Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Please comment on GL area traffic study
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/transport/green-lanes-area-transport-study
Takes a bit of time as there's a lot of detail - I've just spent a good hour with the document. It contains many good ideas, many things you might want to comment on, and some glaring omissions (no mention of improving pedestrian safety at the roundabout junction Alroy rd/Endymion road, for example).
I doubt they'll be able to carry out much of it - the document is peppered with caveats that these are just ideas, they all cost a lot of money and do not represent Haringey Council policy... but still, someone has gone to immense trouble to listen to locals and think things through and the least we can do is let them know what we think and would prefer to prioritise.
There's a chance tomorrow evening to go and see the plans and the planners at St Paul's Cavendish Church Hall, Cavendish Road, from 6.30 - 8.30 which I may well do despite already having submitted my comments.
You have until 14th May to comment.
Tags for Forum Posts: harringay traffic study, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
I think you've hit the nail on the head with your reference to caveats. I would add that the fact that the Council has not made any of their own money available for changes speaks volumes. All they have done is put in a bid for TfL money, which as I understand it has about a one in three chance of being funded (based on the fact that the value of bids is approximately a 3rd of the money in the pot being made available). I also took a look at the bidding process and reading between the lines, they favour those projects were funding is matched by the applying authority and Haringey aren't apparently prepared to stump up any money. Nothing at all will happen without funding.
-
Permalink Reply by Frederick Guy on
-
Yes, it's massive.
My walkthrough of the consultation, item by item, is here.
See also Deference to Traffic, my blog post from yesterday about what the study ignores.
All that has left me typed-out, so I won't try to repeat any of it now.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
That's a really interesting analysis Frederick. Many thanks for posting.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I think you miss the point that much of the heavy and commercial traffic is and will continue to be related to council sponsored activity. Just look at the proposal for a tripling of the number of concrete mixer journeys through Crouch End. They can consult and propose all they like, at the end of the day a commercial imperative will win through and we'll be effectively built over because we lack the will to do it ourselves.
-
-
John - yes I did miss the concrete mixers. Certainly a problem in terms of hazard & damage to roads, plus another increment of congestion, so should be opposed.
I'm sorry you think we all lack the will.
-
-
We lack the will to....? I said we lack the will to do something specific. That was we lack the will to densify our Victorian terraced houses. I wasn't labelling us all as pathetic.
-
-
Thanks Frederick, I found that extremely helpful and I'm sure others will too. Some will agree with your viewpoint, others won't but the clarity of your arguments certainly helped me come to my own conclusions.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks for the nudge, Maddy. I'm attaching my take on it. I was going to just gallop through it and make a few comments in passing, but I ended up taking a slightly more considered approach. It's not yet submitted and I'm willing to listen to other points of view before doing so.
Since this thing started I've been trying to get the Council to think about using electronic control to manage traffic on Wightman and the Ladder more flexibly, including timed filtering, but sadly it's fallen on deaf ears.
You'll see on the attached that I've used the Council's information to calculate a rough cost estimate for each option. If you start totting up the costs and compare them with the funding the Council say they hope to have, you'll get a sense of what is realistically achievable. Antoinette's comment above about funding is also interesting in this context.
- Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
Thanks for putting this together Hugh, very useful indeed.
I'm still digesting it but trying to identify the "low-hanging-fruit" - the options with least cost but highest benefit. I'd challenge that nothing seems to cost less than £50K - filtering Wightman prior to the bridgeworks was achieved with a couple of blokes, a forklift and a dozen concrete blocks in about half a day wasn't it? Yes I'm aware than the longer term aspiration is something a bit nicer, but in terms of bang-for-the-buck, a few hundred quid gets immediate massive benefit of promoting walking, promoting cycling (several miles of safe cycling route for free), reduced pollution, reduced noise, reduced road maintenance costs, traffic evaporation, the council and TfL will be able to say they've done something genuinely productive in terms of tackling the obesity health crisis and 10,000 early deaths from pollution-related illness. There should be plenty of change from the £350K to spend on mitigation measures to maintain or improve bus journey time reliability.
-
-
I'm sure you're right about the costs. What I've done is rough, but it's the best I could do with the data provided. I'd be thrilled if someone could sprinkle some reality dust over it.
-
-
Putting in a bid for £350k doesn't mean we'll get that funding.....everyone seems to assume you just ask for the money and it materialises.....it doesn't..... The likelihood of getting this approved is only one in three and if we don't get it approved, nothing will happen because Haringey themselves won't stump up a penny.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
