Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

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

Views: 11533

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Indeed.  It’s interesting how they pulled this statistic up to the front of the report when the report itself is overwhelming negative about the trial

https://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/liveable_crou...

I went to the Transport forum meeting on Wednesday afternoon. This was not posted on the Council calendar - hopefully that was a genuine mistake. I raised Wightman Road making clear residents in Harringay ward did not want to be the recipients of displaced traffic from Crouch End. I was quite clear! A meeting with Kirsten Hearn and officers is now going to happen. We were told there were over 2300 responses to the survey, hopefully, loads from Harringay ward.

I also made clear that we would have expected to be involved earlier as Harringay councillors. The guidance for Liveable Neighbourhoods has a lot to say about involvement , partners and all that! 

Zena 

Zena Brabazon

Cllr, Harringay ward

Well done Zena, thank you

Thank you, Zena. 

Well done and thank you.

What document is this from, Eugene?

It was a screenshot from the conclusion of a document Peter Purdie posted on the thread on Friday- weird that appears above as posted yesterday. To save searching, Peter's doc is here some%20key%20highlights.docx

It's interesting that nowhere on this survey is there a question about holistic planning, combining plans or looking at the area as a whole. I'm not talking for everyone, but having read this whole thread, I think the vast majority would support this. The issue, it's clear, is a worry about a "divide and conquer" approach which would benefit Crouch End residents, while punishing the long-suffering residents on the Ladder. Wightman is a quality of life nightmare which the council seems to have no stomach to address. Our servants, don't forget. I also think the answer couldn't be more obvious. A joined up plan that takes into account reducing traffic across the Broadway and Wightman and the Ladder. I would fully support closing the Broadway if I thought Wightman would be included in that. But I didn't. I opposed it, through NIMBYism. Green Lanes would have to be addressed, too, and from years of reading HoL again, the answer: suspending parking full stop and creating two, unencumbered bus lanes. couldn't be more obvious and would serve the community best. It's interesting that the climate emergency appears to be successfully motivating people towards action and it breaks my heart that this piecemeal planning is setting communities against each other, in the same way that the piecemeal, "trial" closing of Hermitage and the Gardens is still setting east and west of the Ladder against each other. Zena, thank you for your support on this. Can we go forwards with a joined up plan of calming traffic that Crouch End and the Ladder can get behind? That would bring communities together and unite us all. 

Rory, you sum up the dilemma of the issue. Your post deserves 10 thumbs up! A problem aired is a problem shared, my friend.

The folk on Wightman Road, and the Ladder have been adversely impacted as a result of the impervious object that is the LNER. The historical piecemeal displacement approach taken in the east meant that there was nowhere left for the four wheeled gas-guzzling tribes to go.

Parking on the major arteries allied with the reluctance of many to forsake their 4-wheeled steeds has clogged up Green Lanes & the Broadway etc, so public transport has lost it's effectiveness. Me, I don't possess any wheels of my own. I consider that they've past their sell-by date.

Personally, I prefer it. I haven't had wheels for 20 years. It gives me the opportunity to gaze on the world from the top of the bus, take the tube, read a book, find streets, or green space to short cut through and be aware of the seasons. I'll be pretty stress free when I finally return home with some shopping, or whatever. Life doesn't have to be a continuous rush from A to B. That's not to mention how many lovely people I meet on my way at times. It is very possible to live without a gas-guzzler, and if the cloggers didn't get in the way with their selfish parking demands, then bus/cycle journey times should be shorter. Healthy living streets!!, & true healthy living neighbourhoods!!. I ain't holding my breath though if you'll excuse the pun.

It's got to the point where climate change makes it imperative to give up the fossil fuels before we all become fossils ourselves, anyway. A no-brainer. Make London & all metropolises urban parks. Finite resources means that sustainable growth has limits. This piecemeal approach is for the dodos. It's too late for nudge, nudge remedies. Two legs good, 4 wheels bad.

It does seem as though Haringey traffic planners have discovered what an elephant is like. Perhaps their maps and computer simulations tell them it's a wall?

But there are other views. Who is right? They are all of them right. And what about the observer who suggests it's impossible for all of them to be right? The observer is also right!

The logic is irrefutable, Peter Piper. Healthy living streets; walking; cycling; low cost or free public transport; clean air, street trees, attractive parks (including pocket parks) etc. The etcetera to include what else? Our bus rides taking us along thriving high streets with traditional shops? Or to well run public swimming pools and libraries? Yeah, well.

But then make a 'devil's advocate' list of possible reasons why many people might choose cars instead. For themselves and their families and friends. Plus a further list of places where you'd worry about walking; or expecting children to walk or bike. And places where people walk in daylight and sunshine but which they avoid at night? Or have avoided since they got older. (I used to bike with pleasure. But I stopped when it got too scary.) Or when people get health problems or other physical problems?

Even in the best of health, how often are people thankful to have the money to afford an Uber car which delivers them outside their front door?

I also wonder about the coverage of the views of young adults and children in the planning "consultations".  How many elderly and disabled people? How many views from buggy pushing parents etc etc?

Apologies if I've missed it, but on the Council's website I couldn't find anything exploring the questions above. Can someone help me out with some links?

What a brilliant post! Absolutely love it! The solution to this Crouch End vs Ladder/Wightman mess is glaringly obvious - get rid of vehicles. And for those few occasions when a vehicle really is needed, these areas are well-supplied with ZipVans and ZipCars that can be rented by the hour.

RSS

Advertising

© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service