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 JoeW on
-
From Steering Group #5 minutes "Various questions were asked regarding whether a camera system, to allow only access to Harringay and/or Haringey residents to certain roads would be possible. Council officers commented that this would be illegal."
I'd guess "illegal" doesn't mean "impossible" but "would require a change in legislation" to change the status of the road(s)? It's different from the Gardens where although there is a rising bollard at one exit for which only residents have a fob, the roads are not actually private - anyone can enter and drive on them. But even there I think the Council aren't keen to have systems that require giving residents fobs or passes - hence the package option to replace the rising bollard with a permanent barrier.
"The system could even be set to operate only during certain hours to help mimimise the worst of any local 'displacement snarl-ups'."
Did you have an idea when the "certain hours" would be Hugh? The above chart of a single weekday shows that Wightman traffic hits 800 vehicles per hour in the early morning and rises to well over 1000vph for the whole afternoon and early evening. It doesn't seem very tidal just a constant heavy flow all day.
-
Permalink Reply by Penguin on
-
It would be tampered with I'm afraid just like someone is regularly tampering with the bollards on St Anns Road going into The Gardens so that it remains open to our lovely rat running speeding friends in their BM's and Mercs. Have reported to local ward councillors and the GRA who have done....
you guessed it! Nothing.
-
Permalink Reply by Nick on
-
The bollards are suffering from a mechanical fault, it's not vandalism as far as we know.
-
Permalink Reply by The Black Lark on
-
"the area is sacrificed (particularly residential roads such as Wightman)"
Trying to think of any non-residential roads around here... The irony is that on Green Lanes there must be more residents per metre of road than any ladder, gardens or Wightman Road.
We're 12 residents over 3 flats above a single shop on Green Lanes (and that's probably a low-ish average).
I vote for closing Green Lanes and putting all traffic on adjacent less-residential roads (ladder, gardens, wightman).
-
-
I think you'll find that the residents of GL are regarded as much less deserving of clean air than those in their million-pound houses on the Ladder. Some of them moved there before the traffic was a problem, whereas people on GL have only themselves to blame. Is how I understand the overriding sentiment.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Regarded ? By whom ? That's very divisive. What do you base that assertion on ?
-
-
Posted on HOL:
"The spike in flow on Green Lanes during the summer bridge works was fractional compared to the figures of traffic reduction on Wightman at that time (...)
And in any case--too damn bad: If someone buys or rents on an A road in particular, there has been a noticable downward price accounting for the A road proximity. People on the residential roads pay--what--40% more than A road renters and purchasers? "
-
-
Says it all...
-
-
Wow, nice to think that people remember things I've said from months ago.
Is there any aspect of this rather obvious economic analysis that one might be able to take issue with? The only debatable part is the 40%--that was a guess. For all I know it is 25%, but it does not change the point.
I would happily support the removal of parking from GL; designated bus lanes, cycle lanes, CPZ and anything else viable for that road. But don't tell me when you are someone who buys or rents there that the nuisance was not priced in and that you accepted this term in exchange for the reduced price. I have said exactly this of Wightman Road as well, which is why I most favoured the bollards along the Passage. But the council dumped that proposal so filtered is the only choice and WR owners will make an overnight gain of ~25% if the filtering solution is adopted.
-
-
It is, isn't it? Which is sad, but it is a theme throughout the discussions that the residents of Wightman and the Ladder rungs need Wightman closed and the impact on GL and also Turnpike Lane are not really given much thought.
-
-
Charlotte - the available evidence indicates that pollution went down on Green Lanes
http://www.livingwightman.org/p/faq.html#faq6
http://www.livingwightman.org/p/data.html#pollution
The argument about a road having residents is missing the point. In urban areas, A-roads have to fulfil many functions - carry traffic between primary destinations - including meeting the needs of cyclists, bus passengers, private vehicles, HGVs - also meet the needs of shops and restaurants and other businesses - and the pedestrians who visit them - and the people who live on them. So the carriageways are wide, they have bus lanes and cycle lanes where possible, the road is strengthened to handle HGVs, junctions and pedestrian crossings and busstops and parking/loading restrictions are carefully designed to balance the needs of traffic flow and different users and functions.
But streets which are purely residential in character - which all the rung roads are and Wightman road is for the vast majority of its length - just need to be protected from through-traffic. Transport planners accept that trying to maintain or increase traffic capacity on roads which are purely residential in character - allowing them to be used as rat-runs - just has negative impact on residents while inducing more traffic onto the A-roads and makes it even harder to design the A-roads to fulfil all the different functions.
Another way to look at that would be, the council will never solve the problem of excessive traffic as long as so much of it is hidden on Wightman Road and the rungs.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
