Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by teuchter, May 8, 2019.

  1. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    About Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood

    In principle this is all good, and very welcome - I support the aims and hope it gets somewhere.

    The first question raised for me, looking at the website, and thinking of making comments as requested, is: who am I talking to?

    "Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood" isn't an arm of, or proposal from, TfL or Lambeth; it seems to be an independent thing.

    I'd like to understand who's behind it and a bit more about exactly how it interacts with TfL and Lambeth's policies.

    I'm not asking because I feel there's anything sinister, but because I think other people will want to know, and it's not entirely spelt out on the website.
     
    thebackrow and Winot like this.
  2. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    Looks like it's actually Lambeth Council. Slightly odd that they have not made that clear on the website - perhaps they feel their brand is sullied?

    Love Lambeth
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  3. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    Also, a bit embarrassing that they have labelled Hill Mead Primary School on the pdf map as "Mill Head".
     
    teuchter and snowy_again like this.
  4. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I've heard its TFL idea. With Brixton being chosen as one of the "liveable neighbourhoods".

    Its top down idea.
     
  5. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

  6. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

  7. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I agree who is the "we" in the project website? Very odd this isn't made clear.
     
  8. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    It does seem that the "we" is Lambeth.
    This is sort of buried in the pdf project summary linked to from the website.
    One of the reasons is wierd to have the whole thing totally debranded is that it asks for details if you want to comment. But you really are given no idea who you are giving those details to.
     
  9. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

  10. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    That's a particularly negative interpretation of it. Much of Lambeth Council's budget for transport and streets comes from TfL. Lambeth need to bid for the funding with proposals that meet the mayors Strategy Objectives.

    Lambeth has its own Transport Strategy - Have your say on Lambeth's Draft Transport Strategy | Lambeth Council and measures to improve conditions for walking and cycling and public transport above the minority in private motor vehicles seems to be the heart of it. It doesn't really matter what 'brand' it has if it makes things better does it?

    "I agree who is the "we" in the project website? Very odd this isn't made clear."
    Its a scheme on public streets in Lambeth, I think it's fairly safe to assume that its Lambeth Council. It literally can't be anyone else.
     
    paul mckenna likes this.
  11. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    It's now become quite common for things to be initiated by community groups, etc, even if the actual implementation is done by the council. Or there are blurry lines between who is actually organising stuff. Locally there was the Loughborough Junction Masterplan, described at various points as being 'co-produced' by the council and a local action group. There was also the whole Brixton Green thing. There is the LJ works project where the application for funding was put in, as I half-understand it, with 'support from' Lambeth rather than 'by' Lambeth.
     
  12. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    upload_2019-5-9_10-30-20.png
    We've discussed this, and pedestrianising CHL, many times on here. No-one has yet come up with a sensible plan that doesn't simply shift the traffic to increase pressure somewhere else.

    Just doing AR will most likely mean traffic trying to get to/from Brixton Road using CHL and the main drag. That will add 6,000 to the 25,000 vehicles per day already using that stretch. They'll probably go round St Matthews, with more slow moving, stop-start pollution, so some drivers may choose Gresham Rd or Loughborough Rd, which are residential.

    That said, it will gentrify the market a bit, and a planner will win an award.
     
  13. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    These are just the usual old arguments. By this logic we can't try and reduce traffic elsewhere. To reduce traffic in london you have to make it less convenient to drive. If closing AR makes certain journeys less convenient then fewer people will drive. Traffic does not simply get displaced on a 1:1 basis. This is well studied, basic stuff.
     
    DJWrongspeed, co-op, BigTom and 3 others like this.
  14. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Basically the argument says, congested road traffic causes pollution. Therefore we need to relieve the congestion at the expense of pedestrians, instead of getting rid of the the things that cause the congestion and pollution. It's bonkers.
     
  15. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Sure, if the schemes are sensible. But to make a difference on the sort of scale required needs a bit more than piecemeal. Rationing, say, or odd/even number plate days, or no entry to London from the M25 before 10am.

    Adding a few seconds or tiny number of minutes to a journey isn't going to make much odds. How many do you think were deterred from driving because the section outside Herne Hill station was pedestrianised?

    Anyway, far more pedestrians will be affected by extra traffic past the main bus stops and tube than use Atlantic Road, so in its own terms this has never been well thought out- which was the point I made.
     
  16. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    Isn’t that the point? This isnt just a piecemeal scheme - it isnt “just” closing Atlantic Road. In theory it covers pretty much everywhere within a 10 minute or so walk from central Brixton.

    Enough private car trips within London are less than a couple of miles long that adding a few minutes might be enough that someone thinks it’s no longer worth it and decides to walk instead. A lot more people might be able to get to the bus stops and tube through streets that are truly quiet where the air quality is better than now.

    You mention Herne Hill - at the time everyone said that was going to be a disaster but I dont think anyone is fighting to return it to through traffic. It’s a much better environment around the station now.
     
    Winot likes this.
  17. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    what theory? That's not what the proposal says, it's specific to AR.

    But if I've misread and the proposal is to close all of central Brixton to traffic then please tell me more, I'm all ears.

    Is there any evidence that it reduced traffic rather than displaced it?
     
  18. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

  19. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    upload_2019-5-9_15-35-50.png
    It's the detail I'm asking about.

    upload_2019-5-9_15-36-42.png
    This proposal has been discussed for years: where are the facts to support it?

    upload_2019-5-9_15-39-54.png
    Indeed.

    upload_2019-5-9_15-40-40.png
    The potential side-effects of this specific proposal are what I'm trying to discuss, not the general case you seem to keep returning to.
     
  20. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    Without having access to any specific data i’d say the lack of a campaign to reopen it means the overall impact is felt positive at Herne Hill. It certainly feels it to me and the other roads dont feel noticeably worse.

    Assuming Atlantic Road is to close what other measures do you think are needed to minimise the impacts on other roads? Add them to the consultation? Atlantic Road is a shit for all users at the moment - it’s horrid to walk down, dangerous on a bike, and frustrating in a car (and buses get held up). Do you really think the status quo is the best for Brixton?
     
  21. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    That's fair enough, of course the details are important and the Loughborough Junction road closures were an example of a scheme which failed not because the basic idea was bad but because of the way it was implemented.

    I am yet to read up on the proposals for this scheme so can't answer the specific questions right now; however, I post the facts backing up the general point that the effects of displacement are usually over-egged because I know that this is very commonly an initial objection. Anyone coming to this thread, who has worries about the effects of displaced traffic, can read that general commentary alongside looking at the particulars of this scheme. People are of course free to put their worries about negative effects into the comments on the map, and I'd hope that the people designing the scheme will make the effort to counter those properly, and/or adjust the proposals to take any valid concerns into account.
     
  22. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Simply saying that improving that poor environment for that group of users without considering the noise, air quality and dangers along the main road isn't sufficient to make the case.

    Personally I prefer evidence based proposals to generic wishful thinking, so I'd like to see some sort of environmental impact study to understand what's actually at stake, and who will be the winners and who the losers. I'd like to see results of a traffic survey showing where the claimed 6,000 vehicles a day come from and go to. Then I'd like to see all the affected junction layouts and so on. Without that sort of information I don't see how anyone can decide if they're in favour or not.

    For instance, I'm sure a few people live on AR, but not many, and nothing like as many as on the high street. Not as many use it either. So cleaning up for them while increasing the impact on the people living on Brixton Road (E2A and CHL) needs to be justified. For years TfL and the boroughs have been pushing traffic onto main roads, but now the mother of a little girl who died from asthma is making waves and it's becoming apparent that there are losers from this policy.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2019
    Gramsci likes this.
  23. Rushy

    Rushy AKA some / certain posters

    I've only heard positive comments. It is a lovely space and will be better once the shops reopen. The original road is still open to goods vehicles right up to the junction with Dulwich Road (no mention of for loading or access). I wonder what effect it had on Rymer Street, which will have gained the displaced traffic.
     
  24. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    This is just backwards thinking again though. You are saying that excluding motor traffic from residential streets not designed for through traffic is resulting in children dying from asthma. I say the excessive traffic in London is resulting in children dying from asthma. The solution is not to spread the pollution back into the residential streets - it's to get rid of the polluting vehicles, and you do that with an overall transport strategy that encourages people to walk, cycle and use PT instead of cars. In order to do that, you have to make space. Liveable neighbourhoods is part of an overall TfL policy of encouraging more walking and cycling, a policy that attempts to reduce the pollution that is causing children to die from asthma.
     
    thebackrow likes this.
  25. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Again, you're generalising the specific. I tried to illustrate that shifting the impact away from people actually living on Atlantic Rd onto those living on Brixton Road potentially had consequences, not to argue that every residential street should be filled with cars.
     
  26. toblerone3

    toblerone3 Grrrrr

    This is something which I know quite a lot about having put together the bid for a successful Liveable Neighbourhood proposal recently (not the Brixton one). I know all about the modelling of traffic impacts as well. Life (and human behaviour) is too complicated for it to be an exact science.
     
    thebackrow and teuchter like this.
  27. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Presumably your bid somehow bridged the gulf between exact science and general commentary with data, impact assessment and detailed proposals? Was it successful?
     
  28. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I was simply stating what I understand are the facts.

    In the end TFL decided who was to get the money. No locals were consulted if they wanted this as far as I know.

    Why do you say that's a negative interpretation? When Im just stating what in the best of my knowledge is correct.

    And its not safe to assume the website is Lambeth Councils. If it has been set up by Lambeth Council it should be clearly stated who set it up. I'm actually s bit wary of the website.
     
  29. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I agree. Making one small area "livable" whilst displacing traffic to other roads doesn't solve the problem.

    If Sadiq and TFL really wanted to do something about air quality they could have made the ULEZ London wide.
     
  30. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    The plan is to extend the ULEZ zone to the North and South Circulars by October 2021. I imagine they did the congestion zone first because that’s already set up with the ANPR technology.
     
    thebackrow and Gramsci like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice