Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
St Ann's LTN AKA Pedestrian ONLY Nightmare
Just gone through in detail the consultation associated with Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. The word Low seems to be a euphemism, no traffic neighbourhood seems to be the order of the day.
I do not understand where the council officers get their data. They state that the majority of residents do not own or use a car. So why is it so difficult to park even if you have a parking permit for the CPZ?
I have a disabled daughter and a wife with ME/Chronic fatigue and there will be no allowances for disabled access in either option. Roads are being shut to traffic, the surrounding area will be grid locked at times impacting the buses. With many of the roads having almost only one way in, how do they get deliveries and the refuse lorries in and around the area. The roads are too narrow for even a 7.5 tonne truck to turn around in. It will be difficult for cars to do three point turns.
I have lived in London since 1979, and in the borough since 1988 and in the St Ann's area since 1997. We have loved it. We raised both our children in the area and our disabled daughter (an adult now) has a support system in place.
We have asked for simple measures to make the roads safer without serious disruption to traffic flow. simple speed and weight limit enforcement would make a huge difference, but the council solution is an LTN which will drive a local garage out of business and make driving around the area almost impossible.
I am not in a minority of one, just come round the area and count the number of parked cars.
If this proposal goes through, I will have to take the early retirement I cannot afford and move away from the city I love.
Tags for Forum Posts: low traffic neighbourhoods, st anns ltn, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by EyeSpy on
-
This is one of my personal loves. People who live in a city of 9 million people expanding to 15 million people Monday to Friday (pre pandemic figures) moaning about other people causing them inconvenience.
If you want to live somewhere where there is less traffic then move to where there are less people. It's not a difficult concept. You can't expect to have all the benefits of living in London without the drawbacks of living in London.
Is this an unreasonable viewpoint?
-
-
Do you have the same view on knife crime? You can't expect to have all the benefits of living in London without the drawbacks of living in London.
If you want somewhere with fewer murders then tough, you need to go somewhere else.
-
-
crime is not the same as people going about their business. One is legal and the other not.
Is there going to be more crime where there are more people, yes because that's how mathematics works.
-
-
There are more people injured in St Ann's due to traffic incidents than knife crime. Cracking down on one is acceptable but the other isn't it seems.
Also, murders per capita are higher in London than other UK cities. That's also mathematics, just applied a little more sensibly.
-
-
Is that using per capita figures in comparison to other UK locations? Or just there are more car accidents than stabbings?
-
-
Both. More car accidents than stabbings in St Ann's. More murders per capita in London than other UK locations.
-
-
Traffic accidents in St Ann’s are cited in council info as one justification for the LTN, but there’s no detail as to where they’ve happened; there’s a big difference between West Green or St Ann’s Roads and, say, Clarendon or Glenwood. If most accidents have happened on the boundary roads — as seems more than likely, since they’re busy A roads — it’s hard to see how increasing traffic there by excluding it from side streets will do anything other than increase the likelihood of more happening in future.
-
-
This was covered earlier: St. Ann's has a higher rate of accidents on the non-boundary roads (boundary roads being St. Anns, West Green Rd, Green Lanes and Seven Sisters Rd) than other areas in the borough (other than Bruce Grove which also has LTN proposals).
See page 11 here http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-app-six-b-strategic-neighbourhoods-an...
-
-
Andrew — Even excluding the boundary roads, this map is not particularly helpful. There’s still no detail of where the accidents happened, and Black Boy Lane and Avenue Road would seem far more likely candidates than, say, Clarendon or Etherly Roads, both of which are due to be blocked under either scheme, let alone Terront, Conway, etc. 16+ accidents in two years is too many, but if the aim is to reduce them by stopping traffic using specific streets, then there needs to be evidence as to where the problem is rather than a blanket approach. If BBL and Avenue are in fact the danger spots (obviously this is only a surmise, as there aren’t detailed stats), then surely that’s where road safety measures need to be applied, not in (mostly) traffic-free side streets?
-
-
I think that map massively underestimates the number of crashes! I’ve personally seen more crashes on the junction of Langham and Belmont road than the map shows.
stopping cars turning down Langham from Belmont will be a HUGE improvement!
-
-
-
I can't reply to the below (the forum is limited to 8 replies for some reason). Crashmap is from DFT road safety data and it only records crashes that resulted in personal injury and were reported.
I'm sure there are plenty more "bumps" that don't meet those criteria.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
