Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Traffic group meeting this week
Anyone able to give us an update on what happened at the traffic study meeting on Monday? One of the steering group members have suggested "The next couple of months could be critical and we will need to lobby", so would be good if we could all be kept updated on what happens at the meetings.
On a related note, these from the HCC meeting minutes:
(1) Gary Smith of LBH is working on a 2-way scheme for Tottenham lane existing 1-way section
(2) There are sketch proposals for a W bound segregated cycle lane on Turnpike Lane W from Wightman Rd.
(3) Wightman Rd:
- it was agreed the pinch points must go
- filtering ladder roads at the lane a possibility but would increase travel distances for residents traveling E/W.
- Pavement parking should be removed, parking one side of road (alternating) possible.
- Introduce zebra crossings.
- There should be a timed N bound cycle lane on green Lanes as a minimum.
Those all sound interesting. (1) could help a lot with all the congestion that was around the bus stop by the New River there while Wightman was closed. That (2) means up the hill under the railway bridge I think, would be good, I usually ride on the footpath there as the road seems too dangerous.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
Ant, how popular is the status quo with residents? A "bit of inconvenience" versus a massive reduction in air pollution and noise, this is the choice residents will have to make.
If you live at the top of a rung road and like to drive down to Green Lanes for your shopping, this one of the kinds of journey that needs to be discouraged*.
If you live at the top of a rung and are driving to Tottenham or further east, adding a couple of minutes to the journey is negligible.
* One of the other kinds of journey is non-local drivers who drive straight through the area, and should be on the A-roads.
-
-
Yes I was around during the summer. My journeys were largely unaffected, but it probably depends where you needed to go. The difference between the proposed packages and the road layout during the bridgeworks is that there are now options proposed for Green Lanes (e.g. parking, bus lane hours, traffic lights, junctions, u-turns etc) and elsewhere.
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
I don't know how popular the status quo is with residents. We do know a significant number didn't like the situation during the bridge closure though. Now there are 13 proposals that need to be reduce to a shorter list to go out in a public consultation and presumably things on the short list will only be considered if they get a good number more in favour than against. If there was only Package 4 an 5 on the short list for the Ladder what if they didn't receive overwhelming support? Maybe Package 2 is a safer option - people don't seem so wary of turn bans.
-
-
The petition which Living Wightman campaigners took round the Ladder showed a clear majority in favour of eliminating ratrunning from the area. The only package which does that fully is Package 5 - filtering. A one-way solution could drastically reduce ratrunning but would need to be southbound on Wightman (i.e. Package 3 but reversed) and include extensive right turn bans (similar to Package 2). Package 4 - bollards on all rungs - would eliminate ratrunning on the rungs but in that package Wightman remains two-way - it would be less busy but maybe not enough to really promote walking and cycling, at least not as much as package 3 (which has a segregated cycle path) or package 5 (where traffic is light enough to safely allow shared use with cycles).
-
Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
1) I am unclear on how much say the residents will have in the process but perhaps that has been made clear previously before I moved into the area.
2) Re Ant's post above, it sounds as if it's a win or lose based on one choice presented being accepted instead of failing! Surely the residents and/or the representative groups can say "we want 4, but if the council says no then (e.g.,) 2"?
3) I am not sure I agree with using Wightman Road end to end is "rat running" as my understanding is that it has long been a B road. Option 5 would be great don't get me wrong--it would be a real windfall for real estate owners there as the values would increase 20% the second the decision for 5 is announced.
-
-
There is an argument (discussed here for example) about whether Wightman should be a B-road, it is the same width as all the rung roads. It currently carries more traffic than several neighbouring A-roads, which is clearly wrong.
Even if you accept the B-road classification, if drivers are using it to cut through between two A-roads (Turnpike Lane to Green Lanes, via Endymion), then that is ratrunning.
-
-
Packages 1, 2 and 3 all have block traffic into Warham from Salisbury Rd. Where would the traffic go instead? Nice for Warham, but not so good for Mattison Rd and Harringay Rd / Effingham which likely get all that old Warham Rd traffic.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Going straight over from Salisbury to Warham is an easy option at the moment, which is why so many vehicles do it. The great majority of the traffic doesn't have Warham Road as it's destination of course so measures would benefit those on Wightman too.
Any measures to discourage traffic from using this route would have to be combined with measures to stop the same thing happening on other roads
I can't see anything that says block traffic into Warham Road though
-
-
What does "discourage" actually entail?
-
-
Good question - don't know!
-
-
If you look at all the places the word "discourage" is used in the attached document is mostly seems to mean use a traffic restriction to prevent or stop things. For example:
"Ban this left turn to discourage through traffic from using Cornwall Road."
or
"Discourage through traffic from Warham Road - could involve banning the westbound ahead movement from Salisbury Road to Warham Road and/or reversing the one-way direction of Warham Road (so that it becomes eastbound)."
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
