Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Fresh Start: Joint LCSP-Living Wightman Submisson to Haringey
The LCSP (traffic sub-group) and Living Wightman have contributed recently in the development of a resident led submission to Haringey in relation to traffic and the Ladder. I am pleased to share the "Fresh Start" document with you below. I have also copied the email circulated to the LCSP membership setting out the context of the Fresh Start document.
I am also pleased to share a joint letter from the LCSP and Living Wightman to Haringey setting out a request to extend the current Wightman closure until the Green Lanes Traffic Study reports back in December.
We welcome any constructive feedback and thoughts, and importantly ideas!
Justin Guest
Chair LCSP Traffic Sub-Committee
**************
You will no doubt be aware of the fact the Green Lane Traffic Study is in progress. To contribute to this process the LCSP has coordinated with the Living Wightman Campaign to prepare a resident led submission document that has gone to the council. The “Fresh Start” document aims to characterise the problems faced by many Ladder residents as the Ladder has increasingly become a sacrificial zone as a result what has historically been weak traffic management planning on Green Lanes.
The document sets out the impacts of this weakness in planning, and how the application of ever more pressure on a narrower subset of roads in the borough to act as a relief valve has affected the Ladder.
The document is designed to provoke thought and offer insights to decision makers and influencers who may not be familiar with the area. The document goes further in proposing a partnership between the council and residents in what will hopefully be a long term effort to fundamentally change the profile of traffic flows across the Ladder and surrounding areas.
We also jointly make recommendations as to actions that can be taken to begin making meaningful progress in reducing the traffic burden on the area. We recognise the solution may not be a result of a single intervention, and as a result, as the Green lanes Traffic Study progresses, the Fresh Start document is designed to be a living document, which we hope to add to at appropriate moments and re-circulate to keep the discussion alive.
For those of you with feedback you are welcome to contact myself in the first instance.
Please also see attached the joint Living Wightman letter agreed at the last LCSP meeting requesting a temporary extension of the Wightman closure until the Green Lanes Traffic Study reports back.
Please note, the traffic sub-group will aim to meet next week. We do not have a date yet. We welcome the ongoing participation of Ladder residents, and if anyone would like to come along, or represent their road please let me know. You will be most welcome.
Tags for Forum Posts: harringay traffic study, traffic, wightman bridge closure
- Attachments:
-
-
Fresh Start 290716.pdf, 4 MB -
letter to Peray Ahmet 22 July 2016.pdf, 322 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nick on
-
Perhaps so, though while reduced traffic will make the roads safer, it doesn't make them 'safe'.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
And that Nick is the point. The volume of traffic and possibly more importantly the way that traffic behaves has driven children off the street. Why should the kids of today be denied the benefits you & I enjoyed?
Again, do not get me wrong, I do not let my kids play in the road, lets be clear. They play on the pavements. We are lucky enough to have slightly wider areas near the Passage and the raised beds that are sufficient for them to do all sorts of things.
What I do not understand is how we can allow anyone to be forced off the streets in *their* community because of a twisted logic that says its dangerous and cars have right to be there. Cars do have a right, I get that, but not to the detriment of the people that live in a community surely.
I could let me kids go tot eh parks (alone?) but then you have the risk your kid is going to be snatched (I do not actually believe this, but some people may, we are certainly bombarded with this threat by the 24 hour media). So, how do you quantify all these risks.
I think for me, the issue is not so much the volume of traffic but the *quality*. Cars passing at moderate speeds and respectfully though a community have a much lower impact that cars speeding- they are certainly less risk to my kids! Maybe we can focus here as a minimum?
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I agree with Nick. We have to ask ourselves
- are the roads there for traffic ? ( yes)
- are the roads there as playgrounds ? ( no )
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I entirely disagree. Entirely. Pedestrians were bullied off of the roads by the propaganda arm of the motoring industry. The BBC wrote something about it here. I think you need to study your urban history a bit past the Model T Ford.
-
-
Were children bullied off railway tracks by the train industry too? Off construction sites by the building industry?
Why play on the road when there are so many parks nearby? Compared to many large cities we are spoiled for open spaces. Roads are necessary.
-
-
I'm sorry but I'm just not going to debate with you if you're going to use silly arguments like that. The railway companies had to buy the land that they built on. I think the analogy you're looking for is motorways, also an entirely different kettle of fish.
The space outside the front of your house is important for socialising. Look through the historical photograph archives on HarringayOnline and you'll see loads of photographs of children playing in the street. They were of course powerless when it came to the first motorists with their expensive investment and accompanying sense of entitlement.
-
-
Permalink Reply by matthew cuthbert on
-
Growing up, I used to play by the rail way line, and the old stock yards with my mate, (who's house used to rumble when the train passed,) today this not exactly what I would want for my kids, horses for courses, it's not every bodies choice.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Stephen from Berlin has previously posted photos of play streets there. Perhaps the choices are wider than we assume? Having said which, I have idea how successful or not they are there or here. And one of the possible consequences of Brexit may be the exclusion of the UK from EU programmes where professionals from different states, towns and cities were funded to meet and visit each other to compare and contrast practice.
John McMullan, about the railway companies buying the land, if anyone has some of the history books they want to get sell-on, I'm interested to read more about these companies pushing their lines into London. From the little I've read recently, it seems that the routes chosen were largely through poorer areas, and that compensation was often minimal. People renting were were expected simply to move. (It seems that Dickens' "Christmas Carol" had the background of swathes of the poorer housing of Camden Town being demolished.
Political and economic power was in the hands of major landowners and companies - not too different from now. It was a time - mid-nineteenth century - when few people had the vote. so political opposition about where railways were situated came from others just as powerful. Which led to most of the major terminals for the main London lines being sited along a "quadrilateral" just outside the then central area.
As you know, John - because you were one of the people who first pointed me to his research - interesting issues about deaths and accidents involving children was raised by Mayer Hillman and others who have argued that one "price" paid by children has been their treatment like "prisoners" who are kept confined and then escorted in vehicles from place to place. -
-
-
You just need to see Victorian street images of Harringay, with people crossing in most shots during local traffic movement. Capacity has formed a physical barrier today. The upkeep of our high street is a disgrace, traders and the LCSP have called for a deep cleanse for our footpaths, this should be done regularly. Green Lanes can be wonderful, but if we don't maintain a certain level of standard of care, it will decline, and it won't be pretty.
-
-
I don't think it's safe for children and motor vehicles to share a road, unless it's pedestrianised.
Child road deaths have more than halved since 2000.
http://www.makingthelink.net/sites/default/files/Children%20KSI%202...
Perhaps returning to the ways of the past isn't such a great idea.
-
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
John D, that is a false dichotomy, streets can and should serve many purposes.
There are plenty of academic and other studies to support this. From a Design Council briefing:
"For the past 50 years we have thought only of the car, in effect providing parking spaces and access routes for drivers between home and the outside world. Things have to change – we must not let the car dominate when a well designed street can help create sustainable communities, enable people to get around, promote walking and cycling, civic pride and identity, provide safe play for children and allow the community to interact."
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
