Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Really P****d Off
I hope all you who have the vote in Harringay will remember tonight ( and certainly other nights to come ) and at the next election vote out the incompetent shower responsible for the introduction of the LTN.
My weekly 5-minute journey from Wightman Road to Green Lanes took 45 minutes, including 30 minutes to go the length of Hampden Road. Yes, I know that there was a burst water main. But in happier times traffic would have been distributed across the roads now blocked off and not confined to Green Lanes. Yes, I know that I could have taken a bus to sit in the same traffic jam as I did this evening but in any case there aren't any buses between my house and the bottom of Effingham Road.
I understand the concerns of those residents living in the LTN who hope that the pollution in their streets will be reduced but don't the residents of Green Lanes, Turnpike Lane and Wightman Road breathe ? don't their children have lungs ?. Where did the Council think the LTN traffic would go ?
And please don't suggest to this disabled person that I could have cycled. I couldn't.
Tags for Forum Posts: low traffic neighbourhoods, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris on
-
Rory, I note on another thread you have chosen to sugggest to another that they 'google it'. If it's good enough for them? But here's a head start to save you some time.
I have stated a fact. Allegra either parroted or invented an obviously false statistic. They are not the same thing.
I also note, you've chosen to cite an almost comically flawed pre-print study of Islington LTNs. A study that covers the period of covid restrictions... and suggests that LTNs reduce NO2 emissions because they fell during lockdowns.
-
Permalink Reply by HoL Site Admin on
-
Chris, your reply has been edited for style in line with house rules. By all means disagree, but please keep the tone courteous.
-
-
It's always a ballsy move to link to a source that totally disproves what you are saying
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
There were 31,617 road casualties amongst the 0-24 age group in 2020, of which 6,129 were seriously injured and 259 died.
There were 3 deaths attributed to alcohol in 2020 in the 0-24 aged group
https://maps.dft.gov.uk/road-casualties/index.html
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocial...
-
-
relax, Chris. Both my statistics were taking from the UK government. The first is UK Gov't / RAC Foundation on the deaths and the second was UK Gov't / Committee on Climate Change. I have no incentive to lie. And to state that I have fallen ill to some fantastical statistics is just your way of deflecting any argument that may contradict your 'feelings' on the issue.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Allegra - Thanks for identifying your sources.
I hope that the Council meeting this evening will go beyond clashes of shouty feelings. And that, crucially, councillors will be able to speak freely on any doubts they may have of the policy 'line'. I also hope to learn in some detail how the LTN schemes will be publicly monitored and then tweaked /changed/ improved if and when harmful unintended consequences emerge.
In my experience, both in Haringey and elsewhere Dear-Leader hierarchies range from poor to incapable at self-monitoring and admitting mistakes. Many of our current councillors have seen horrific examples of worst practice. So they can see the task needed.
-
-
Not a problem. Feel as though this thread has really taken a turn towards people's general sentiments in the neighborhood and no longer has much to do with the efficacy of the programme in achieving its intended results of safer, quieter and less polluted residential streets.
hopefully the councillors are able to discern a few, vocal dissenters from a wider group of people happy to see the LTN trialled for a few more months.
And to stats - I often don't rely on them as my pure source of evidence, as others will contradict with cherry-picked data from one year, or will try to say they are intentionally 'fake'. I am a normal person who interprets data from credible sources as best as I can. If I've presented misinformation in any way, I do apologise. The point I'm trying to prove is that we do know that traffic related fatalities do occur, and children are at an elevated risk here. The statistics, no matter which final number you want to land on, do prove that (as cited from the UK and other UK-affiliated charities). The other point on transport as the leading cause of emissions is without a doubt true. Again, you may want to parse our land / air / cargo transport. Or transport by use case (personal vehicles, business, commercial use), but overall we do know that cars and personal travel contribute significantly to the overall emissions of this country.
Again - sorry to all if you felt I intentionally misled. I felt I could trust the information I found after extensive review of a few different sources.
Good luck to all this evening.
-
-
Allegra — The government has decreed the end of petrol vehicles but made no money available to finesse this or devised a national policy for their phased replacement (such as a national grid of electrical charging points). Haringey have conspicuously failed to electrify their own vehicles or require contractors such as Veolia or service vehicles, DPD, BT, etc to do so if they’re to operate in the borough. There isn’t a borough-wide scheme for EV charging points. Simultaneously, TfL is under constant funding attacks, meaning that London’s public transport is getting worse, not better. Despite promises, the council has done nothing to improve Green Lanes by limiting parking, prioritising buses or creating new bus lanes.
If there was one iota of evidence that the council itself was taking steps to improve travel, air quality and the public realm, or signs of major investment in hugely improved public transport, then perhaps people would sympathise more with road closures that have split wards, massively increased cingestion and pollution, made journeys longer and taken no account of real people’s needs.
-
-
everything you described is caused by Tory national government failing to meet its promises on funding for low carbon infrastructure. This is the lowest cost and locally implementable transport scheme to reduce carbon emissions. Haringey has committed foremost to making active transport available, with making EV charging a secondary priority. This is because just making every car an EV does not solve the issue of traffic. Also, how easy it is to tell people - oh just buy an entirely new vehicle vs. walk/take the bus for this journey? It's much more difficult.
Second, the amount of emissions from Haringey's few vehicles (the rubbish collectors and a few service vehicles) are small change relative to private vehicles, responsible for 96% of the borough's transport emissions. There's no proof again of your last statement, and while I can sympathise that the programme did not get as long as of a consultation period as you would have liked, the scheme is temporary and you will be allowed to leave comments afterwards. We currently have no proof of your claims.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
How do you expect any national government to be able to fund anything while dealing with a pandemic like Covid ? Think of the cost of supplying free vaccines, free test kits, paying for furloughs, in the face of the hit to the economy caused by people working from home and the necessity to contract massive debt in order to keep the essential services running.
-
-
sure but where did we get money to increase the defense budget? why don't they claim back the fraudelent lending that when to their friends during the pandemic as kickbacks? why don't they raise taxes on capital gains? on bankers' profit? tax landlords profiteering off the housing shortage?
I'm not the politician, its a matter of principle and priorities in the budget. Clearly climate didn't make the cut for tories.
-
-
Allegra — I think we agree on the failings of national government, especially one driven by blind faith in the market and unwilling to spend a penny on backing up its emission-reduction target unless forced. On EVs, I’d say a) if govt is outlawing petrol vehicles it has a duty to support alternatives; b) I’ve always maintained that the boroughs and GLA should collectively require ALL service vehicles across London to be electric, not just in Haringey. If you add up Veolia, DPD, BT, BG, tradespeople, Evri, Ocado, Tesco and numerous other commercial outfits, that’s a lot of vehicles, not to mention buses as well. Haringey’s commitment to “active transport” is to block roads and tell everyone to walk or cycle, without showing any leadership in providing alternatives in sorting out fundamental problems. If GL traffic from the N Circular was restricted, parking banned from Endymion to the Salisbury, a northbound bus lane installed and buses prioritised at junctions, it would show willingness to actually get some problems solved; but it would need at the least co-operation with TfL, the GLA and DfT, plus proper expenditure (not CCTV and flowerpots). Telling local people to “get on your bike” isn’t an answer: how about a leaflet campaign in Herts, Essex, Enfield, etc, suggesting all the commuters who appear to constitute the bulk of the borough’s “through traffic” should walk or cycle to their central London workplaces as well?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
