Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

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

  1. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    I'm sure there are some businesses that will claim it's the reason they went bust and I'm sure you can find some people who will tell you they hate it. But Orford Road looks a hell of a lot more inviting to visit now and it looks like there's a lot of business opportunity. I don't know - maybe this is just gentrification and they're the wrong sort of businesses.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]



    Probably because, although there are short sections of safe, comfortable, cycle infrastructure the majority of anyone's trip is still on busy roads where people on bikes are expected to behave like cars and motorists bully you out of the way if they perceive that they might be held up. If you're trying to cycle along with 30mph traffic you're probably going to equip yourself a bit more like a racer. The Dutch have a complete network so you will either be riding on protected tracks or very quiet roads.

    There is fast, lycra clad cycling in the Netherlands as well (probably more than here) but they're swamped by utility cyclists in normal clothes because it feels safe for all to ride.
     
    BigTom likes this.
  2. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    I'm not sure your system is really any fairer - we know 50% of households don't have a car, and lets assume for a minute that everyone who does drives the same amount of miles. Everyone who drives now is only going to have half the permits they need, so your 'poorer' people (who are still rich enough to run a car) are still going to have to buy half the miles they need. The scheme also has to be administered - you've got to collect the money to pay for that somehow and it shouldn't come out of general taxation (as that means it has a cost to all those who don't own cars).

    Also, you're still treating car ownership and driving as something 'that should be accessible to everyone'. I don't think thats the desireable outcome - we need to get to a situation which incentivizes the appropriate method of travel for a particular journey. Having a load of mileage permits might perversely encourage people to drive more to use them up...

    It's complex, but good cheap public transport, and safe comfortable walking and cycling (with access to taxi or car share) seems like it's going to do the most to improve the lives of poorer people rather than trying to engineer some scheme to ensure that the "not that poor but not rich" can still have their own car parked on the street.
     
  3. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    I didn't say anything about mileage, I said hours.

    Let's propose that Londoners get 25 hours per year, that's half an hour per week each. Plenty long enough for off-peak trips to the shops or hospital or whatever, or to head out of town occasionally for leisure, particularly if they share cars.

    Then let's say there are fines for exceeding the limit starting at £100 per hour and rising with every hour. Draconian, for sure, but it'll get people off the roads. How else are you going to do it?

    Well i do think that personal transportation is a massive benefit of living now as opposed to a century or more ago. We can all see that unlimited access has produced toxic bathwater, but that doesn't mean the baby should be thrown away. Or does it?
    The last time I used our car, about 3 weeks ago, was to take my brother, limited mobility with arthritis, 60m or so to see my parents and take him and my mother- in her 90s and with a walking range measured in yards- out for lunch. She has rather old fashioned views that taxis are only for the posh, my brother, on sickness benefit, knows he can't afford them.

    Is that appropriate or simply selfish? I honestly don't know.
    Again, I've said nothing about 'their own car'. But i have said that any proposal needs to win elections, and forcing people out of their cars will meet huge resistance. How will you achieve that?
     
  4. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    Anything that has a fixed (non-means-tested) cost hits the poor more than it hits the rich - utility bills; food bills; VAT. The way in which society has (imperfectly) tried to redress the balance is by having a tax and benefits system that seeks to adjust for income.

    I see no reason why behaviour which is bad for the environment should be treated more favourably than essentials like food, water and electricity which are not means-tested.
     
    thebackrow likes this.
  5. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Ok, if institutionalising relative wealth is the way forward.

    We've strayed a long way from Atlantic Road- i was asked what i proposed and answered, knowing that there were more holes than a Swiss cheese, but also that it's is on a scale that would actually make a difference, rather than simply scratch the surface or displace existing traffic. I'm open to anyone else proposing ways to actually reduce traffic, congestion, pollution and carbon footprint, rather than just displace it E2A and gain public consent.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  6. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    I know this place swings fairly hard to the left, and I fully support that, but I'm not clear how taxing an undesirable activity is "institutionalising relative wealth". Surely the opposite- significantly increasing the cost of car ownership and use (which we know is concentrated amongst the wealthy) and using the proceeds to improve public transport, walking and cycling seems like a highly redistributive measure.

    This scheme is significantly wider than Atantic Road - if you think that tiny change is going to impact on other roads then ask for stuff to be done to them as well. There's no way to change the whole of London overnight in one go so you have to start somewhere. Demand more, don't fight any change at all.
     
    Winot likes this.
  7. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    I've written far too much general stuff on this thread, when all I wanted to do was get a handle on how other people see the traffic being routed if Atlantic Road is closed. Now it's tax and benefits policy. Ho hum.

    Substantially reduced pollution, oil usage, congestion, road danger and noise are required, for the benefit of all. As with any change benefits won't accrue evenly, but there should be general quality of life improvements across all economic groups. If applied fairly across London/the country there shouldn't be huge differential effects on main patterns of employment, income or house prices, but there are bound to be losers as well as winners. Who will win, will lose and will be largely ignored is at the heart of public consent. Importing social policy from Singapore (of all places!) is not likely to be a recipe for fairness.

    Few people reliant on benefits, including state pension, are likely to be able to afford a car, so making car use more expensive by taxation will only have indirect effects on them. Working Tax Credits & Housing benefit are subsidies to encourage employers to pay less than most people can live on, so those who receive them are necessarily not well off and any that have cars will likely be deterred from using them. Same for everyone else of lowish incomes- the bulk of the population- any policy that substantially reduces traffic must force them off the roads. Leaving the roads clear for those on higher incomes, who can afford to pay the tax more often. So simple road pricing together with fiddling with tax & benefits will simply ensure the poorest can't often access the roads. That's (further) institutionalising inequality, isn't it, reinforcing and intensifying divisions that already exist. What I suggested was an attempt to rectify that by rewarding those who don't have cars and incentivising others to get rid of theirs, and only punishing the greedy.

    'This scheme is significantly wider than Atantic Road'. Well, sort of, in a vague way. The consultation area is wider but AR is at the heart of the scheme as the only actual spelt out proposal.

    "There's no way to change the whole of London overnight in one go so you have to start somewhere." Why the hell not? The GLC managed it all those years ago with the introduction of Fares Fair. There is urgency, you know. Either you're actually trying to combat climate change and premature deaths and all the rest or you're mucking about on the margins.

    As for 'Demand more, don't fight any change at all.' that's terribly snappy but has nothing to do with what I've said, although I have demanded a lot more, with at least an attempt to ensure somewhat more social justice and public consent than simply price everyone except the rich off the road.

    Back on topic no-one has been prepared to actually engage on the 6,000 vehicles per day that will be routed along the top of Coldharbour Lane and then added to the 25,000 that already use the main stretch of Brixton Road, with some at least going round St Matthews. Nor on the little girl who died from asthma, or the residential occupancy of the different routes, or any of the rest of it. It's just change for the sake of.... well, I'm a cynic.....
     
  8. toblerone3

    toblerone3 Grrrrr

    Here are some links to studies that have been done on the effects on business of walking and cycling schemes.
    Economic benefits of walking and cycling
    I'm pretty sure that most schemes will have similar studies built into the monitoring programme that was a condition of the grants being issued in the first place. The Liveable Neighbourhood bid that I put together did. In fact I'm just about to begin a baseline study of the 'before' situation for effect on businesses.
     
  9. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    upload_2019-5-14_8-53-57.png
    upload_2019-5-14_8-54-25.png


    I'm sure Lambeth, as well as the businesses being charged so much to rent the arches, are in favour of pedestrianising AR, and over time the houseware and phone case shops will be able to morph into something more profitable, bubble tea perhaps, or hand crafted biscuits. I guess businesses elsewhere will notice reduced footfall as spending patterns change, but a more tourist friendly market will probably help draw in more visitors.

    Meanwhile the lead author of the Business View report highlighted on that page is also the lead in the Mini Holland report mentioned above, the one that showed that despite all the promise, there was "No evidence either way of change in car use associated with interventions". She has also done a recent paper about a scheme in Hounslow. Her interest is health economic benefits and the paper concentrates on a small survey to demonstrate that closing a short road delivers for users and cyclists. However she adds a note of caution
    That's a tiny scheme involving displacing only a peak 120 vehicles, but contrary to all the general assurances above, it's caused a 19% additional burden on the local main road, together with significantly increased bus transit times for some passengers. If the AR plan was on that scale it would be a drop in the ocean for Brixton Road, but there are (apparently) 6,000 vehicles per day to be added to the existing 25,000 per day, so a 19% increase is not farfetched.

    So the scheme would be expected to produce benefits for AR businesses and ought to deliver health benefits for AR residents and workers and make it more pleasant for users and encourage them towards more active travel as well as more spending. That's all good, everyone seems to be agreed (maybe except those who want cheap houseware, but they're not really relevant, are they).

    But I'm apparently the only one concerned- or even prepared to discuss- that those rewards come at significant risk to a much larger group, the residents, workers and users of the High Street and the tube, including those held captive during the never ending games of musical buses.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  10. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    Of course not, we couldn't learn anything from a city that's actually tried an advanced congestion charging scheme.
    http://www.environmentportal.in/files/ERP-Singapore-Lessons.pdf

    You're still not looking beyond current road space allocation. Reducing the amount of public highway given over to the rich in their cars and making with wider pavements and comfortable cyling seems a pretty direct effect to me on those who don't own or use cars to me. Why are you so worried about the financial cost of using an inefficient and polluting form of transport that has significant negative external impacts to the lower middle classes?

    Again, you've been pointed at evidence on Traffic Evaporation but you still seem to consider that current motor traffic levels are a fixed thing that can't be changed. That we must tolerate current levels of pollution and congestion. Given that 70% of car trips in London are under 5 miles and 40% under 2 miles that simply isn't the case.
     
  11. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    yes, but it would be nice if you read what I wrote and what you quoted. I specifically said "social policy" and "fairness" not "road pricing" for a reason. Try looking at what Human Rights Watch and Amnesty or even Wiki have to say.
    selective quoting ftw. Well done, you completely ignore the paragraph which started "Substantially reduced pollution, oil usage, congestion, road danger and noise are required, for the benefit of all" and then berate me for not addressing the point.

    I've done my best to explain to you that there's more to this than cars. You can ignore all that and insist on a badly thought through proposal to close one road if you want. I'll continue to think that addressing wider issues of fairness, social exclusion and public approval are essential for meaningful change on the scale required to combat climate change and improve urban air quality.


    I've said nothing of the sort, don't be absurd. I've proposed to you twice now ways of massively reducing the traffic in London. I've even mentioned to you a past example of making a real difference. You ignore that just as you ignore the various quoted reports which show the exact opposite of traffic evaporating. I have yet to hear anything from you except jibes and platitudes.


    And your solution to that is mileage based road pricing? How much are you proposing to charge for a 2 mile trip?
     
  12. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    I was talking about a successful technological implementation of road pricing but for some reason you felt the need to bring up Singapore's poor record on human rights (of which I don't approve but is totally irrelevant- another jibe from you).

    You can keep on insisting that a this is a 'badly thought out proposal to close one road' while ignoring that it's clearly shown by the published map as being a scheme that covers a much wider area. You could even engage with the consultation and suggest some positive changes for the area but that would mean you'd not be able to claim this was some top down scheme that had been imposed on you from above.



    That's exactly what you've said, repeatedly - "no-one has been prepared to actually engage on the 6,000 vehicles per day that will be routed along the top of Coldharbour Lane"
    It won't be 6000 vehicles because some trips will no longer be made by car. It won't all be down Coldharbour Lane because that wont be the quickest route for all and satnavs will send people in other directions. The project summary (on the about page of teh consultation site) talks about reducing traffic on Railton Road.

    The main roads can take that extra load without a material impact on air quality (its Diesel buses that remain the worst problem on Brixton Road)

    Road pricing is one of the solutions - it's a fairer and more effective solution than the current, blunt, daily charge for driving in Zone 1(ish). I'm not an expert to determine how the details of it would work but there tech to do it is now there.
    I completely agree with you about all those other issues but your concerns about 'pricing the not particularly poor off the road' is hard to reconcile with that.

    Lambeth can't implement London wide road pricing (though they can lobby the mayor to do so) but they can make conditions better for walking and cycling locally, and deprioritize driving. The best way to stop short trips is to make them more difficult by car and easier by other modes. It's early days but Waltham Forest scheme seems to be successfully doing this - they're claiming walking and cycling are up, there has been much less than 100% shift of trips to main roads. Air quality is better on the streets they've removed through traffic from and not worse on the main roads. Having been up to visit even if some of those stats can be challenged it's a much nicer place to be than it was before.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
    snowy_again likes this.
  13. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

  14. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    please don't run separate bits of my posts together to create an artificial quote, it's rather misleading.
    ok, well that's nice to know. Everybody else thinks it's one of the most polluted stretches of road in the country.
    Come on, you can give some idea how much you think a 2 mile journey should be priced at.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  15. cuppa tee

    cuppa tee Well-Known Member

    Tfl seem to be labouring under the assumption that gentrification is just about the cost of residential property......saying schemes such as this one have.....

    image.jpeg

    but they appear to think increasing retail rents are a big positive.....

    image.jpeg

    Not great news for traders in Atlantic road
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  16. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I was at recent meeting in LJ. To our surprise we found that section of LJ was in the boundary of the scheme.

    I don't remember being asked if I wanted to be in the boundary.

    Which leads to my question.

    When you say put forward suggestions I'm not clear what suggestions one can make.

    What has already been decided ( the top down side of it) and what are the parameters for suggestions?
     
  17. toblerone3

    toblerone3 Grrrrr

    Utimately there are no parameters for suggestions, if Lambeth get too much grief off the residents and they cannot satisfactorily mitigate or amend the scheme they will give the money back to TfL and another area of London will benefit from the money.

    It pisses me off so much that the car lobby is able to get traction on manipulating the fears of people about change and sometimes disingenuously weaponising their concerns with short term and minor traffic displacement arguments weaponised by air quality impacts. We all know that road space reallocation can result in substantial traffic evaporation. I do accept though that there may be a limit to this and we cannot have Liveable Neighbourhoods without serious traffic reduction in London if we want to avoid simply moving traffic around from street to street like squeezing toothpaste from one part of the tube to another.

    Ultimately, I believe, we do need road user charging in London but in the meantime Liveable Neighbourhoods can result in real benefits and when people see this with their own eyes and their own experiences, it can help build momentum for further positive local environmental change.

    Gentrification is, however, a whole different dimension to the argument. But would you want to continue to breathe in pollution (in terms of poor air quality and the constant fear of being killed or seriously injured by cars or lorries) just so that you can enjoy a slightly cheaper rent? We need more radical measures to tackle the fucked up property market in London, but the meantime why shouldn't we have some local environmental improvements. I mean (as an analogy) if you are living in a bad flat in a bad situation, giving the flat a fresh coat of paint doesn't do any harm and might even encourage you to begin to improve your situation in deeper ways.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
    thebackrow likes this.
  18. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    Good news for the traders if it means more customers, spending more money
     
  19. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Are you really accusing me of being in the car lobby? What on earth have I said, in the midst of all the other stuff, to make you think that? I know my posts are too wordy, but that they can be misread like that is shocking.

    I've tried throughout this thread to concentrate on Atlantic Road and been countered with general waffle that any intervention to impede cars is good and displaced traffic will simply evaporate. Evidence to the contrary has been entirely ignored. When pushed to generalise I've proposed draconian rationing to force the vast bulk of vehicle usage off the road, and been told it's too much and too expensive. I thought I've made clear I'm opposed to crude mileage based road pricing on social grounds and because it won't have the desired effect, not in order to keep cars moving. I've repeatedly tried to discuss risk and reward and the increased burden on those who live on, work on or use on the main road, tube and buses just as I've highlighted the campaign of the mother of little girl who died of asthma, and been either ignored or patted on the head and told that doesn't matter. In fact thebackrow seems to think none of it matters so long as the traders on AR can do more business. And now you're insinuating I'm part of the car lobby!

    But that said, thankyou, you have at least acknowledged this is about gentrification. I've tried that, too, and that's been ignored as well. Nobody except Gramsci has said anything about the undercurrents at play. Has anyone looked at the 250 or so comments on the proposal? There are loads wanting to stop the rat run down, or near, their home street, obviously for the benefit of all and with no eye on house prices. Others want change for the benefit of businesses, as the post just above makes clear. There are plenty of good, gentrification-neutral proposals for ASLs and rephased pedestrian lights and stuff, but all of it needs to be read through the prism that is the underlying elephant sitting on the sofa. As I've tried to discuss.

    This debate, such as it is, is about social exclusion and public acceptance and accountability, cars are just a part of it. Not everyone who lives round here is pro-gentrification and many, many of us can spot the signs and direction of travel, especially when seeded by Lambeth and picked up enthusiastically by the new demographic.

    Without a Singapore style authoritarian regime any far-reaching* proposal must be intended to make a positive, direct quality of life improvement for more people than it harms, and must convince people that is the case. Otherwise it will founder at the ballot box.

    Simply pretending this is all about cars and nothing else, and that any wider considerations are just distraction from the car lobby, is facile.

    * ie something that will significantly reduce the overall number of vehicle on the roads, by a lot more than 50% say, not tiny, piecemeal, badly thought through schemes like this proposal.
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  20. cuppa tee

    cuppa tee Well-Known Member

    That's a fairly glib assessment of the situation on Atlantic Road, which of the long standing traders do you see see thriving if they are faced with 7.5% additional rent rise per annum considering Hondo are currently monetising the neighbouring covered markets like fuck and with sports direct's colonisation of popes road just round the corner ?
     
    Gramsci likes this.
  21. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    There's a whole load of ad hominem attacks and misrepresentation going on here now which don't really help the discussion. How long does one have to live here before they stop being part of the 'new demographic'?


    - rent is just a tax on profits. if landlords try to take too much businesses go under, the property is empty and the landlord loses out. That's how the market works. Look at the pictures of WF above. Surely on a street that is more pleasant for people to visit and spend time on there are more opportunities for business owners to make money. Maybe some businesses will have to 'evolve' but some of this is an opportunity. Retail is tough - shops are closing in most high streets across the UK. Doing nothing doesn't guarantee current business owners a futre either.

    - the mention of the car lobby is about how successful it has been in framing all these arguments to be about private car use. It shouldn't be contentious to talk about removing through traffic from a crowded shopping street with narrow pavements. It shouldn't be contentious to have an issue with rat running traffic speeding past your front door. Some of us have lived in the area a long while and have seen the impact of satnavs and uber meaning roads that used to be quiet are now busy at all times of day. Do we just allow them to keep getting worse?

    If wanting less traffic on a road is gentrification then logically more traffic is anti-gentrification. Get on that consultation site and demand that all the traffic is routed down your road so that the house prices and rents fall? I suppose that's sort of what happened in Loughborough Junction.

    To try and frame it as being about house prices suggests people only have a desire to cash in and leave the area rather than make their lives here. I'd like the area i live in to be cleaner, quieter and safer - i'd like to be able to walk or cycle into Brixton without drivers trying to run me down as they rat run down side roads. One of the notable things about many of Brixton's estates is that they were built to limit through traffic - Blenheim Gardens residents parking is on the very edge of the estate with the centre completely car free. Angel Town and the Southwyck estate don't have rat runs through them either.

    There is definitely a social justice aspect around access to transport and use of public space but using a phrase like 'priced off the road' is straight out of the gammon/car lobby/"war on the motorist" playbook. It ignores the poor, it ignores the old, it ignores those too young to drive. Social justice is about access to 'mobility' (to use the current catchphrase), not about having a car and being able to drive everywhere (which is how the car lobby would like to frame it), and the best way to improve that is to reduce the public space given to private cars in favor of public transport and enabling efficient ways of getting around - whether on foot, by cycle or electric scooter or on public transport.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  22. toblerone3

    toblerone3 Grrrrr

    I wasn't actually accusing you of being part of the car lobby. I think you have made some valid points which I might be able to respond to. I was actually thinking of allegations around the leader of a protest movement against a road closure in a different part of London.
     
  23. toblerone3

    toblerone3 Grrrrr

    newbie likes this.
  24. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Gosh, are you really offended or just posturing? I wasn't trying to be rude to anyone, is there a more neutral collective description?

    I think this is the key difference between our perspectives. As I said before, to you the people who want to buy cheap housewares aren't really relevant, are they? Your posts make clear that this is all about improvements for you and opportunities for business owners to make money. Everyone else is collateral.

    why not, if that places an additional pollution/noise/congestion/danger burden on a greater number of other people? You've previously made clear that you're happy to do that.

    Your complaint is that other people use your street? wow!

    Well done, impeccable logic :rolleyes:

    That is the clear pattern and has been for a long time

    yes, you said you want to force all traffic onto the main roads without concern for those that live or work on them or use them.

    Approaching half of Greater London households have access to a car, presumably because that's what they want. They're grown adults, just like you. Your disdain is clear, but it's not up to you to make decisions on their behalf, especially when all you can propose is to price the lower incomes off the road (even though you've still failed to give an outline of how much you propose a 2 mile journey should cost). All you're doing is demand that everyone bows to your grand vision.

    Now I suspect we might agree on the main objectives: reduce climate change, reduce pollution, improve the environment... and funnily enough I reckon a substantial majority of Greater London adults will agree with that too. You've failed to convince me about this specific scheme because you haven't thought it through properly. So how do you think you'll convince them all to give up their cars? Answer, you don't, you want to force them, because you know best.
     
  25. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    ah, I misunderstood then, thanks for the clarification :)
     
  26. toblerone3

    toblerone3 Grrrrr

    Good environment or nice communal atmosphere among neighbours. Why cant we have both?
     
  27. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Fascinating. I asked earlier for someone to flesh out the options, and this does pretty much that. It doesn't reach quite the same conclusions I'd muddled my way towards, but it's reasonably persuasive in what it says. Their concept of Mobility Credits isn't so far from rationing, and while it needs tweaking for universality (not just 'registered drivers') they propose integrating it with Oyster and use of roadspace for parking, so it's a solid attempt to build something fair and intended to gain widespread support.

    It's a good report, well worth reading in full.

    My reservation is that it's a shame they don't say why they reject time based, as opposed to distance based, charging. It's also a bit odd that their user profile examples don't include the school run. It may be that charging based on distance and a time of day/destination/alternative algorithm will provide a substantial deterrent, but that's not made clear.

    I hope this gains sufficient political traction for a full public debate leading to early implementation of a popular scheme. They mention that a previous plan drew 1.8 million signatures to an opposition petition. I hope this is rounded enough to be far less controversial.
     
  28. thebackrow

    thebackrow Active Member

    And your misrepresentation continues. The shops that sell cheap housewares presumably have owners who'd like to make a profit - they might do better on a nicer street - or can they only be profitable if the road remains as it is now? or are the current shops part of some communist collective? I'm confused.

    Again you're misrepresenting me - i've not said anyone has to be 'forced' to give up their car or make decisions on their behalf. I support making driving more difficult and expensive and the alternatives cheaper easier and more pleasant. You can't have the latter without the former.

    I'll continue to support political parties that claim to want to do something about the climate emergency and air quality - and that means people will have to drive less. Individuals would make lots of choices with negative impacts on others without rules, taxes and incentives to do otherwise.
     
  29. co-op

    co-op Free the rhubarb crumble!

    Why are you weaselling about like this? "Approaching half" very clearly means "less than half". And that's before we get down to the details; eg what does "have access to a car" mean? (eg you live in a shared house - as thousands of Londoners do - and one person in that house has a car, you are considered to have access to it, which is obviously bullshit). eg you're talking about the figures for Greater London which includes great chunks of the home counties arbitrarily lumped into the GLC 50 years ago in order to gerrymander/'create democratic' elections (because otherwise it was going to be Labour for ever), etc etc.

    When you get down to Lambeth car owners who actually have access to a car and want one are a small minority (for many of them it is absolutely "not what they want", it's what they have little alternative but to have if they work shifts, if their work journey is not catered for by pt, if their work requires them to have or use a car).

    The question is why is this small minority of dedicated car-wanters - who you are trying to paint as the normal, majority (and - for extra absurdity - "poor" or "low income") people - prioritised above the majority?

    It's just nonsense. If you are personally in love with your car and cannot imagine life without it, fine, why not just admit it and stop this rubbish about standing up for the little guy or whatever you think you're doing. If you don't love your car or whatever, I cannot actually work out what the fuck you're on about, it's either low-grade trolling or you're a straight up idiot.
     
    thebackrow likes this.
  30. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    No misrepresentation. Once again you frame this in terms of what's good for the business owners. | quoted you above about them 'making money', now it's about their profit. No doubt making AR a 'nicer street' is in their interests, whether they personally gentrify their shops to sell bubble tea or vintage suitcases, or they sell the lease to someone else to do it. But this is still, despite all the changes, predominantly a poor area and this badly constructed scheme will further marginalise local people who need to buy from the dwindling number of cheap shops selling everyday stuff. Do they matter at all?

    and again I'm not. The force involved is pure economic power, to price the relatively worse off out of their cars, inevitably leaving the roads clearer for the relatively better off.
    I've said I (and I reckon most but by no means all Londoners) agree that reducing car usage will make life more pleasant. That's not the point at issue, it's how this happens, and who (which economic and social groups, and which individuals) reaps the benefit and who gets shafted. Cost/benefit, risk/reward, call it what you want, has got to be considered. Which means every scheme, big or small, needs to be looked at carefully with that in mind. You've said that the "main roads can take that extra load" while ignoring evidence of greatly increased pressure and you've shown absolutely no concern for the individuals who live and work on the high street, for bus users or, well, anybody who loses out.

    What's proposed for Atlantic Road takes no account of negative consequences for far more people than will directly benefit.

    Fine. They all claim that. Combating climate change has been the claimed policy for 20 years.

    Have you read the report mentioned above?
     

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