Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Last chance to Support Living Wightman, go the extra yard & make your mark.
We can't be complacent, many leaflets have been dropped advocating no change, which will be the poorest outcome for residents across the Ladder,
this is the first time our lungs have been considered, don't let Haringey council muddy the water, we need to go for it now.
I'm sure there are other posts on interventions, but this is my reminder.
Living Wightman's link here:
http://www.livingwightman.org/p/faq.html?m=1#faq11
or follow the 10 step guide through below:
Q11: How do I complete the survey to support the filtering of Wightman Road?
https://www.research.net/r/GLATS
Haringey council's engagement survey asks for your opinion on ten different 'Packages' of options, each Package has between 5 and 14 options.
For each option you can click a button to indicate how strongly you support or oppose that option:
In total there are over 70 options across the ten packages, (yes really,)
so allow yourself time if you want to read all the accompanying details & wish to answer every question.
It is possible to simplify the options, if you just want to support Living Wightman's aims.
If all you want to do is indicate support for "Package WL4: Wightman Road Closed (Filtered)",
follow these steps:
• Go to https://www.research.net/r/GLATS and click Next
• Click No to "Would you like to comment on this Package (AW - Area-wide Improvements)" - then click Next
• Also click No & click Next for the next two Packages PC and GL
• Click Yes to comment on Package WL
• For Package WL1, click "I don't know/not applicable" for each option
• Also for Package WL2 and WL3, you can click "I don't know/not applicable" for each option (you can click Oppose to options WL2-01a and WL3-01a if you are against one-way)
• for Package WL4, click "Strongly Support" for all options
• Question 13* is where you can indicate your preferred package as WL4
(note that the question number may be higher than 13 if you clicked Yes to comment on any previous packages.)
• Click No & click Next for the last two Packages HE and SA
• The final question asks for your house number and postcode, this is just to allow the consultants to classify responses according to where they live (and stop the same household responding more than once!)
If you did want to comment on any of the other package options you can click Yes to any Package and then support or oppose the options as you wish. Most of us are strongly opposed to one-way (package WL2 and WL2) and generally support the various area-wide traffic calming and streetscape improvements and cycle schemes.
For Living Wightman the single most important goal is to maximise support for Package WL4 as this is the only option to ensure long-term drastic reduction of traffic on the worst affected Wightman Road.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
Well I would contend that forcing all the traffic from two arteries into a single artery is a sure-fire heart attack
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
How many times have we said that a fair amount of the traffic just disappears? And the longer this is in place the more will disappear. By your logic we should be building MOAR roads.
-
-
Only 8% disappeared. That leaves 92% very much in existence.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Exactly.
Given that one of the two major roads through Harringay was blocked to vehicles, isn't it amazing that ONLY 8% " evaporated " ?
-
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
Most councils would give their eyeteeth for an 8% traffic evaporation especially for such a minimal investment (it was achieved with about a dozen concrete roadblocks).
The 8% is in the area as a whole. Let's also focus on the 90%+ reduction in traffic on Wightman itself.
-
-
-
Which resulted in a 70% increase in traffic on Green Lanes ?
And you're surely not suggesting that a permanent filtering would be done with ugly concrete blocks which most vans could move aside ?
-
-
The increase on Green Lanes was nowhere near 70% John. In fact actually it decreased by 2% by the Arena, and only increased by 8% in the middle - which by your previous argument you'd have to agree is a negligible amount? Certainly shouldn't be too hard for the mitigating measures to alleviate any additional congestion caused by the added volume.
-
-
-
Well, that was a wild guess Joe, like most figures quoted on here. But where did the traffic normally on Wightman go then ? |Naturally, if it takes three times as long to get from one end of Green Lanes to the other, the number of vehicles passing through in any given period will be three times fewer.
And why did people complain about the traffic at a standstill and the exhaust fumes on Green Lanes ?
Why did it take three times as long as usual to get from Hornsey to Turnpike Lane Station ? ( at the end of the closure as well as at the beginning )
What mitigating measures will reduce the number of vehicles trying to get through the area?
And how about the ugly concrete blocks?
-
-
-
You can carry on making wild guesses if you like John, I prefer to use the traffic survey data which the council has published:
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/existing_condi...
The origin destination data on p131 answers your "where did all the traffic on WIghtman go then?" question. There was 8% evaporation across the whole area but some journeys obviously evaporated more than others.
As for "why did it take 3 times as long", (and again you can look at the actual data to see if it was actually a multiple of 3, most journeys only increased by a few minutes) the answer is that a small percentage increase in traffic volume can have a larger percentage increase in journey time. Volume is not the only factor affect journey time, you also have traffic light phasing, turning and parking manoeuvres, and other things (changes to which have all be proposed as mitigation measures).
As for the concrete blocks, to be honest if necessary I'd be happy with that initially given the limited budget and the need to spend at least some of it on mitigation measures. You might think the blocks were ugly but not as ugly as 1000+ vehicles per hour. And of course visual "pollution", unlike air pollution, doesn't impact people's health. Once funds become available the blocks can be replaced, ideally with gates (which could perhaps be lifted for refuse collection and other purposes).
-
-
-
I made reference somewhere else on here in relation to how a lot of the suggestions that it was disastrous were anecdotal (and I guess wild guesses as well) and not necessarily supported by the data.
-
-
-
That would be nice. But the question is whether you take what is currently offered in the hope that it may drive future change or wait another 10 or 20 years for a possible whole area solution.
-
Permalink Reply by JulieB on
-
Personally I'd rather wait for a possible whole area solution.
Actually this is exactly what I was hoping this study would suggest. I'm disappointed that we seem to have ended up with packages of suggestions made by local people none of whom, to my knowledge, are traffic or planing experts and each with our own bias, conflicting needs and opinions.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
