Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Green Lanes Area Transport Study - consultation
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/transport/green-lanes-area-transport-study
Tags for Forum Posts: consultation, harringay traffic study, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JulieB on
-
I've found where it's mentioned, page 63 of the existing conditions document:
"3.50 It is important to emphasise that these results do not necessarily capture the full impacts of the closure on vehicle journey times. This is because there were also instances where queuing and delays occurred outside the OD cordon, which means that they would not be captured by the OD surveys. These changes are also based on average travel times across the entire 16 hour time period that was surveyed. This means that any larger changes in travel times (that may occur during busier times of the day) may be masked by smaller changes during quieter times (for example late at night)."
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Ah, we're talking about two different documents. The one I've linked to was data from a Freedom of Information request I made to TfL and definitely wasn't averaged in that way.
-
Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
On the subject of "mythical mitigation measures", have a look at the area wide document and the green lanes one. Here are some ideas that have come down from Mount Olympus:
1) Banning of U-turns on Green Lanes.
2) Moving the bus stop on southbound GL to the south side of Endymion Road.
3) Measures to ban school runs (which is stated to cause 8%).
4) Extending the bus lane hours.
I am quite impressed actually by the amount of discussion and analysis in these documents.
-
-
And how many of them have ever been implemented? None. That is why I refer to them as "mythical" because they never happen. And if you think those three measures alone can mitigate the closure of Wightman Road, I think you're kidding yourself.
And by the way, I think if you're allocated a school place a mile and a half away, you shouldn't then add insult to injury by banning me from driving my child to school. I want to walk my child to school (and now do) but punishing me for not getting a school place within walking distance is hardly fair.
-
-
1) They are proposals of course they haven't been implemented. To date all we have talked about is proposals and their merits.
2) The definition of "mitigate" is reduces, not eliminates.
3) I do agree with your second point in a status quo sense.
However, --a bit of a chicken and egg scenario--but perhaps people who get into oversubscribed schools (thereby blocking you (and me at this point) from a walking distance school) may not be as keen to apply knowing *they* wont be able to drive 1.5 miles and be able to let their child alight in comfort, thereby freeing up spots in the walking distance school.
-
-
-
@Knavel - No one living 1.5 miles away will get into any of the 3 main oversubscribed primary schools in the area (unless they are statemented children or they have older siblings with a place and have moved, or been forced to move, further away). So they're not blocking you, there are more than enough children living within the 0.2 or 0.3 (walking distance) current catchments to fill the places.
The problem arises for families, like Antoinette's, who live just outside these very tight catchments, or for people applying for an in-year admission, who don't get a place at their nearest school and are allocated schools much further away.
Timings for getting children to school and then making an onward journey to work (or, in my case, to get back to walk a younger child to their school) are very tight, often impossible to do on public transport especially if you need to change buses. I'm all for encouraging walking and cycling to and from school, but sometimes it just isn't possible for lots of different reasons.
-
-
-
Knavel,
None of these proposals are new. They were proposals before the bridge closure too, but weren't implemented. -
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
Antoinette, mythical means imaginary. Just because something has not happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen in future. Did the Suffragettes give up because of "mythical" votes for women?
Incidentally I've just remembered that you are opposed to any roads being protected from ratrunning, not just Wightman and the ladder rungs - you said so here. As I said then, I think that is a logically consistent position, but it's not a view I (or fortunately anyone with responsibility for transport infrastructure) share. So I think even if you accepted that the mitigation measures are real, and achievable, and would be effective in reducing unreliable bus journey times, you would actually still object to filtering Wightman?
-
-
-
Joe. ...wow. how many 100s of my posts did you trawl through? That''s bordering on creepy. I think you should get out more.
-
-
-
1) JoeW for the win. When it turns ad hominem is usually the sign of grasping at straws defeat.
2) Hey Antoinette - The bridge closure was a very meaningful reference, but there was nothing permanent about it. Nothing like the documents, steering groups and studies. It stands to reason that none of these things happened then, but they are saying they could now. I'd like to think they would keep to their word and do them but I have no more power over this than anyone here. But I won't let that level of cynicism defeat me before this gets out of the gate (even though it is kind of reasonable given we are talking about a council).
-
-
Permalink Reply by Frederick Guy on
-
Knavel: U-turns, bus lane hours - correct, good moves, though small. Moving the bus stop - yes but as Hugh points out they could first try extending the box at least to the slip road from Williamson onto Green Lanes southbound.
But as for school runs: the consultation documents do discuss minimizing the impact off the school run, which they have to do because it is a hot issue about which Haringey has done sweet FA. They propose no action and not even any process for studying or planning action: they say it's a matter for the community around each individual school. Since they refused even to present options that would install filters affecting any single school - except for Wightman option 4, which is a straw man meant to be knocked down - and also argued that individual roads could not be filtered when parallel alternatives remained unfiltered (this is in the discussion of the Gardens/St Ann's package), they leave school communities with few tools to manage the school run. This is about as far from 'banning the school run' as you can get.
-
-
"except for Wightman option 4, which is a straw man meant to be knocked down"
So you think option 4 will never happen? I don't disagree but interested to hear the reasoning. If you know where this will end and can tell me why please do as it will save a me a lot of time and probably disappointment. Why all of this damn pretense and effort going into it if the outcome is so foregone?
I never said that the "mitigation points" would offset or even come close. I just said that this is what they are as the argument was that there were no mitigating points.
I do think you have to break eggs to make an omelette. I don't understand why my/our council is so adverse to typical anti-capitalism stance like every other council and thereby giving the vehicle owners two fingers-- it's the one damn thing I agree with the left on!
There is one proposal in the cards over and over that will dramatically help me personally (so does that mean it will carry?) but I like the filtering as I don't get any satisfaction passing a degree of pain/inconvenience to my neighbours. Quite the opposite.
I do, however, get that warm feeling though at passing the pain to the 2500 cars that come up my street everyday and apparently this is the one thing that I won't get to do.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
