Residents, Residents Groups and Traders in the Green Lanes / Harringay Ladder area may not be aware of the handsome consultation document detailing the new Green Lanes proposals which has just been published on behalf of the Green Lanes Strategy Group.
This is available to download at:
Paper copies have been produced in limited quantity and are available at Stroud Green Library, Tao Sports and Cherie Hair Salon.
Views and comments are invited and welcomed and the closing date for these is 21 June 2013. 'If no major objections are received', works are planned to start in July/August 2013 and will last 9-12 months.
Comments should be emailed to: firstname.lastname@example.org
or posted to: Frontline Consultation, London Borough of Haringey, FREEPOST NAT 20390, PO Box 264, London N22 8BR
This is the one opportunity to have a close look at all the detail and to make constructive comments.
John and Julie, this is not true, you can turn right on Turnpike Lane into Green Lanes. I do it every week.
How about reversing both Hewit and Seymour and leaving Warham as it is? I suppose that would just swap the Hewit traffic directly to Seymour, but it seems at least as sensible as any or the other suggestions.
Hey Mark. As a Seymour resident I say no. And it won't meet the Council's objectives either - instead of the charming queues exiting right out of Hewit to turn east you will get equally charming queues exiting left out of Seymour and trying to move across the lane to turn east. If all that matters is the plaza then this solution doesn't really help.
All this tinkering is going to end up with all traffic going round in circles, unable to go anywhere
Also just in the minutes of the LCSP meeting on the 13th of June, so for those not on the distribution list, on this topic it says:
7. Harringay Green Lanes: Consultation Document
Residents attending the meeting raised a number of issues including:
• The proposed location of the pedestrian crossing at the N end of Green Lanes.
Concerns that it may be too close to the traffic lights by the (former) Queens Head pub and suggest it may be better located just south of Falkland Road.
• The Chair had been asked to raise the possibility of a bicycle rack outside the surgery, near the corner of Umfreville Road/Green lanes.
• The proposed change to traffic flow in Hewit Road led to a lengthy discussion and points raised included:
- Heavy traffic flow in Hewit Road ongoing for over ten years.
- Need to reduce flow around the new St Ann’s junction/square.
- Inevitability of displaced traffic using nearest adjacent road(s).
- Not satisfactory to have four consecutive one way roads (Warham, Seymour, Hewit, Allison) all going up from Green Lanes.
- Need for a survey of at least all Ladder roads to establish patterns of traffic flow.
- Unanimous agreement on the need for a holistic traffic survey to determine optimum traffic movement for the area.
• The Chair noted that:
- The LCSP has been lobbying for a holistic traffic survey for some 10 years (also noted in our Annual Reports) and will continue to do so.
- The LCSP has never supported piecemeal tinkering with individual roads which merely shifts traffic from A to B, thereby moving rather than solving the problem.
- Any proposed change needs thorough consultation via public meetings and informed debate, based on firm evidence from experts in the field; it should be based on clear principles as part of an overall traffic flow strategy for the area.
Thanks for highlighting this,
It wasn't noted the problem of traffic crossing a TFL route,
or Hewit Road's proximity to St Ann's Rd, two car lengths,
or the issue with Tesco's lorries blocking buses at the junction.
I'm not saying that Hewit is the sole part of the problem,
but these points need to be noted for each road on the Ladder.
I hope the suggestion of Imperial college and other institutions
be invited to provide some independent studies, is taken seriously.
Be good if the minutes could be posted on HoL regularly,
and meeting times if they aren't already, a stronger presence
should be made, with email and contacts on this portal.
Meeting times could be more accommodating than 7PM,
as young parents and professionals could attend.
I remember 'Play Streets' not being supported, which I strongly felt
should have been endorsed, I didn't hear any great support,
dig that one out. I encourage anyone to attend the LCSP meetings
when you can, they represent us.
Normally, agendas for council meetings are sent out or posted online before meetings. The minutes are not normally posted until they are formally approved at the following meeting - with members having an opportunity to correct any typos or other occasional inaccuracies. (E.g. there are sometimes mistakes about who was present; especially if someone arrives late.)
But there is no reason why all the previous non-confidential papers from the Green Lanes Strategy Group should not have been posted as legally required. I assume this set will shortly be available online.
"Sunshine is is said to be the best of disinfectants". - Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Cllr Schmitz, thank you for your response. While useful, an ad hoc, limited traffic count is unlikely be quite enough – a more inclusive, integrated understanding and analysis of the traffic in the wider area is what is needed, combined with some blue sky thinking. A fresh look at viable alternatives based on a global overview, and a genuine consultation will get us a lot further.
We need stats that give a more accurate picture of the traffic flow throughout the area, rather than base action on highly localised, but possibly inaccurate, perceptions.
There are impacts on the entire traffic flow to be considered – for example, if the 20mph limit was rigorously enforced on Wightman Road – speed cameras and fines imposed – the volume of traffic going through the area is likely to be reduced.
It needs professional input based on proper consultation. Then the professionals could make their case and local residents would be involved – rather than a sectarian-style battle emerge which obscures the benefits of the broader scheme.
If the latest proposed traffic planning changes had been carried out with full consultation and with broad local involvement and not imposed as a swerve-ball under pressure at the last minute we might not be mired in this discussion. Traffic needs clear thinking, not knee-jerk reactions to isolated issues without considering the knock-on effects.
The best way to get things done to get the best solutions for the whole area is to work with residents in all roads, and for residents to be brought in to dialogue with each other, too, rather than with individual roads in not-so-splendid isolation. We need to start with a level playing field – then we'll get a traffic plan that complements the ambitious local plan.
A sentence caught my eye in the Guardian's editorial about the wider public issues raised by Edward Snowdon's whistle-blowing. "A meaningful debate cannot be held without information".
So as well as sending in comments, I'm wondering if people would also post - both to the Council and on HoL - their thoughts and suggestions on what extra information they would have liked to make a more informed judgement in the consultation on the Green Lanes/Ladder Roads proposed changes.
I appreciate that some people have already commented on this - sometimes at length. So very brief new comments might stand the best chance of being read and effective.
Many years ago when I was doing some research into collective decision-making I came across some interesting writing on Japanese methods of gaining consensus. And comparisons with the (then) British Civil Service practice of circulating summaries of internal debates and different viewpoints, when the volume of points had become unwieldy or unmanageable.
Just a couple of thoughts which I've had since reading the more recent postings.
Firstly, we need I think to remember what the object of he exercise is, which is (a) to discourage through traffic from ladder roads and from Wightman Road, and to encourage it to go via Green Lanes instead because it is, after all, a main road and (b) to create a more equal sharing of the burden of the through traffic insofar as it remains on Ladder roads.
Secondly, I entirely agree that a wide-ranging professional survey is something which should be done. Indeed, I've been campaigning for it for years.
As a non-expert, I cannot say with any great confidence what the consequences will be of reversing Hewitt Road (as is proposed) or Warham Road (which is not proposed but which I've suggested may be worth looking at). On the question of where the Warham Road traffic would go, however, it should be remembered that if Hewitt's direction of traffic is reversed, some of it may be going there, instead of via the other roads such as Pemberton, which have been mentioned.
Pending a holistic traffic survey, which I will press for but not necessarily get, it seems to me that a couple of experiments may prove useful both because they may reveal possible solutions and also because at the very least they will provide a means of testing our own pet theories and will also provide data for the experts to crunch later. As I said before, however, any such experiments, must have safeguards, namely a sunset clause, a traffic count before implementation and active consideration of changes of direction in other roads, so as to prevent too great an imbalance between the roads which go one way and those which go the opposite way.
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Harringay Ward