Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Council Seeks to Move Crossrail 2 from Centre to North of Borough - Last Chance to TfL What you Think
As a result of the Council's aspirations for Wood Green, a further option has been added to the Crossrail 2 route. They want the Ally Pally option routed via Wood Green instead of Turnpike Lane.
Whilst this option may serve the Council's own aspirations, it moves the station away from a point that's as close to the centre of the borough as it's possible to get to one towards the northern boundary. The Turnpike Lane option also looks to be much better connected by road and I believe by bus too. What's more is that the Wood Green option would call for a huge ventilation shaft to be dug in Downhill's Park.
The TfL consultation ends on 8th Jan. If you'd like to have your say on this option click through to the consultation main page or go straight to the questions (If you're only interested in this part of the consultation, you need do no more than answer four questions and give your name.
Tags for Forum Posts: crossrail, crossrail 2
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Milda Rami on
-
Yes, I was pretty annoyed when I saw this. It wasn't among options to start with, was it?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
No, it wasn't originally an option. It was put it at the Council's request. They seem to be pretty confident that they have this option sewn up as a slam dunk. In the other conversation I linked to above Clive Carter quotes from a paper that was published yesterday in which the Council say:
It promotes shifting the heart of the town centre further down High Road to benefit from a new Crossrail 2 station that will be located below a new public square in the vicinity of the current library, at the heart of the new town centre.
Whether they've inadvertently let the cat out of the bag on a backroom deal or just misspoken, it's hard to say.
-
-
This doesn't sound very transparent to me.. But perhaps with the Council's backing its a sure win?
-
-
They certainly have muscle, but I imagine if there was enough opposition, TfL would need to take that into account. So if you don't like it, let them know.
-
Permalink Reply by Mavic Starfish on
-
Have replied to consultation and objected to the proposal to build a Ground shaft (the misspelling above is entirely appropriate) in Downhills Park, details below - note 5 years work involved. I'm sure the Friends of Downhills Park will have something to say about this proposal. The borough have managed to dispose of a lot of the Victorian heritage of the borough and now they want to ruin this part of Downhills Park, with a 2 storey building that will be completely inappropriate - no thanks.
Downhills Recreation Ground Shaft
To enable Crossrail 2 to operate safely, we would need a shaft between Seven Sisters and Wood Green stations.
The shaft would provide tunnel ventilation, access for the fire and rescue services and a safe evacuation route for passengers in the event of an emergency. For further
information about how shafts work, please consult the Shafts Factsheet.Our preferred site at the present time is in the northwest corner of Downhills Recreation Ground. This has been selected because it allows us to avoid housing and
schools in the area. However, the Wood Green option for Crossrail 2 is at a very early stage of development and further work is needed.single worksite would be required to build the shaft and a typical shaft would take approximately five years to complete. Activity on site would fluctuate during this
period. Once the site has been cleared and prepared, the major construction work to dig out the shaft would usually be complete within two years.On completion of the works at each site, an aboveground structure known as a ‘head-house’ would remain. The head-house would provide access to the shaft, the
equipment within it and the tunnels below. It would also allow air to be drawn into and out of the tunnel ventilation system.At this early stage of Crossrail 2’s design, we expect a typical head-house to be at least two storeys high and to occupy an area of around 25m by 25m. As the scheme develops further, we would engage with the local authority, interested stakeholders and local communities to inform the designs for each head-house.
-
Permalink Reply by 0l7ft44vlytse on
-
They are just discussing the 2 options and not predicting it will go one way or the other.
Option 4 which you copied from is predicated by Crossrail being at "Wood Green central", while Option 3 is where they discuss what they would do if CR2 is to be at Turnpike Lane. They are basically the same ideas but a bit bigger redevelopment if CR2 ends up going to Wood Green.
The similar passage from option 3: "This option is as that promoted by Option 4 below but with the key difference being that the area is served by two Crossrail 2 stations (Turnpike Lane and Alexandra Palace)."
-
-
Thanks. I'd totally missed the fact that the Ally Pally station would go with the Wood Green option. That seems very strange. I wonder why the Council would want to promote an option that ignores Ally Pally.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Thanks for your post Hugh and I agree with the points you've made above.
The favoured proposal of the planning department/council for Wood Green relies on a Crossrail 2 Station at Wood Green. While this maximses developer opportunities there, it would come at the price of a broader spread of benefit from having two CR2 stations between Seven Sisters and New Southgate and nearer the middle of the Borough.
Crossrail 2 and the stations that are built for it are likely to out-last any building redevelopments at Wood Green. The Wood Green Shopping City was an LBH creation and isn't universally admired. Elsewhere, Apex house is to be sold to Grainger and demolished; yet it even had the opening ribbon cut by the then Mayor who is still a serving Councillor! There are other examples of planing muck-ups, especially in roading.
By such a focus on one area, the Council would short-change the Borough as a whole. Our Borough would get one less station than under TfL's original plan and at a location whose merits are debatable.
With the WG route, a huge ventilation shaft would surface in a public park that would be needed to balance air pressure in the tunnels (with older stations, one can feel the draft on platforms).
--
The other point I'd make is that, yet again, the Council exhibits carelessness towards their Trust and responsibility, Alexandra Palace. AP continues to require a large subsidy from the Trustees (the Council) and yet the Council does little to take positive steps to reduce the need for the subsidy in the long run.
In the long run, AP will have to "wash its face" and this means delivering larger numbers of visitors who pay for either, events, attractions or accommodation. The limited public transport has always militated against significantly increased footfall. By rejecting a Crossrail 2 link at AP, they would remove a major possible plank to improve the prospects for AP in the future.
--
The cheaper option of a CR2 station at WG was added by TfL under pressure from LBH. The attraction of cost saving for TfL is obvious. However TfL have done great number-crunching and are concerned about likely usage in a wider area than merely this Council's boundaries: including South East England.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Reason likely for the council coming up with option 4 (and having mtgs with GLA to push this option fwd) is their desire to move front of line services out of Station Rd to a (new) central library, roughly where the current one is. CR2 WG would (they hope) make it more likely the tower developments next to Shoping City would get built, probably with the proviso that the council takes the first 2/3 floors for council services/library, saving them & us money, presumably. They then get to pass on the Station Rd buildings for housing, with the tower on the corner (opp WG tube staton) sold for a profit, as I understand that the council owns that one, the others being under lease.
God help the architect who has the job of trying to decide on colour of the cladding for the new towers that will sit next to the red bricked Shopping City.
-
Permalink Reply by Rachella on
-
What towers? Are there plans to knock down the existing library? Can someone please point me to the document showing this so I can object, too.
-
-
Rachella there are no 'plans' as such, there are four options that become steadily more ambitious and speculative as you ascend from No.1 to No.4 (No.4 being the Council's preferred Option). Indeed the low level of detail was explicitly criticised in the Regulatory Committee meeting.
However, I share your concern about the currently well-used Wood Green library. It appears that there may be a desire to do a 'Marcus Garvey' to it's replacement: i.e. to halve the effective library space and put council offices & customer service facilities into the residue; a kind of hollowing out of the library function.
The casualness exhibited towards libraries is perhaps best shown in a couple of clauses:
Option 1 says that
The library will be re-provided on the existing library site (p.47)
Option 2 includes the clause:
The Council front office is located on the High Road in this proposal, on the current site of the library, which could also be re-provided in an associated development (my emphasis). p.52
I do not know what is meant by 're-provide' but there are portents from the current Marcus Garvey experience.
The big document also describes a replacement library as "new and improved". This has to be worrying, as the changes underway at Marcus Garvey Library were described in similar terms. The so-called refurbishment will lead to a reduction in space by about half and to the cramming in of unrelated functions.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
