Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
More Traffic Headed for Wightman - 2 days to Act
Last October I raised the issue that possible street closures in surrounding areas would displace traffic our way.
One of the areas was Crouch End.
A consultation for those living/working in the area is in progress and one of the options being consulted on is the closure to through traffic (except for buses, emergency vehicles and cyclists) of one or more major roads, such as The Broadway.
A traffic survey for the Crouch End project suggests such a change might mean 2000 more vehicles a day in both directions for Wightman.
Harringay residents can make their views known via the questionnaire.
To complete the questionnaire go to:
https://www.haringey.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/roads-and-stre...
After the initial section you can opt to only complete the one on traffic. The deadline is 2 February.
Postscript navigation note: (For oversized lorry stuck on Warham, see P14, here.)
Tags for Forum Posts: liveable crouch end, liveable neighbourhoods, oversize hgvs on warham, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
Exactly! At the last local elections Lib Dems took seats from Labour in Crouch End.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Bingo!
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
John McMullan and Peter Piper - An Aha! Eureka! moment appears to be -and may turn out to be- a key insight to unlock a knotty problem. A problem which is compounded by lots of assumptions and opinions (i,e. theories-in-use) many of which act as 'noise to the "Bingo!" signal' we need.
However...
For what it's worth, I strongly suspect that John has placed a hugely important missing piece into this jigsaw by alerting us to the Simon Weckert / Moritz Alhert example. If Haringey's own traffic planners are aware of the possible implications of Weckert/Moritz, it doesn't seem that they tried making our local councillors aware.
Avoiding the cliché "paradigm shift', perhaps we should simply thank John and rethink what we think we know. Conceding the possibility that much of what traffic experts learned last century might be outdated. (Ditto what our so-called regeneration and planning experts learned in their 101 classes.)
By contrast I can think of several solid reasons why it's far less helpful to draw comparisons based on possible reasons why Party X or Party Y won Crouch End Council seats. Comparisons which take us in a wrong direction, and may even be trying to squeeze down a fantasy rabbit hole.
For heaven sake! The three former Crouch End councillors (two Labour; one Labour ex-LibDem) ran away from their ward branch selection meeting! It wasn't because of the traffic.
-
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth M on
-
Saying the previous councilllors ran away is untrue. They bore the brunt of the Council's decision on Hornsey Town Hall plus a take over of the branch.
-
-
Elizabeth - So the three former Crouch End councillors didn't "run away". Shall we say, then, that they backed-out; withdrew; disengaged; or bowed-out.
You think they:"bore the brunt" over Hornsey Town Hall sale. Yes, that's also what I heard. So at least let's agree that it probably wasn't traffic that scuppered Labour.
What action did the three former Crouch End councillors take when they backed-out? On 3 December 2017 they sent out a joint letter saying they had: "withdrawn from the selection process". The letter was posted online and got wide(ish) circulation.
https://crouchendlabour.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/we-have-withdrawn-...Please notice that in their letter they remained totally upbeat about the former deal on Hornsey Town Hall and the adjacent land, describing it as a "long-term deal on the table to restore the Hall to its former glory".
No "brunt" mentioned. (Definition: principal force, shock, or stress.)As you may know - but others won't - the Labour Party's rules on councillor selection had been changed to favour sitting candidates. If they weren't initially endorsed they got a second go to persuade members at a special all-member ward branch meeting. That was the opportunity the three former Crouch End councillors passed-up.
Their letter accepted that: "It is right that sitting councillors should have to win the support of local Labour Party members and we aren’t against having to explain our views at a hustings to gain their support".
[A touch condescending perhaps, but let's mark it as a plus.]They agreed that: "candidate selections are a democratic process".
[Treble plus.]The letter ended by "wishing the new candidates well." [Polite applause.]
But the threesome had spoiled it by putting the boot-in. Hard.
They condemned not just Crouch End branch members but the whole of Haringey Labour. The process it seemed, wasn't democratic enough for them.
"Sadly, we do not believe that our views will be heard with an open mind, nor our track-record assessed in a fair manner. The current climate of Haringey Labour politics feels factional and poisonous – anger, cynicism and distrust now shape too many debates within the local party."I can't imagine this critique encouraged a Labour vote.
But they each had an alternative. At the same time, I voted against reselecting a sitting Labour candidate in my own ward (Tottenham Hale). She had supported the appalling Haringey Development Vehicle. Unlike the former Crouch End councillors she had the courage to come to the selection meeting. There making a strong confident case to a very crowded - but always polite - branch meeting. Asking Party members to reselect her. She lost the vote; it was a close call. She thanked the meeting and gave the selected candidates her good wishes.Are some people in Tottenham Hale currently pissed-off about traffic? Sure. We have Spurs and NFL repeatedly shutting the High Road for their own commercial benefit.
-
Permalink Reply by Alisha on
-
I agree. The notion that closing roads and funnelling existing traffic endlessly onto ones left open will somehow magically reduce traffic volumes is stupid, short sighted and punitive. If public transport fares were lowered to an irresistible level, including for rush hour, and the underground and overground train systems, that would shift people out of their cars, especially single use drivers – if it cost no more than £2 to cross London, for instance, reusing a ticket on any bus, train or tube.
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
It may be counterintuitive but closing roads actually does reduce traffic. For example the council's consultants measured traffic evaporation at 8% when Wightman Rd was filtered in 2016.
-
-
It is indeed counterintuitive but there is about 40 years of evidence gathered worldwide to prove that it does happen. There are so many layers to this debate it’s difficult to address all comers.
LBH has been catastrophically inept, managing to alienate residents and its own Councillors who are jus as ignorant of the scheme as the residents. The case hasn’t been made for this initiative by the council, they’ve left it to project centre and groups like Living Streets to do it for them, including appearing at public meetings to address the disgruntled residents that are mostly disgruntled by the failure of engagement in the first instance.
As to Hughs point about blind faith. It’s not blind. Based on the success of these schemes elsewhere it’s clear not only that they work but that they don’t displace. There is initial displacement (in WF that was 12%) but a year after implementation traffic on surrounding roads had fallen. Those models are based on a lousy trial.
A council that truly cared for its residents would have filtered Wightman when offered the opportunity but at the time the Cabinet member with oversight thought through traffic and traders living outside the borough were more important than voters.
The fundamental problem here is that Councillors don’t express opinions about Highways. When a resident gets in touch with a problem, the Councillor has to check with traffic officers (all single occupancy commuter drivers) to see what their opinion should be. Unsurprisingly it comes down on the side of drivers every time. The LiP contains the claim that Haringey is tackling rat running but in reality it’s encouraging and enabling it. Any Councillor who’s residents question this get directed to the officers who don’t believe in traffic reduction and the saga continues. We’ve all had those hopeless, dishonest replies from officers full of inaccuracies and platitudes, failing to answer questions. The culture at Highways is broken and personnel needs changing urgently.
In Enfield Cllrs decide policy and then charge Officers with making it happen. That’s why Haringey is so pitifully behind.
Haringey as a council needs to decide what its policy is when it comes to traffic, then instruct officers to get on and deliver. I’m surprised at Zena suggesting LS is pitting residents against one another. That’s what her officers have been doing all over Haringey for years. She just doesn’t know that because the a procedure at Highways is hidden from Councillors. And Zena is one of the good ones.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
The doubts of someone like me are easily dealt with, Tom. As I’ve suggested, all it will take is a commitment to a plan to implement filtering on Wightman.
-
-
Which I would support entirely. The whole of Haringey deserves this treatment. Wightman has been dealt with appallingly at immense cost to Haringey. The waste here is scandalous.
-
-
Corinna, I’m sure we all wish well for Crouch End, but not at our own expense. The Council became keenly aware of the link between traffic flows through Crouch End and Harringay during the Wightman Bridge works. Indeed it was this very link (along with the outrage from Crouch Enders) that was used as one of the chief reasons for rejecting any serious traffic control on Wightman. Against that backdrop, how on earth can the Council now seriously suggest limiting traffic through Crouch End without a corresponding action on Wightman. Surely that would be the obvious solution.
Pretty much every option being considered for Crouch End was discounted as impractical for Wightman. I proposed road pricing and was told it was simply impractical. Yet now I see it on the Crouch End menu. Various filtering or closure schemes were proposed and discounted out of hand. Surely you can understand the frustration.
So, sure, give Crouch End its scheme, but only do so when a corresponding scheme for Wightman can be implemented to tackle the inevitable displacement and instead of making our more troubled streets even worse, bring them the same benefits being considered for Crouch End.
To be honest, I still don’t have my head around why Crouch End was chosen as the beneficiary of this scarce TfL funding when it’s hardly the area worst impacted by traffic. To say nothing of the Ladder, I’d have thought there are far more needy areas in the east and north of the borough.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
