Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Green Lanes Transport Study - Final Report
The Green Lanes Area Transport Study has taken two years, and cost about £200,000, to complete, and was intended to address the longstanding problem of excessive traffic in the area, and consequent issues of safety, pollution and (in the consultant's jargon) "loss of amenity" to residents. The final report was published today without much fanfare.
The above photo from the cover of the report shows motorists, cyclists and buggy-pushing pedestrians apparently co-existing in harmony at the tree-lined junction of Burgoyne Road with Green Lanes, with Stanhope Gardens (one of the side streets on the eastern side of Green Lanes which enjoys protection from rat-running) receding quietly into the distance. I assume the subliminal message here is that everything is already hunky-dory, there is little room for improvement and all we can do is tinker around the edges?
I've attached a copy of the report to this post or you can download it and various other documents from the Council's webpage at http://www.haringey.gov.uk/transport/green-lanes-area-transport-study.
I actually think £200K would be good value if the report recommended measures which would significantly improve the quality of life of local residents - measures to reduce traffic and pollution, measures to make walking more attractive, or make cycling safer so that more people would choose those "active transport modes" and have healthier lives. Unfortunately I can't see many measures that will make much difference.
Tags for Forum Posts: harringay traffic study
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
I'd love it to be open for pedestrians. However, as far as I'm aware, it was previously floated and rejected following objections by the properties neighbouring the river.
I love how without fail the local residents can get anything done or not done in their own unique interest anywhere in this borough--except when it comes to bollards on the Ladder or filtering Wightman Road (or just making it safer as it couldn't be more dangerous), in which case the impact would be just too much on motorists from Enfield driving through.
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
I'm not sure the current Wightman-Hampden (station approach) New River path is actually proposed as a cycling route - it may just be an improved pedestrian route? There is a suggestion of extending the path northwards from Hampden to Turnpike Lane - perhaps through the new flats by Hornsey Station - and perhaps that could be cyclable. The current path though is too muddy even for pedestrians at some times of the year, and has no lighting. The path could usefully be improved like most of Parkland Walk so it is usable all year round by pedestrians. But to make it cyclable and remain shared use it would need to be tarmacked to a minimum width of around 4.5m, and floodlit to make it safe in the evenings. Plus a new footbridge. I don't think this is being proposed, more likely just to improve and extend it primarily as a leisure route for pedestrians.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Well that’s a relief. I think I picked up my interpretation of the proposal from elsewhere. But reading the specific proposal again there is no mention of the Northern Ladder stretch of the New River Path being may a cycle way. Phew.
On the opening of the southern Ladder section of the New River Path as a pedestrian route, I’ve learned since I made my last comment that the police were also significant objectors the last time the proposal was made. I suspect that they would restate those objections were the proposal to surface again.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Stay inside, watch Sky TV.
-
-
Big win for non residents and Antoinette. Living Wightman was the big loser in this and not even mentioned per what I've looked at so far.
Non residents are normally never accorded weight in these matters because it's the activity of non-residents versus residents at the heart of the issue in the first place.
I can't recall as what some church had to say as ever mattering, but I expect the consultants had the mosque in mind and hence the kowtowing while ignoring Living Wightman.
My sense reading this was that the outcome was a fait accompli. The cynic in me thinks it was 200k spent to be able to tell residents demostrably carrying forward that the councill tried everything possible.
__GL110d: Ban U-turns on Green Lanes
Not taken forward as this would be difficult to enforce, and likely to create unintended side effects (for example more U-turns in side streets).Alternative package WL2: Wightman Road one-way (northbound). Whilst the wider implications of this package on the road network would not be as great as for Alternative WL4, it would still have some significant impacts. Given that this package has an extremely low level of support, it is recommended that it not be taken forward.
Alternative package WL3: Wightman Road one-way (southbound)
Whilst the wider implications of this package on the road network would not be as great as for Alternative WL4, it would still have some significant impacts. Given that this package has an extremely low level of support, it is recommended that it not be taken forward.Alternative package WL4: Wightman Road closed (filtered)
Data collected during the 2016 closure of Wightman Road indicated that it caused widespread impacts across the borough, not only in terms of increased travel times for general traffic, but also increased journey times for buses. Much of the feedback received noted various difficulties caused by the closure; for example, comments were received from the places of worship on WightmanRoad regarding how the closure had impacted on their activities in the community. Finally, the response to the alternative package was extremely polarised with almostevenly split views, indicating a complete lack of broad community support. This package has therefore not been taken forward.SA-07: Provide passing places on Gardens roads
This option has not taken forward, as given that the Gardens roads are not through routes, improving vehicle journey times on the Gardens roads is not a high priority. Feedback on this option was also mixed.
-
Permalink Reply by Rich on
-
I'm not surprised that larger proposals for Wightman Road didn't go head, they really didn't make sense without been combined with other proposals. It really was a missed opportunity, especially as the whole report doesn't seem to want to do much about the pollution situation around the area.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Precisely Rich. What we were promised was a scheme for the area as a whole that would deal with both the volume of traffic and the use of the area as a cut through. Instead we’ve got a bit of tinker here and a bit of tinker there. Isn’t that what got us into this mess in the first place?
-
-
"comments were received from the places of worship on WightmanRoad regarding how the closure had impacted on their activities in the community"
That says it all. The traffic around here induced by those places is horrendous. Basically don't leave your house at 11am on a Sunday using your car and expect to be able to return before 2pm if you live at the top of the ladder.
-
-
It would be a walk... I wouldn't be coming from Bethnal Green or Palmer's Green.
-
-
Knavel, I don’t think the views of locals, whatever side of the argument(s) they supported, had a lot to do with the proposals here. For decades now it hasn’t been residents who have called the shots in the area. The document is an essay in retaining the status quo so it suits the traders and makes life easy for the politicians they support. I simply despair.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I'm not sure about that Michael. In a negative kind of way " Given that this package has an extremely low level of support, it is recommended that it not be taken forward" " indicating a complete lack of broad community support. This package has therefore not been taken forward"
I would have hoped that the Consultants would have recommended what they thought was right. not necessarily what the residents wanted.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
