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 Peter Chalk on
-
I remember when Warwick Gardens was exactly like Wightman Road. My father used it going from Enfield to Farringdon - down the A10, then Harringay Road or Woodlands Park Road, then Warwick Gardens (or Hermitage Road). That's why the gardens residents are so keen to keep their private access and pay for it!
But I do agree we need to remove all through traffic through Haringey.
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
Please check your facts Nick - nine ladder rungs have over 10,000 vehicles per week and the majority of those have at least 20-30% in excess of that.
Also, Wightman has daily congestion at both ends. And there is very heavy traffic (115K vehicles per week at each data recording point - more than Turnpike Lane) at all points inbetween (though not normally daily congestion, since drivers can often ratrun down the nearest rung).
You seem to be arguing that the rungs are an acceptable route from the west of the borough into Harringay but I have not heard you arguing that the Gardens should be opened up to provide more routes into Harringay from the east of the borough. I assume that is because you live in the Gardens, and are "selfishly" hoping to maintain the quality of your residential environment?
-
Permalink Reply by Nick on
-
Each proposed road reconfiguration must be judged on its own merits. It's not sufficient to say that just because the Gardens are closed off, Wightman should be too. By this logic, Endymion road, St Anns road, Middle Lane, Oakfield Road etc would all be closed, by virtue of being 'residential' and open to through traffic.
The Gardens were closed because traffic backed up all the way along Warwick Gardens, and because there were frequent accidents between cars at T-Junctions. I lived here pre closure and witnessed all of this. This became much worse after Hermitage road was gated. The closure of the Gardens does not have nearly as big an effect as the closure of Wightman and you surely must admit this.
I would support opening the Gardens if Hermitage Road were also opened.
There is clearly a problem going from West -> East as traffic is now horrendous on Turnpike Lane and Endymion Road. Where is the support for closing Endymion Road, a 100% residential road - are those residents not part of your select group?
-
-
I would not support reopening either the Gardens or Hermitage.
The other roads you mention are quieter, and/or wider, and/or less residential, and/or do not have pavement parking like Wightman does. If they met all or most of these criteria then I would support closing/filtering arrangements which are desperately needed on Wightman.
-
-
I think by following your approach very few roads in London will be left open.
-
-
-
Antoinette the bridge reconstruction was necessary for the electrification of the GOBLIN.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
"... re-building a bridge that leads nowhere?"
The temporary removal of which apparently causes traffic chaos all around? Plainly some people think it does lead somewhere they want to get to.
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
And it should continue to lead somewhere...that was my point...
-
-
We could have had a pedestrian only bridge for a fraction of the cost if it wasn't going to be carrying traffic. Not only did they replace the bridge, they upped the tonnage it could carry....
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
EU standards. Lol.
-
-
The authors of “Fresh Start” claim “we are not asking for a reduction or diminution of the protections offered to fellow residents in neighbouring wards” but that’s exactly what they’re doing: by ignoring the knock-on effect of partial or complete future closure of Wightman and/or ladder roads and offering negligible suggestions for how this can be mitigated, the submission is just another attempt to shift a borough-wide problem from one set of streets to another, without regard for the consequences.
With the current summer traffic lull it’s all too easy to forget just how unpleasant Green Lanes and other roads were in May/June, with massive solid traffic jams at peak times from Manor House to the Salisbury and increased pollution levels from slow-moving or stationary vehicles for anyone living on GL or adjacent roads (which, incidentally, includes ladder roads), not to mention the jams caused in Turnpike Lane and Wood Green or neighbouring areas such as Hornsey and even Crouch End.
Whatever is claimed here, 900+ responses is a tiny fragment of the total population likely to be affected across the whole of central Harringay by long-term closure of Wightman. For entirely understandable reasons, the Living Wightman group doesn’t appear to have surveyed anyone living in Green Lanes, the Gardens, Salisbury, St Ann’s or any other non-ladder roads likely to be affected by their proposal. If they had, they might well have got very different results.
“Fresh Start” would be much more persuasive if it wasn’t for the very unfortunate and unpleasantly sanctimonious strain running through the threads about the Wightman closure that have preceded - and perhaps led to - its creation (“two wheels good, four wheels bad”?). Over the past few months it’s become apparent that some Wightman/ladder residents
a) Are convinced the problems are all caused by “through” traffic, but can offer no evidence as to where the journeys they complain about start and finish, because currently it doesn’t exist.
b) Won’t define “local”. Is someone who shops at Yasar Halim, Baldwins, Beans & Barley, etc, but has the temerity to live on the east side of Green Lanes or even - heaven forfend - in Rutland Gardens or Harringay Road less a “local” than those living on the ladder? If they dare to use a ladder road, do they suddenly become “through” traffic? Where is the “local” boundary?
c) Claim that the problem is always other people but won’t acknowledge that they are part of the problem themselves when they take short-cuts (aka “rat-runs”) through residential streets elsewhere in London. Or can they prove they keep exclusively to the A roads they say are the only legitimate routes for “through traffic” anywhere in the city?
d) Condemn Gardens and Hermitage residents for selfishness, or even alleged political corruption, for getting their roads closed to through traffic but think it’s perfectly OK for the same thing to be done in Wightman or on the ladder. Why?
e) Give the impression they think ladder roads and Wightman should be for the exclusive use of those who live on them.
f) Wilfully deny that the huge increase in Green Lanes traffic, 20-minute crawl from the Arena to the Salisbury on buses, etc, was anything at all to do with the Wightman closure.
Perhaps this sounds harsh and unsympathetic to the real problems of noise, pollution, congestion and traffic interference faced by Wightman/ladder residents, but the comments all reflect views put forward on HoL in recent months. A potentially legitimate case is seriously undermined and devalued by what appears to be selfishness in some people’s failure to consider those living in other parts of the borough. Hugh wrote a long post condemning the use of NIMBY-ism as a term, but from the majority of Wightman closure threads it’s hard for non-Wightman/ladder residents to see this campaign as anything but exactly that.
-
-
Don, as you say there are "real problems of noise, pollution, congestion and traffic interference faced by Wightman/ladder residents". The tried-and-tested solution to this, as used in thousands of streets across London, the UK and the rest of the world, is to filter the streets so they are accessible to residents only. The mental and physical health benefits of reduced pollution and noise are compounded by the health and fitness benefits of encouraging walking and cycling. Sorry if that seems "sanctimonious", but it also makes economic sense, for example the NHS would save millions in treating obesity and lung-related conditions.
Do you have a better solution?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
