you introducing a load of non-local traffic onto a previously quiet road?

The reason I make these points is that virtually any measure you take to meaningfully change things is going to result in lots of people popping up with essentially the same kinds of objections that we saw in the trial.

It's easy for people to dismiss the trial scheme saying "oh but we would support some kind of different traffic reduction scheme instead" and give some non-specific statements about alternatives, and then, when someone actually has to think up a new scheme that works, they will face those same people who will be back dismissing it for much the same reasons, and that revised scheme won't necessarily be any easier to bring about than the one we've just discarded.

My prediction is that what will now happen is the whole thing will just get quietly forgotten and nothing will really be done at all for the next 5 or 10 years. Or, we will get some kind of half-baked scheme that has no meaningful impact on traffic levels and transport habits, because the council is too scared of the road nutters.

But I will be pleased to be proven wrong.


----------



## LadyV (Nov 27, 2015)

teuchter said:


> But what about the people who have parked near their homes on that stretch for ever? You are going to take this privilege away from them, you Stalinist?
> 
> And if you make it one way, then aren't you effectively making a road closure (in one direction)?
> 
> ...




Ooh someone's grumpy today! Stalinist? That's a new one, I've never been called that before! 

As for the people on that stretch, you and others on here keeping on telling us that Lambeth has such low car ownership so are you sure those cars belong to people who live there? Especially as no-one in the area can afford one apparently, according to some people on here cars are such a luxury item. They definitely can't belong to people who live in the area.

When it comes down to it, you know what, I'm not a traffic planner and have claimed to be, I haven't got a bloody clue but at least I've suggested things rather than just bashing down everything anyone suggests, what have you suggested? None of us know really what will work and what will not, including the so-called experts, they bugger it up too.

Nothing is going to work for everyone but whatever you may believe drivers have just as much right to be on the roads as anyone else, should they get priority? No, they have to share like everyone else, but so do cyclists. But should drivers be demonised for wanting to do something that is perfectly legal for them to do? No they shouldn't. However that's not to say that they shouldn't be encouraged to leave their cars at home when they can. 

And of course people are going complain when something affects them but if the council learn from their mistakes, maybe progress can be made by taking things slowly.

The failure of this experiment was not just about the closures but the way it was carried out from start to finish and the blame for that lies at the feet of the council and its staff. As for it's cancellation, the primary reason it was cancelled was because the Fire Brigade complained, without that objection, even with the petition, I think that Jennifer Braithwaite could have made a bold and probably unpopular decision to keep the closures in places to collect more data and to allow it to bed in properly and hope that everyone just got on with it. But she could not ignore that objection, she would be setting herself up for a huge fall if she had. The LFB wouldn't have made that objection if they weren't having issues getting around as the closures did cause some odd bottlenecks that an engine would be delayed by, no one would want to deal with the possible consequences of an engine being delayed.

I think it would be sad if the general plans for improvements were forgotten about because it wasn't just about traffic levels, it was about brightening up the whole area and that has now been soured. Hopefully the more general improvements to the area can be reintroduced without the confusion of road closures and accusations of gentrification but only time will tell.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2015)

bimble said:


> it is really daunting for a beginner (I mean, I can ride a bike fine, obviously, but navigating the city is seriously scary). Especially if you lack a certain aggression / ownership of the road stance which I think only comes with time.



This is where the new cycle highways will make a difference. Problems is they will be good as commuter routes but not navigating the city.

My view, as I cycle around City and West End all day, is that being aggressive is not how to do it. Thats common with all drivers I know. If someone cuts u up just let it go. Bad for ones blood pressure. Bit of courtesy for others makes for Karma. If a Black Cab looks like its going to pull in to get a fare I let them do it. Its not being aggressive its learning to have a "second sense".

The problem with cycling in City/West End is that most users do it all the time and know the junctions. Drivers imo are much better at noticing cyclist than they used to be. However if u do not "know" the roads traffic is pretty unforgiving if u hesitate in West End.

Being a bit scared of traffic is healthy. I err on side of caution and never had an accident.

Its not cycling aggressively its making sure drivers can see u. Donts imo are do not cycle whilst listening to ipod, look around at regular intervals and learn to "read" the traffic. ie I look at drivers to see if they have eyes on road or are on there mobile, chatting etc. 

Also think ahead. If it looks dodgy pull back and see what to do. Its not a race.

Also , and I know this is not an option for all, is to go fast sometimes. ie at Hyde Park Corner. You really have to get going. It actually annoys car drivers less.

To "learn" the City try going on a Sunday when its empty. One thing people who do it all the time is that they know when lights will change and which lights change first. ie at Bank.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2015)

LadyV said:


> I work near Bloomsbury so I'm seeing those changes coming together, I think it's easier for Camden to get those through because although there are residential properties in the area, I would imagine car ownership levels are very low due to where they are. Plus add in the high numbers of students in the area means there are less people to consult.
> 
> Can I ask what your thoughts on the cycle super highways are? I was out with some friends last night who regularly cycle from Surrey into Central London and their comments were not that positive



I agree. There is little on parking available in central London on estates , unlike LJ estate, so I agree car ownership is low. As alternative central London is well covered by Car Clubs. 

The Cycle highways. Cant praise Boris more , even though I detest Tories, for them. I have started to use the finished bits and its so different to not have to be in traffic. 

Met Boris once on his bike.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Ooh someone's grumpy today! Stalinist? That's a new one, I've never been called that before!
> 
> As for the people on that stretch, you and others on here keeping on telling us that Lambeth has such low car ownership so are you sure those cars belong to people who live there? Especially as no-one in the area can afford one apparently, according to some people on here cars are such a luxury item. They definitely can't belong to people who live in the area.
> 
> ...



teuchter is making the same point and reservations about what will happen now as I have.

That any alternatives will have vocal opposition. ie stopping parking on sections of Loughborough road. Bringing in road closures in the "middle class" areas such as Hinton road to deter through traffic.

The thing about the cyclist, who are derided here by some, is that one less car driver and one more cyclist frees up road space and is decreasing pollution. I have seen big increase in cyclist commuting to work in City and West End in past years. With all the posts about "middle class" cyclist on expensive bikes I have taken more notice of bikes and the people who ride them. I do not see this. A lot of the new commuters are riding middle of the range bikes. Some I know are using the ride to work scheme were u can get bike through the company one works for at a discount.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2015)

Yep. I ride an £800 bike, but I'd never have spent that much money myself.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 28, 2015)

LadyV said:


> Ooh someone's grumpy today! Stalinist? That's a new one, I've never been called that before!
> 
> As for the people on that stretch, you and others on here keeping on telling us that Lambeth has such low car ownership so are you sure those cars belong to people who live there? Especially as no-one in the area can afford one apparently, according to some people on here cars are such a luxury item. They definitely can't belong to people who live in the area.



I think you've misinterpreted the direction of my post somewhat; it was a reference to the fact that I have been described as a Stalinist on this thread for proposing such things as making relatively minor adjustments to people's "right" to park and drive their privately owned cars on the public highway without restriction.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 28, 2015)

LadyV said:


> whatever you may believe drivers have just as much right to be on the roads as anyone else, should they get priority? No, they have to share like everyone else, but so do cyclists. But should drivers be demonised for wanting to do something that is perfectly legal for them to do? No they shouldn't.


This notion that drivers "share" the road - what's your measure of a fair share? Is your fair share of roadspace determined by the size of vehicle that you choose to drive on it? If you own a car does that mean your fair share of roadspace is ten times that of a bicycle owner, or bus passenger?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 28, 2015)

LadyV said:


> As for it's cancellation, the primary reason it was cancelled was because the Fire Brigade complained, without that objection, even with the petition, I think that Jennifer Braithwaite could have made a bold and probably unpopular decision to keep the closures in places to collect more data and to allow it to bed in properly and hope that everyone just got on with it. But she could not ignore that objection, she would be setting herself up for a huge fall if she had. The LFB wouldn't have made that objection if they weren't having issues getting around as the closures did cause some odd bottlenecks that an engine would be delayed by, no one would want to deal with the possible consequences of an engine being delayed.


And on the subject of the Fire Brigade objection - here's what it actually amounted to (the email correspondence is in the appendix to the Lambeth report) -

On the 9th of October (so still very soon after the start of the trial) the station manager writes to Lambeth saying



> Further to our conversation earlier on today I would like to confirm in writing our current objections to the Loughborough Junction Experimental Pedestrian Zone based on the following information and facts received from officers and fire-fighters at Brixton fire Station:-
> 
> Gridlocked roads throughout the Coldharbour Lane area
> Specifically total gridlock at most times of the day and evening in Coldharbour Lane, Herne Hill Road, Hinton Road, Gresham Road and Barrington road to name but a few.
> ...



What this looks like to me is anecdata, supplied in the earlier period of the closures and all relating to congestion, which as we all know subsided significantly as time went on. Also, as I mentiond previously, I was not aware of "gridlock" on Herne Hill Road nor Hinton Rd at any point (in fact I  think I remember a claim at some point that the car wash business on Hinton Rd was in danger of going under because their passing trade had diminished so substantially).

Lambeth then, rightly, questioned these claims, asking fo specific evidence to support them, to which the reply was:



> Further to your recent request I’m afraid that I am unable to provide any specifics to the congestion within the Loughborough Junction Area. One of the main causes for concern were the attendance times for appliances travelling in an easterly direction along Coldharbour Lane. This road forms a primary route for not only Brixton’s appliances but also any additional appliances travelling from further west. In particular of interest are the Hospitals on Denmark Hill. I’m afraid the empirical data is insufficient at this time to make a true contrast between the pre and post experimental zone implementation dates. In order to be truly accurate I would be required to extrapolate data from similar times and days in the week in order to present a true reflection of the impact. I’m afraid an 8 week timeframe is too short and thus we are left with personal accounts of congestion and confusion only
> 
> I am sorry that I cannot be of further help in this matter but I may be able to update this status in a few months time. I hope this helps



So, they are saying all they've got is personal accounts, and they are also saying that an 8 week timeframe is too short to provide meaningful data.

Lambeth then write to them on the 5th of November pointing out the issues with the temporary lights on the HHR junction and also the fact that since these were resolved, traffic has been flowing much better. They ask:



> You suggest that your earlier submission dated 9 October was based on personal accounts of congestion and confusion. Can I therefore ask you to confirm if this submission
> remains an official representation from the LFB and that the objection to the experimental closures still stands.



And the response is:



> Sorry for late reply, but in response to your email, yes this does remain the official response from the LFB and our objection still stands



So that's it - the objection from the LFB was that they had personal reports of congestion on CHL from early in the scheme, but no specific data on the actual impacts on response times, they stated that the time period was too short to come to useful conclusions, and no comment on the fact that the congestion had eased since the date of their initial comments.

Is anyone going to try and argue that that's anything other than a very weak and poorly substantiated objection? Looks to me like Lambeth could very easily have decided as much, and continued the scheme, if they had really wanted. Instead they used this as their get-out clause; their way of justifying copping out when I think we can all see that the reason for their decision was what they percieved to be public pressure.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 28, 2015)

For the record here are the actual responses from the other emergency services - not what certain people were trying to pass as fact on facebook etc with claims that lives were being put at serious risk, etc etc.

Here's what the ambulance service said -



> The data is now back from our Management Information department and whilst there isn’t conclusive evidence that journey times on emergency calls in the area are significantly extended, there are indications that some journeys are being extended. However whilst we would still like to maintain our position that it is likely that journey times have been detrimentally impacted upon by the scheme, we would not be comfortable using such a small dataset (an eight week period which appears to show times increasing in the range of 1 to 2 minutes on average), to formally object to the scheme.
> 
> Confirmation that road closures will not be maintained with physical barriers if the scheme were to be approved also provides some reassurance regarding access and running times.



Here's what the police said (with my bold)



> Thank you for the meeting on Tuesday 3rd November and appraising us with the current position regarding this experimental scheme.
> *Firstly we support any scheme which reduces or has a likelihood to reduce casualties.*
> We also have to take into consideration traffic flows, congestion and the effects of displaced traffic. *There is also the compounded traffic problems created by the local signal modernisation programme.*
> 
> ...


----------



## bimble (Nov 28, 2015)

Gramsci said:


> To "learn" the City try going on a Sunday when its empty.


I really like this idea, will do that thanks.


----------



## Beasley (Nov 28, 2015)

Don't forget the annual Ride London (was Freecycle) events -- they're normally good fun!


----------



## critical1 (Nov 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> For the record here are the actual responses from the other emergency services - not what certain people were trying to pass as fact on facebook etc with claims that lives were being put at serious risk, etc etc.
> 
> Here's what the ambulance service said -
> Here's what the police said (with my bold)



What this looks like to me is anecdata, for the record the actual responses from the emergency services are documented and officially recognised - not what certain people here trying to pass as anecdata... The report from the ambulance service clearly states that lives were being put at serious risk, etc etc. Police, Fire, Ambulance, Doctors... All made submissions, as you probably also did.

This all looks like more spin teuchter...


----------



## critical1 (Nov 28, 2015)

.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 28, 2015)

critical1 said:


> What this looks like to me is anecdata, for the record the actual responses from the emergency services are documented and officially recognised - not what certain people here trying to pass as anecdata... The report from the ambulance service clearly states that lives were being put at serious risk, etc etc. Police, Fire, Ambulance, Doctors... All made submissions, as you probably also did.
> 
> This all looks like more spin teuchter...



What I posted were the official representations of the emergency services, all published as appedices to the Lambeth report here.

Stop lying, please. The ambulance service does not clearly state that lives were being put at serious risk. It states what I have posted above. Anyone can follow the link to check this.


----------



## bimble (Nov 28, 2015)

I'm going to risk being called reasonable again .. think Teuchter is right when he says 


teuchter said:


> Looks to me like Lambeth could very easily have decided as much, and continued the scheme, if they had really wanted. Instead they used this as their get-out clause; their way of justifying copping out when I think we can all see that the reason for their decision was what they perceived to be public pressure.


As at every step of this story though, I don't see the sense in blaming 'the car lobby', or the ambulance people, or me, or the broken traffic lights for its many failures - I can only see a long catalogue of screwups at the town hall.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 28, 2015)

Once one of the emergency services raised an official objection, the council would have exposed themselves to legal action if they had overridden it and subsequently someone died or was seriously injured owing to emergency service response being delayed.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> What I posted were the official representations of the emergency services, all published as appedices to the Lambeth report here.
> 
> Stop lying, please. The ambulance service does not clearly state that lives were being put at serious risk. It states what I have posted above. Anyone can follow the link to check this.


Does not clearly state, only says clearly... I think it's clearly a case of semantics.

(Maybe only moderate risk!!!, but that's ok according to you teuchter)


----------



## critical1 (Nov 28, 2015)




----------



## teuchter (Nov 28, 2015)

irf520 said:


> Once one of the emergency services raised an official objection, the council would have exposed themselves to legal action if they had overridden it and subsequently someone died or was seriously injured owing to emergency service response being delayed.



I am no lawyer but in principle, if you were going to take legal action against Lambeth on that basis you'd have to show that they failed to take reasonable and proportionate action in response to objections from the emergency services. The court would have to look at the nature of the objections raised, and then examine Lambeth's response to those objections.

The fire service told Lambeth that they had personal reports from staff that there was increased congestion on CHL. They didn't quantify this or offer any data on the extent to which this was affecting their response times. What would be a reasonable response to this? It would be to look at the possible causes of this congestion, monitor it and ask the fire service to supply any further information they gathered, and it would be to consider this information at the point when they were deciding whether or not to pull the scheme.

At the point where Lambeth were deciding whether or not to pull the scheme, they knew that the congestion seemed to have eased significantly and the fire service had not supplied them with any further information. So, if the fire brigade's objection was based on a problem that Lambeth knew had significantly diminished since the point in time at whch that objection had been made, then would it be unreasonable or irresponsible of them to continue the scheme in spite of it? No it woudn't and I think a court would agree.

The fact is that all of the concerns* from the emergency services were related to congestion on CHL which was easing at the point in time when the decision was being made. All three of the emergency services said in their statements that 8 weeks was too short a time to draw conclusive evidence from. The police stated explicitly that they believed the transitional period was still in effect. Lambeth had identified that (a) the congestion had reduced and (b) one of the causes had been the traffic lights at HHR, an issue which had been resolved. 

*with the exception of the issue of the temporary physical barriers placed across the roads at various places, and it seems from the email correspondence with the ambulance service that Lambeth had agreed these would be removed in any case.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 28, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Does not clearly state, only says clearly... I think it's clearly a case of semantics.
> 
> (Maybe only moderate risk!!!, but that's ok according to you teuchter)


The ambulance service did not state in any form that lives were being put at serious risk. Stop lying.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 28, 2015)

Of course, all this talk about lives having been put at risk during the closure ignores the fact that lives are being put at risk every single day as a result of motor traffic moving around London.



Every three days or so, someone is killed on London's roads. And every year about 2,000 people are seriously injured. Of those, pedestrians and cyclists outnumber car occupants by about 4 to 1.

Every scheme that tries to reduce the number of cars on the road, and make safer routes for pedestrians and cyclists, is an opportunity to reduce these figures, and this scheme was one of those opportunities.

If its opponents are going to argue that a death during this experiment would have been Lambeth's responsibility, then they themselves should accept the same kind of responsibility for the people who will die and be seriously injured in the future, as a result of efforts to reduce motor vehicle dominance in London being resisted.

That's not speculation - we know for a fact that motor traffic kills and seriously injures people.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> The ambulance service did not state in any form that lives were being put at serious risk. Stop lying.


"It gives them GREAT CONCERN" is what the team leader stated in the report they handed into the Cllrs, see video from 10:19 onwards, if anything he states from his report is not life threatening, I'll eat my shoes...
As for lying I'm not a *master of spin* such as yourself...


Such as did you know your life is at risk even whilst your sleeping or warm weather!
The image you produced you state no source for it, but its probably correct for 2013.
So is this guy from tedX may enlighten you
Copenhagen's bicycle ambassador talks about how important the bicycle is for liveable cities and how bicycle helmets are threatening bicycle culture.



*Five-year death risk,calculator*
Risk Calculator - UbbLE
The researchers who developed the calculator with Sense About Science, a UK charity that works to help people make sense of scientific and medical claims, say it could improve health awareness and also in future be used by family doctors to identify high-risk potential patients.

*Long working hours and risk of coronary heart disease*
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60295-1/abstract
The likely toll of long working hours is revealed in a major new study which shows that employees still at their desks into the evening run an increased risk of stroke – and the longer the hours they put in, the higher the risk.

The largest study conducted on the issue, carried out in three continents and led by scientists at University College London, found that those who work more than 55 hours a week have a 33% increased risk of stroke compared with those who work a 35- to 40-hour week. They also have a 13% increased risk of coronary heart disease.

*Weekend deaths
7 September 2015*

Patients admitted to hospital at the weekend are more likely to be sicker and have a higher risk of death, compared with those admitted during the week, finds an analysis published in _The BMJ_ this week.

- See more at: Higher risk of death for patients admitted to NHS hospitals at the weekend

*Warm weather deaths*
Dr James Bennett, the lead author of the study from the MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health at Imperial College London, said: “It’s well known that warm weather can increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory deaths, especially in elderly people. Climate change is expected to raise average temperatures and increase temperature variability, so we can expect it to have effects on mortality even in countries like the UK with a temperate climate.”

Across England and Wales as a whole, a summer that is 2C warmer than average would be expected to cause around 1,550 extra deaths, the study found. Just over half would be in people aged over 85, and 62 per cent would be in women. The extra deaths would be distributed unevenly, with 95 out of 376 districts accounting for half of all deaths.

The effects of warm temperature were similar in urban and rural districts. The most vulnerable districts included deprived districts in London such as Hackney and Tower Hamlets, with the odds of dying more than doubling on very hot days like those of August 2003.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 28, 2015)

And then


teuchter said:


> The ambulance service did not state in any form that lives were being put at serious risk. Stop lying.



And then teuchter... this is very good visualisation to view deaths (all lives matter), but maybe its not good enough for you.
*Mortality statistics: every cause of death in England and Wales*
Mortality statistics: every cause of death in England and Wales, visualised | Datablog
 
Link to FULL image
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/10/28/Factfile_deaths_2_2011.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Nov 28, 2015)

critical1 said:


> "It gives them GREAT CONCERN" is what the team leader stated in the report they handed into the Cllrs, see video from 10:19 onwards, if anything he states from his report is not life threatening, I'll eat my shoes...


You are now talking about the letter from the team leader at Oval Ambulance station. This appears to articulate his own concerns; it is not included or mentioned in the official submission from the London Ambulance Service.

Anyway, it is within the LJ Road madness "report" which is also in the appendices here.

Nowhere in his report does it say it gives them "great concern" as you claim. This is a minor point; I am just pointing out another instance of you either deliberately presenting false information, or failing to present accurate information.

Anyway, yes, in that (as far as I can tell unofficial, in as much as it is not acknowledged by the correspondence from central LAS management) report, concerns are raised about the closures. One concern is about the temporary barriers which I already mentioned - it appears Lambeth had already agreed to remove these. The other concerns about emergency response times relate mainly to the effect of increased congestion on CHL. That letter is dated 1st October, quite soon after implementation. Between the time that letter was written, and the point where the decision about pulling the scheme was being made, the congestion had reduced significantly. Their concerns were about something that appeared to be in the process of disappearing.

I'm not even going to start trying to figure out what point you're trying to make with your data-dump of assorted articles about risks and causes of death. I expect it is an incoherent one.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You are now talking about the letter from the team leader at Oval Ambulance station. This appears to articulate his own concerns; it is not included or mentioned in the official submission from the London Ambulance Service....



You obviously in your rush to reply ignored the video and that this report was a paper one which was handed over to Cllr Rachel Heywood and also to Cllr Jennifer Braithwaite, he also read from the report on the above video from 10:19 (which you conveniently ignore). 
Lambeth in it's wisdom removed the barriers on a Sunday, the day before the article appeared in the Evening Standard, now that's what I call a reactive action it negates negative press.

But heyho if you gotta spin you have to spin... 
Whether its on the video or not is not the point, sometimes documents are omitted as you know very well, such as in the call-in, you should be working for Lib Peck with your spin factor, not everything is as simple as you put it or maybe it is for you, remember the cobbled together info clearly states deaths from cycling on the top right sector of the image in RED stated as 96 deaths due to cycling to call it cobbled together is insensitive and dismissive, every life matters even those 96 you tried to ignore. 

Anyway if you your not interested in the truth or bigger picture, or only your own version of the truth so be it, you have been corrected over your spin so many times.
 
Link to FULL image
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/10/28/Factfile_deaths_2_2011.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Nov 28, 2015)

critical1 said:


> You obviously in your rush to reply ignored the video and that this report was a paper one which was handed over to Cllr Rachel Heywood and also to Cllr Jennifer Braithwaite, he also read from the report on the above video from 10:19 (which you conveniently ignore).



What have I ignored? What are you on about? The report read out in the video is the same one that was included in the LJRM submission is it not? The one that was handed in to the council and included in the appendices to Lambeth's final report, which I linked to above. The one that I was talking about, not ignoring.







critical1 said:


> not everything is as simple as you put it or maybe it is for you, remember the cobbled together info clearly states deaths from cycling on the top right sector of the image in RED stated as 96 deaths due to cycling to call it cobbled together is insensitive and dismissive, every life matters even those 96 you tried to ignore.



What point are you trying to make by quoting this figure of 96 cycling deaths? Why do you think I am ignoring cyclist deaths when I have been specifically been arguing that measures to reduce motor traffic in London can help reduce pedestrian and cyclist deaths on our roads?

It is a measure intended to help to reduce that number of 96 that you have been so vociferously opposing all through this thread.

And I suggest you also pay some attention to this part of the diagram. Respiratory disease is linked to air pollution and air pollution is linked to the number of motor vehicles on the road.

 

And the scheme you have been opposing is one that could have helped to reduce the number of motor vehicles on London's Roads. You have been opposing something that could help reduce the red circles and the blue circles on your diagram.

And your justification for that is speculation about the possible consequences of a temporary disruption to traffic flow for emergency response times. A disruption which we could see was starting to disappear. And we don't even have solid data that says what the effects really were, during that period of increased congestion. The emergency services themselves confirm that the time period was too short to draw conclusions. All we have is people like you making unsubstantiated claims on the internet and pretending they are based on objective fact. And the result of that is that something that could have improved people's health and saved lives has been scrapped, without us having the chance to make good decisions based on evidence instead of scaremongering and fabricated stories.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 28, 2015)

teuchter said:


> unsubstantiated claims on the internet and pretending they are based on objective fact.



Yet you use it to prove your point! about Respiratory diseases???
*I would have thought *
The Office for National Statistics is reputable, 
The lancet is reputable, 
Research project data from the UK Biobank: a large-scale national health resource is reputable,​But heyho they are only claims on the internet and obviously not up to your proffessional standard. Where did you get your info from Borris's office?

I note your continued use of the words *evidence throughout* your campaign, which are of course totally unsubstantiated claims to have the roads closed, also your lack of compensation packages to local businesses in lou of closure or financial ruin, also to add you have not stated where your subjective and scientific anecdotal evidence is based upon...

It appears your so called scientific evidence is based of fabricated assumptions and anecdotal evidence, that is what makes your statements carry much more spin than anyone else.

Again you are the master of Spin, you and Lib Peck would lead a merry dance, maybe you should email her and do a partnership.


----------



## bimble (Nov 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I am no lawyer but in principle, if you were going to take legal action against Lambeth on that basis you'd have to show that they failed to take reasonable and proportionate action in response to objections from the emergency services. The court would have to look at the nature of the objections raised, and then examine Lambeth's response to those objections.



Just going back to the question of why did Lambeth really decide to scrap the scheme after 3 months ..

I think it may have had something to do with the fact that two barristers took it upon themselves -independently, spontaneously - to send numerous objection emails on their headed paper, both looking quite closely at the consultation process.

Seeing what's just happened with Cressingham Gardens (Judicial Review victory announced this week against Lambeth _on account of its flawed consultation process_) I imagine that any mention of that word in relation to the consultation here, or in fact any close attention by legal experts, was taken pretty seriously at town hall. No idea what it cost them in legal fees but the loss of face expensive in itself. 

eg) from the cressingham legal team's statement after victory on Tuesday;  “This is a clear lesson in how not to conduct a consultation.."
Cressingham Gardens’ tenant wins High Court legal battle against Lambeth Council

Having said that though, the idiotic decision to stick those physical barriers across the roads to enforce the closures early on seems to me to have been a serious mistake: It took them about two weeks to remove them and that whole exercise was a stunningly stupid move for the credibility of a scheme which clearly said 'emergency vehicles will have full access through the area' etc. (I sent an email around asking about this on 18th sept and go no answer from anyone at all ever).
Even though the police did not issue a formal statement saying they wanted the experiment to end, I know that Chief Inspector Roy Smith was appalled when he saw the roadblocks and let the council know his thoughts at that time.
Anyway, that whole embarrassing episode surely did not help the council's case or its confidence.


----------



## Aeryn (Nov 29, 2015)

The giant palm trees on Padfield Road are still there. Does anyone know who installed them? They don't look very official (and cars still just mount the pavement to get past them). 

If they are going to stay in place, the council could do with putting some signage up - I saw at least two cars that had driven straight into them (yes the drivers probably took the corner too fast, but one does not generally expect to find a grove of unilluminated palm trees obstructing the carriageway). Maybe they could be replaced with a normal barrier (with reflective strips, etc).


----------



## bimble (Nov 29, 2015)

Aeryn said:


> The giant palm trees on Padfield Road are still there. Does anyone know who installed them? They don't look very official (and cars still just mount the pavement to get past them).
> 
> If they are going to stay in place, the council could do with putting some signage up - I saw at least two cars that had driven straight into them (yes the drivers probably took the corner too fast, but one does not generally expect to find a grove of unilluminated palm trees obstructing the carriageway). Maybe they could be replaced with a normal barrier (with reflective strips, etc).



You should get in touch with the powers that be - they have funds to improve these things and say they want input into what to do. Not sure but you could try  JBrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk & maybe GWright@lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## critical1 (Nov 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> You should get in touch with the powers that be - they have funds to improve these things and say they want input into what to do. Not sure but you could try  JBrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk & maybe GWright@lambeth.gov.uk




Yes get in touch and ask them what is this New Experimental Road Closure about? As they evidently have not consulted anyone about it as yet!

It will be interesting to hear the reply.


----------



## bimble (Nov 29, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Yes get in touch and ask them what is this New Experimental Road Closure about?



Do you know why those two closures were kept ? It's a bit surreal down there at the padfield palm trees, just loads of car repair garages one cafe and those 3 giant plant pots.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 29, 2015)

bimble said:


> Yes, do you know why those two closures were kept ? It's a bit surreal down there at the pad field palm trees, 100% car repair one cafe and those 3 giant plant pots.



All I know is that Cllr Braithwaite announced that Calai St and Padfield Rd are the start of a new "New Experimental Road Closure" but as to why, there has been nothing said!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 29, 2015)

You lot haven't even bothered to read the report, have you. Quelle surprise.


----------



## bimble (Nov 29, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You lot haven't even bothered to read the report, have you. Quelle surprise.


It just said Padfield street was the 'least controversial" closure. It's also the only one with plant pots.. 
"You lot" ?


----------



## Beasley (Nov 29, 2015)

Meanwhile, Lambeth has something new for us to argue about:

www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/ruskin-park-to-kennington-park-greenway-phase-1


----------



## irf520 (Nov 29, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Meanwhile, Lambeth has something new for us to argue about:
> 
> www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/ruskin-park-to-kennington-park-greenway-phase-1



Well at least it doesn't involve closing any roads. Just a few more pointless kerb build outs. I especially like the one opposite Wickwood Street - I wonder if the lorries in and out of there will be able to get round the corner after they've narrowed it?

Can they really not find anything more important to spend scarce funds on than this stuff?


----------



## critical1 (Nov 30, 2015)

teuchter said:


> You lot haven't even bothered to read the report, have you. Quelle surprise.



Pot calling itself..


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Meanwhile, Lambeth has something new for us to argue about:
> www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/ruskin-park-to-kennington-park-greenway-phase-1


Never even knew I live right next to 'Foreign Street' !
Extremely mild little measures here fas I can tell, ways of spending the TFL money that they need to spend. 
The only practical problem I can see is with the proposed curb buildout in Gordon Grove, very close to the scrapyard entrance: This street is already very narrow for the large lorries that have to use it.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Never even knew I live right next to 'Foreign Street' !
> Extremely mild little measures here fas I can tell, ways of spending the TFL money that they need to spend.
> The only practical problem I can see is with the proposed curb buildout in Gordon Grove, very close to the scrapyard entrance: This street is already very narrow for the large lorries that have to use it.



They don't mention improved lighting, it's a real issue around Gordon Grove/Elam Pk, not the park itself as its closed in the evenings but the surrounding area is very dimly lit, I suppose the new lighting from the street signs may help a bit.

As a cycle route, it's not one I would personally use...


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> They don't mention improved lighting, it's a real issue around Gordon Grove/Elam Pk, not the park itself as its closed in the evenings but the surrounding area is very dimly lit, I suppose the new lighting from the street signs may help a bit.
> As a cycle route, it's not one I would personally use...



It is a little bit dickensian just here when walking home at night down Gordon grove, under the railway track and all but got to confess i kind of like it.
I've heard stories about this spot as a once popular location for dodgy dealings but I've never once had a problem, or even seen anyone hanging out in an antisocial manner.
Personally I have a pet hate for light pollution, unnecessary lighting making the night sky bright orange. 
Gloomy is good.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

Here's a bit of fun for the modal shifters and statisticians amongst us ( teuchter )
Little article in Graun today by someone who has done his time at the side of the road.. 
Cycling on Vauxhall Bridge: a 'liar' claim and a few damned statistics


----------



## irf520 (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Here's a bit of fun for the modal shifters and statisticians amongst us ( teuchter )
> Little article in Graun today by someone who has done his time at the side of the road..
> Cycling on Vauxhall Bridge: a 'liar' claim and a few damned statistics



I started using Vauxhall Bridge again after a long hiatus about 4 weeks ago. I think they've done a reasonable job with the road layout - still 2 lanes + bus lane northbound over the bridge, now 2 lanes with no bus lane southbound. This is actually better than it was before. Before you had 2 lanes + bus lane going south, but the bus lane was on the right and the left lane was always occupied by cyclists, so you were effectively down to one lane. Going over the bridge at around 0620 northbound or around 2000 southbound, all seems OK ... until one day last week I reached there just before 1800 and it took me 15 minutes to get from the end of Lupus Street to Vauxhall Bridge Road (about 100 yards). They've bolloxed up the traffic lights so that whenever the light goes green for traffic coming from Lupus St, there is no room for anyone to actually get out (about one car every other cycle of the lights).


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

Far too many numbers in there irf520


----------



## irf520 (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Here's a bit of fun for the modal shifters and statisticians amongst us ( teuchter )
> Little article in Graun today by someone who has done his time at the side of the road..
> Cycling on Vauxhall Bridge: a 'liar' claim and a few damned statistics



It doesn't surprise me that a large number of cyclists are still riding on the road. There are a couple of videos on youtube of people riding the new cycle route for the first time and in the comments there are complaints about the places where you have to cross the road.


----------



## irf520 (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Far too many numbers in there irf520



Note to self - don't use 24 hour clock ...


----------



## irf520 (Nov 30, 2015)

At least there are no statistics. You can prove anything with statistics ...


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

irf520 said:


> At least there are no statistics. You can prove anything with statistics ...


68% of residents..


----------



## irf520 (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> 68% of residents..



 8 out of 10 cats ...


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

76% of all statistics..


----------



## critical1 (Nov 30, 2015)

irf520 said:


> 8 out of 10 cats ...


who's cats?


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

There's an actual consultation on these new ideas, like on the actual 'consultations' page of the Lambeth website!
Closing day is Sunday.
Ruskin Park to Kennington Park Greenway - Phase 1 | Lambeth Council

But it is just yes or no; 'do you support this idea yes or no' .
No comment boxes, whatsoever.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Here's a bit of fun for the modal shifters and statisticians amongst us ( teuchter )
> Little article in Graun today by someone who has done his time at the side of the road..
> Cycling on Vauxhall Bridge: a 'liar' claim and a few damned statistics



Vauxhall Bridge is or was a bit of a nightmare in the past, pleased to see they have somehow sorted it out for the time being... 
Bimble Gordon Grove by the bridge is a scene of many a London Gangland movie, it's a wonder more real life heinous crimes have not occurred there.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> There's an actual consultation on these new ideas, like on the actual 'consultations' page of the Lambeth website!
> Closing day is Sunday.
> Ruskin Park to Kennington Park Greenway - Phase 1 | Lambeth Council
> 
> ...



What would you expect from Lambeth... a proper consultation?
At least they now ask for your post code & I do like this question:
*Which of these activities best describes your employment status at present?* Don't Know


----------



## irf520 (Nov 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> who's cats?



Evil looking vampire cat


----------



## irf520 (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> There's an actual consultation on these new ideas, like on the actual 'consultations' page of the Lambeth website!
> Closing day is Sunday.
> Ruskin Park to Kennington Park Greenway - Phase 1 | Lambeth Council
> 
> ...



You know how the saying goes - "If I wanted your opinion, I would have asked for it". What would they want comments for? That's just complicating the issue.


----------



## bimble (Nov 30, 2015)

critical1 said:


> What would you expect from Lambeth... a proper consultation?
> At least they now ask for your post code & I do like this question:
> *Which of these activities best describes your employment status at present?* Don't Know


I quite enjoy clicking 'don't know' on their ethnicity pages, which take up half the space on their questionnaires.


----------



## critical1 (Nov 30, 2015)

I read with interest today The Guardian article about Cressingham Gardens, makes for interesting reading in light of how the consultation was illegal by the courts...
Lambeth wanted to demolish our homes. We said that was illegal - and we were right

On 24 November, the high court found Lambeth council had acted unlawfully when it removed three options from a public consultation over plans to redevelop the Cressingham Gardens estate in Lambeth, south London.

Since 2012, Lambeth has been trying to demolish 300 homes for redevelopment. Last November, the council started a consultation process with tenants on how to regenerate the estate. But four months later, the refurbishment options were taken out of the consultation, leaving options involving just full or part demolition of our homes.

So much jiggery pokery with Lambeth I'm surprised that Lambeth Cllrs haven't resigned yet!


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2015)

irf520 said:


> It doesn't surprise me that a large number of cyclists are still riding on the road. There are a couple of videos on youtube of people riding the new cycle route for the first time and in the comments there are complaints about the places where you have to cross the road.



Using that one now. Going up from Oval.

Coming from Wandsworth/ Nine Elms you do have to go across and join the new cycle route.

Not a real problem. Why some cyclists aren’t using I dont really understand. As north of Vauxhall Bridge going towards Victoria on the cycle route means one does not have to get through that big junction. The cycle route bypasses it and its a lot safer that way.

Some of my more gung ho cycling acquaintances like the adrenalin rush of being in traffic and arent enthusiastic about the new highways for that reason.

Agree that design does not seem to be affecting motorised traffic. Partly as cycle route is on the old bus lane southbound. So no new space is taken up.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2015)

Beasley said:


> Meanwhile, Lambeth has something new for us to argue about:
> 
> www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/ruskin-park-to-kennington-park-greenway-phase-1



This is alternative to closing off roads. Imo should be taken seriously as possibility for Loughborough road. LJ. Actually contains some of ideas that LadyV have mentioned in relation to LJ.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> Here's a bit of fun for the modal shifters and statisticians amongst us ( teuchter )
> Little article in Graun today by someone who has done his time at the side of the road..
> Cycling on Vauxhall Bridge: a 'liar' claim and a few damned statistics



Hill has never been much of a supporter of cycle lanes.

To my suprise he supports the closing off of Bank to traffic except cyclists and buses. A much more radical proposal considering its a main route for traffic going north/ south and West/ east though the city.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 30, 2015)

bimble said:


> There's an actual consultation on these new ideas, like on the actual 'consultations' page of the Lambeth website!
> Closing day is Sunday.
> Ruskin Park to Kennington Park Greenway - Phase 1 | Lambeth Council
> 
> ...



There are "greenway" routes in London. I use a few around Oval and Kennington.

For those who aren’t keen on the busy main roads they are an alternative. They take a bit of finding and working out. For some reason not that well sign posted. Though marked on TFL cycling maps
Which are free and worth getting.

Quietways are being promoted by TFL:


> Linking key destinations, they will follow backstreet routes, through parks, along waterways or tree-lined streets.
> 
> The routes will overcome barriers to cycling, targeting cyclists who want to use quieter, low-traffic routes, providing an environment for those cyclists who want to travel at a more gentle pace.
> 
> Each Quietway will provide a continuous route for cyclists and every London borough will benefit from the programme.



The context in my perusal of TFL website is Boris "Vision for Cycling"

Which I dont have a problem with despite him being a Tory.


----------



## bimble (Dec 1, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Bimble Gordon Grove by the bridge is a scene of many a London Gangland movie, it's a wonder more real life heinous crimes have not occurred there.


I didn't mean to joke about it. I'm sure that some people feel really unsafe walking there at night and that is not good. But, it will have been chosen by those film makers for its atmosphere, because where else in London has that moody look these days. And also, the heinous crime that happened here in the Summer happened in the middle of Flaxman Road in broad daylight -  city planning for crime prevention is not something I'm a fan of in general.


----------



## critical1 (Dec 1, 2015)

Just heard that allegedly the illustrious Town Planner George Wright does not work for Lambeth apparently he's a consultant paid by CAPITA, this is the age of the consultant within Lambeth (private consultant) says a lot about impartiality and transparency, I wonder if LJAG knew about this as they now appear to be very silent.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 1, 2015)

critical1 said:


> Just heard that allegedly the illustrious Town Planner George Wright does not work for Lambeth apparently he's a consultant paid by CAPITA, this is the age of the consultant within Lambeth (private consultant) says a lot about impartiality and transparency, I wonder if LJAG knew about this as they now appear to be very silent.


I think it highly unlikely that George Wright is a Capita person. He is not doing parking fines.

Unfortunately GW does not appear to be a user of LinkedIn so we don't have it from the horse's mouth. But that in itself makes it less likely he is agency staff. He has certainly been around Lambeth Transport planning a long time (since 1995 approx).

Why don't you do an FOI instead of speculating mischievously?


----------



## Beasley (Dec 2, 2015)

In emails he signs himself:
Project  Manager, Capital Delivery Team, London Borough of Lambeth.

Could there be some confusion between Capita and Capital?


----------



## CH1 (Dec 2, 2015)

Beasley said:


> In emails he signs himself:
> Project  Manager, Capital Delivery Team, London Borough of Lambeth.
> Could there be some confusion between Capita and Capital?


This job seems to be in the same department - and the JD is a masterpiece of NOT saying what is is all about:
http://www.jobsgopublic.com/job/business-support-officer-capital-delivery-team-llh0387/rss


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2015)

This is relevant to 'Loughborough Junction Public Space "Improvements" so I'm going to double post it:


I'm very concerned that 'regeneration' here means what was proposed in several of the Masterplan Drawings:

The total removal of the existing (beautiful handmade imaginative) adventure playground on Gordon Grove and the construction of some version of a playground in Elam street Open Space (the dogwalking area opposite) instead, So that the land where the playground now stands can be developed into flats.

Please come if you can - at a few hours notice in the middle of a weekday afternoon.


----------



## Beasley (Dec 2, 2015)

This may also provide an opportunity to discuss the highway alterations proposed for the Cycle Greenway scheme that is presently the subject of a very brief and virtually secret consultation with no proper documentation or map to show the overall route.

As for this short section, in my view the park is too small and it's paths too narrow for shared use by cyclists and pedestrians. A more suitable cycle and pedestrian route would be on the footpath between the park and the flats.

If that were correct then the pavement alterations proposed for Gorden Grove and Lilford Road would appear to be in the wrong places but as far as I am aware the matter has never been publicly discussed.


----------



## Beasley (Dec 2, 2015)

For info, the council has just emailed 'interested parties'  regarding the Loughborough Junction and Myatt’s Field experimental road closures.

An update report on the scheme will be a minor item on the agenda of the next Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting at 7pm in Streatham Library on 9 December:

Agenda for Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday 9 December 2015, 7.00 pm | Lambeth Council


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2015)

All I've got is the latest edition of Lambeth's completely bizarre newsletter thing. 
http://sut6.co.uk/l/c.php?c=17118&ct=254415&si=41321208&u


----------



## irf520 (Dec 2, 2015)

bimble said:


> This is relevant to 'Loughborough Junction Public Space "Improvements" so I'm going to double post it:
> 
> View attachment 80313
> I'm very concerned that 'regeneration' here means what was proposed in several of the Masterplan Drawings:
> ...



Problem is, if you look at it from the bean counters' perspective:

Adventure playground - upfront cost to refurbish plus ongoing cost for maintenance and staffing (if that is required).
Flats - upfront lump sum payment when they sell land to developers, plus guaranteed X amount per year in council tax.

If you're a bean counter, what's not to like about flats?


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2015)




----------



## irf520 (Dec 2, 2015)

bimble said:


>



What's that for? Did you go to the meeting?


----------



## bimble (Dec 2, 2015)

irf520 said:


> What's that for? Did you go to the meeting?


yep. I'll try to be more eloquent about it tomorrow .


----------



## CH1 (Dec 2, 2015)

irf520 said:


> What's that for? Did you go to the meeting?


I went out of curiosity. The event was strictly to do with the adventure playground and seemed a bit disorganised.
I just wanted to see what the facilities were, so I had a quick dekho - pleased to meet bimble.
Met Cllr Matt Parr at the adventure playground entrance on my way out - so pleased to say at least one ward councillor turned up for the event.
Maybe bimble will have more tomorrow.


----------



## bimble (Dec 3, 2015)

Does anybody have a link to a recent incarnation of the LJ masterplan please? 
Lambeth website says it's supposed to be all finalised and consulted by now but there's no actual information apart from this :
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pl-loughborough-junction-masterplan-booklet-2015-2.pdf


----------



## Crispy (Dec 3, 2015)

Of great interest to readers of this thread will be the new book "Urban Transport Without the Hot Air: Volume 1: Sustainable Solutions for UK Cities"
A thoroughly evidence-based analysis of how best to move people goods around large cities.

Overview/review here: Urban Transport Without the Hot Air: confusing the issue with relevant facts!

Standout paragraph (emphasis mine):



> The problem with faster, cheaper public transport on its own is that it primarily substitutes for walking and cycling, not driving. Only disincentives for driving, such as *"permeable" one-way systems that let buses/trams, pedestrians and cyclists get around faster than private vehicles*; high-cost, limited parking; and similar measures can be shown to consistently reduce the number of trips taken by drivers.



teuchter, you are Steve Melia and I claim my £5


----------



## teuchter (Dec 3, 2015)

Looks good... the title seems to be a rip-off of "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" which is fairly essential reading, and made available to everyone for free.

Looks like you have to buy this one though.

Anyone wondering what to get me for Christmas?


----------



## Crispy (Dec 3, 2015)

It's a series by the same publisher. There's also Drugs and Recycling


----------



## Fingers (Dec 5, 2015)

friendofdorothy why are you not at the cider bar


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 7, 2015)

Fingers said:


> friendofdorothy why are you not at the cider bar


Glad you missed me.


----------



## critical1 (Dec 16, 2015)

Chugworthy battle continues on Calais Street
with barriers being placed into road.


----------



## Angellic (Jan 5, 2016)

This arrived today.

Loughborough Junction Masterplan | Lambeth Council


----------



## CH1 (Jan 5, 2016)

Angellic said:


> This arrived today.
> Loughborough Junction Masterplan | Lambeth Council


Maybe Tricky Skills will do one of his revealing FOEs so we find out what the damage was (in terms of consultants fees)?


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 5, 2016)

Angellic said:


> This arrived today.
> 
> Loughborough Junction Masterplan | Lambeth Council



This is being discussed on the LJ chitter chat thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 18, 2016)

Got this today:

(Wonder who has been invited to the "public realm steering group"? As first time I have heard its meeting.)



*Change of time:  The next meeting of the LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forum will take place on Thursday 28 January at 8pm at the Loughborough Centre.*
The next meeting of the Forum was due to take place on Wednesday 20 January but has been put back to Thursday 28 January to allow for the availability of Councillor Matt Parr and the results of Lambeth's bid to the GLA regeneration fund for the Loughborough Farm triangle site  which should be known on 21 January.

The time of the meeting has been put back in order that Councillor Brathwaite's public realm steering group can meet beforehand at 6.30pm. The progress of this group with be an item on the agenda which is to follow.

Please do ring if you have any queries

See below links to:
1.   Minutes of the meeting of the Forum on 17 December 2015
2.   Result of Stage 2 of the consultion on the LJ masterplan
3.   Minutes of Councillor Brathwaite's public realm steering group.

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6783...es/LJAGLJNeighbourhoodPF17_12_2015minutes.pdf

Loughborough Junction Masterplan | Lambeth Council
http:://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ho-LJSG01-Final-Minutes-Dec-15th.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Jan 18, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Got this today:
> 
> (Wonder who has been invited to the "public realm steering group"? As first time I have heard its meeting.)



These people according to the minutes of the previous one


----------



## CH1 (Jan 19, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> Got this today:
> 
> (Wonder who has been invited to the "public realm steering group"? As first time I have heard its meeting.)
> 
> ...


I never heard about it either - though was so ill I could not have gone (on 15th December).
"Thank you for letting me know"


----------



## Lizzy Mac (May 28, 2016)

Is this where the road closures were discussed?  Apols if wrong.  I spotted this update on another forum 
Loughborough Junction - what you need to know | Lambeth Council.


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2016)

Lizzy Mac said:


> Is this where the road closures were discussed?  Apols if wrong.  I spotted this update on another forum
> Loughborough Junction - what you need to know | Lambeth Council.



What has happened is that the Council has now caved in completely to the motorist.

There will be a further statutory consultation on the "improvements" that the new steering group are formulating. This is planned to be soon. Will let people here know when they start.

My opinion is that its a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic have been ruled out of the discussion. So the new improvements will be motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.

So people will not be given different options to comment on. All roads will be open to the motorist. See the opening up of Padfield and Calais road. So I don’t know what exactly we are going to be asked to comment on - very little imo.


----------



## CH1 (May 28, 2016)

Gramsci said:


> What has happened is that the Council has now caved in completely to the motorist.
> 
> There will be a further statutory consultation on the "improvements" that the new steering group are formulating. This is planned to be soon. Will let people here know when they start.
> 
> ...


It is conceivable that in the next couple of years the issue might come back - when the Higgs and Hinton Road sites are built. They would be far more affected by traffic than the Loughbrough Estate I imagine. Loughborough has plenty of space whereas the new buildings will be right on the road it looks like.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 8, 2016)

Not sure which thread to post this but here goes;

‘Mini Holland’ scheme hailed as major success as traffic falls by half

Angellic posted this up on LJ Masterplan thread. More appropriate here. 

Its the Walthamstow "mini Holland" 

Waltham Forest Council pushed it through despite opposition. This article suggests its becoming a success. 

Lambeth have effectively ditched there manifesto committment to making Lambeth a cycle and pedestrian friendly borough. 

I have seen the Walthamstow Mini Holland as a friend of mine lives in it.

It basically stops rat runs. 

Lambeth even gave up on keeping Padfield Road ( by the Coop) from being a rat run to avoid the lights at the junction.


----------

