Lea Bridge Road/Walthamstow mini Holland

Interesting to hear your local perspective, 7Üp.

The main roads are not my concern. They are supposed to be busy. The residential streets, however, are not.

Residential streets are supposed to be busy with children playing and neighbours chatting, though. :)

#idyllicrosetintedspectacles

Traffic isn't just moving cars (of which, there are indeed more, as people who are still not familiar with the scheme try to cut corners) but parked cars.

Er? Parked cars are most definitely not traffic (even if, say, someone has just got out of one by the roadside and is popping into a shop--the agency in 'traffic' is with the person). They certainly have a negative impact on the ambience of the environment, but obviously not of the same order as through motor traffic.

You realise those people that don't own a car also need access by private vehicles, don't you? I know of two families that require access by bus to collect infirm grandparents, and a disabled girl who needs to wait on the corner of lea bridge since she cannot be collected from her house any more.

That shouldn't happen--every property should be accessible by private car. That said, I still haven't been up there to look at the scheme (as there's no point until it's bedded in), so I don't know what was actually implemented. When I last saw design drawings, back in the consultation phase, they had some significant shortcomings, and I don't know if they were resolved, but if not they were most likely necessary compromises and may be improved in future iterations. Simon can probably explain.

There are a lot of (particularly older) people that rely on minicabs and private buses in the area, and the congestion has affected them quite badly. Ask them.

Whether the volumes are reduced is going to be one of the tests. Experience from elsewhere suggests it should. I don't mean overall traffic volumes should be reduced; those should increase, but with more people using sustainable modes rather than cars.

Congestion is a funny thing, though. In principle, it actually isn't a problem but a sign of the success of an attractor (place etc.). For instance, there are reports of bad congestion in the Londinium of Roman times, in medieval times, in Victorian times, right up until today--because London has for a very long time been a very successful place. Ubiquitous motor traffic has changed this slightly in that it's a lot easier to congest a place if everybody drives cars with one person in each than if they walk, cycle, use public transport, or the occasional horse and cart, and while congestion has always been felt to be a problem, today it seems to be perceived as far more unpleasant than in former times because of the noise and pollution. However, oddly enough, if traffic (all forms) flows very freely, it is less likely to be traffic stopping in a place and trading there; it is more likely to travel further afield, e.g. 'leap-frogging' a closer centre. Congestion can mean that people want to trade where they are rather than elsewhere because of the additional cost (time, fuel, patience) involved in getting there. This gives an advantage to traders based on where they are, which in the age of mass motorisation has progressively been lost (and is now being reduced all over again because of on-line ordering). With any luck, Walthamstow and other places in Waltham Forest may get more of a slice of London's pie in this way. It's early days, but it'll certainly be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Why did they choose the village over wood street?

Do you mean over the Wood Street area?

I'd be happy if the scheme was larger. I'd be happy if the scheme was implemented along with restrictions in the surrounding areas to control the fallout, right now it's a free for all.

Yes, as ever, if other areas bear the brunt, there's still work to do; it's a similar mechanism as with car parking control.