I'm assuming that most Harringay residents will now have received a copy of the local traffic consultation leaflet through their door (scanned copy attached). On the leaflet you'll see four options for the future of how traffic is managed on the Ladder. These are copied in below, exactly as they appear on the leaflet.
Alternative package WL1: Minor improvements: Minor improvements relating to Wightman
Road and the Ladder area, but with lower traffic impacts and costs
Alternative package WL2: Wightman Road one-way (northbound): An intermediate alternative (with intermediate traffic impacts and costs), that would make Wightman Road one-way northbound, with the opportunity to create a continuous cycle facility along Wightman Road
Alternative package WL3: Wightman Road one-way (southbound): The opposite of alternative package WL2, that would make Wightman Road one-way southbound
Alternative package WL4: Wightman Road closed (filtered): The most radical and transformational alternative, that includes the closure (filtering) of Wightman Road, similar to the arrangement that was in place during the bridge replacement works in 2016; this alternative would have significant traffic impacts and costs
When people first heard about the one way option, it seemed to them to be a good option - not too radical, but radical enough to make a difference.
I have to put my hand up and say that I've been against the one-way option from the outset. Across the world one-way systems are being abandoned because they can cause more problems than they solve. Recently Haringey removed the Tottenham Hale one-way system.
Essentially one-way systems create an environment solely based around the needs of the car. Whilst the approach may have a role in certain areas, places where people live are not the right place for it. One way systems favour the movement of the car against all else. They dehumanise an area and make it much less liveable.
I'm told that the one-way option is the solution favoured by the Council. I have to admit to being somewhat suspicious about the reasons for this. Is it a coincidence that this comes at the same time as their plans for Wood Green have revealed that they want Wightman Road to be part of a new primary route to serve a revamped Wood Green? I can't say I'm thrilled about the Ladder being sacrificed as part of Wood Green traffic feeder system. (By the way you have two days left to comment on this, or any other aspect of the Wood Green Plans in the current Wood Green Consultation).
From various studies, I've gathered the following information about how one-way systems impact on neighbourhoods.
1. Studies show that speeds tend to be higher on one-way streets. Two-way streets tend to be slower due to "friction"
2. Safety tends to be lower with studies suggesting that drivers pay less attention on them because there's no conflicting traffic flow. One study showed that collisions are twice as likely in one-way streets as in similar streets with two-way traffic
3. Livability: vehicles stop less on one-way streets, which is hard for bikers and pedestrians.
4. Traffic flows on one-way streets are often significantly higher than on two-way streets.
5. A US study showed that one-way streets are associated with higher crime rates and lower property prices than two way streets. It says that two-way streets "bring slower traffic and, as a result, more cyclists and pedestrians, that also creates more "eyes on the street" — which, again, deters crime. A decline in crime and calmer traffic in turn may raise property values.
South Gloucestershire Council recently issued the following warning:
Many streets suffer from ‘rat-running’ or high volumes of traffic. Creating one-way streets is one way of solving this problem. However, there are also disadvantages to altering the direction of traffic flow in this way. Residents should be aware that the following may occur:
With a possible hint about Haringey's wider agenda, they added "The council is unlikely to create a one-way street in isolation, due to the costs and resources required to carry out such a scheme. It is much more likely that it will consider changing the direction of traffic on a street as part of a wider review of traffic management in an area."
One US Study said, "If your goal is to move traffic quickly from one place to another, then one-ways are a great method to accomplish that. But, if your goal is a productive place with thriving local businesses, then slowing traffic with two-way streets is a much better plan. It's a tried and true method."
For me there's no case at all for a one-way street other than it serves the Council's plans for Wood Green.
Tags for Forum Posts: harringay traffic study
I agree with you Hugh. I think one way would benefit through traffic much more than it benefits residents and local traffic.
So either option could easily end up with one or more of the rung roads from about Warham north becoming feeder roads from Wightman to The Lanes[.]
Pemberton currently runs in the same direction that Warham would if the proposal is carried through. It wouldn't be full relief from Warham, but certainly better than now. If Wightman Road is made one way then I hope it is south bound as there *seems to me* less motivation to rat run though the Ladder to Green Lanes than if WR ran northbound. What do you think?
The packages selected between Green Lanes and Wightman don't really make sense to me. There seams to be a missing package somewhere for Green Lanes as what ever option is selected for one has a large impact on the option selected from the other.
I can't see us having a cycle lane on both Green Lanes and Wightman unless prehaps one is northbound (which is what GL2 mentions) and the one on Wightman is southbound (which is WL3).
I certainly worry about the points you've made in relation to making Wightman one way.
Personally I prefer WL4, however, I'd want to see this combined with No Parking on Green Lanes (with Loading during restricted times) or something that is going to help with traffic movement along Green Lanes. Without this I would worry that WL4 isn't viable.. WL2 and WL3 both on paper seem like improvements, but I expect they are likely to either keep the status quo or make things worse.
The more I think about it the more the conspiracy theorist in me sees the Green Lanes Traffic initiative as window dressing for the Wood Green Shopping District initiative.
Evidence of this is having been told that the Green Lanes Steering Group is really a nothing group without much teeth.
Then comes page 73 of the Wood Green proposal and Green Lanes/Wightman Road are designated key points of access.
Now for the first time we also hear "southbound one way" for Wightman as a possibility. This would seem to favour the sense of foregone conclusion that the council has always and only intended one way.
It strikes me that if Green Lanes got the cycle lane then it would effectively be something like a one way and I wouldn't be surprised if we are also informed Wightman Road is to run one way in the opposite direction.
(Caveat - I don't live on the Ladder)
I agree with all of this Hugh.
I've not seen the consultation document but the assertion that package WL4 'would have significant traffic impacts and costs' really needs to be challenged. The implicit suggestion here is that impact on 'traffic' (by this I assume they mean the drivers of private cars) will be negative. The evidence from other well-managed traffic filtering schemes shows that the overall traffic impact is likely to be positive, as has occurred in Waltham Forest recently when through traffic was removed from resid.... Filtering is particularly positive for other forms of 'traffic': people on foot or bike who will also be making journeys they could have taken by car. Also the suggestion that this is the most costly option is undermined somewhat by the speed and ease with which the road was filtered during the bridge works. It can be very quickly and cheaply filtered with a few bollards or a concrete block. The carriageway realignment needed to deliver a one-way system is likely to be hugely more expensive, particularly with the kerb realignment that would be necessary to deliver a high quality cycling facility.
Also note that WL2 & 3 say there is an opportunity to create a continuous cycle facility along Wightman Road. The use of the 'opportunity' suggests it's something that might be considered, at some point in the future, should funding become available. In other words, it might never happen.
How about you chaps on the "wrong side of the tracks" (in the Gardens) show solidarity by giving up your blocked and cul de sac-ed roads to allow some of the traffic pressure to come off of the "solid phalanx" on Green Lanes?
I didn't think so.
How do you know he means the Gardens and not the 'St Ann's' area? The Council's plans include nothing for that part of the area, because filtering traffic travelling north/south from WGR to St Ann's Road would be too much to bear.
Don - The traffic flow data before and during the bridgeworks shows a generally small impact on the residential streets east of Green Lanes - e.g. Glenwood and Avondale stayed the same, some streets further east showed a decrease:
(One mystery to me is the bottom of Woodlands Park Road is unchanged, but the top half shows a significant increase. Maybe vans were trying to cut through and then having to head back when they reached the width restriction?)
As I said on another post, I don't know the area well but would be happy to support ratrunning protection measures in the East if the residents want them. But the local streets which are currently most in need of protection are Wightman and the rung roads.
Also note that there was an overall 8% evaporation of traffic and the pollution recorded on GL actually decreased during the bridgeworks:
Filtering Wightman - obviously with mitigation measures (none of which were in place during the bridgeworks) to ensure buses etc. are reliable - would benefit residents on both sides of Green Lanes.
© 2024 Created by Hugh. Powered by
© Copyright Harringay Online Created by Hugh