Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Northern Ladder Traffic Reduction Proposal!
Spurred on by the suggestion of using the Green Lanes regeneration as the opportunity for getting some wider traffic improvements made on the Ladder, and with the idea of chipping away at the problems one at a time, here is a proposal which would almost completely eliminate non-residential through traffic from all of the northern Ladder roads.
The north of the Ladder are the five streets Frobisher, Lausanne, Hampden, Raleigh, and Sydney, along with Wiloughby Rd and Duckets Common. This is an area of similar size to the Harringay Gardens, which gets a lot of car and truck traffic travelling through as a short cut and not stopping in the area.
Here is a single small, simple, and cheap fix that would almost completely eliminate all of that through traffic:
Installing a gate preventing traffic entering or exiting from Frobisher Rd to Green Lanes (also see red circle on the map at the bottom for the location).
Along with eliminating the through traffic on the residential streets it would also eliminate that traffic from the streets along two sides of Ducketts Common giving a dramatic improvement to the quality of one of Harringay's few green spaces. But wait, there's more, if all that isn't enough this would also relieve congestion at the busy Green Lanes / Alfoxton / Frobisher intersection allowing the traffic there to flow more smoothly.
An initial reaction might be to think this traffic must just get displaced onto other Ladder roads, but no not really, most would get displaced onto Turnpike Lane and Green Lanes, "A" roads which is where that through traffic is supposed to be anyway, not on residential streets.
There is a possibility some of the East bound traffic coming from West Green Rd might still be tempted to detour via Falkland Rd. The solution to that is to switch the direction of Falkland Rd, which would make the detour not worth it and the traffic would instead go up Green Lanes and left onto Turnpike Lane, which is exactly where we want it. The Falkland Rd residents already want their direction changed anyway, and, if the Hewit Rd change goes ahead then this Falkland switch will aid that by adding another West-to-East road to share the Hewit traffic. So win win win all around!
What do you say, how about it?
Update: Instead of the Falkland direction change (crossed out above) it turns out that a better solution for this and Falkland Rd is to have a No Right Turn in to it from Green Lanes, see here for more.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
I agree that closing Whightman would make this proposal redundant, the problem is no one seems to be looking at that or taking the sugestion seriously.
I don't know what the impact would be in the wider area, i do remember the chaos and congestion last year when Whightman got blocked due to the fire at that garage so i wonder if its just too busy for closing it to be practical. I've just asked if the council have ever looked at closing Whighman and what the impact would be and have anthing they could share with us, will report back if i find anything.
In the absence of that happening i think we should still continue to look at smaller easier local changes that could improve things for the time being, and so far this northen gate looks like it would help.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
It is only political fear stopping this being done. I have spent far too many hours trying to come up with solutions to our problems that were fair and workable, so did Jono from the SNT (and he was a professional!). We both arrived at the same conclusion. Apart from the traffic not having anywhere to park whilst waiting to cross the railway, the pinch point remains the railway, not Wightman Road or any other road.
-
-
I've just asked if the council have ever looked at closing Whighman and what the impact would be and have anything they could share with us, will report back if i find anything.
Initial response was that its not seen as a viable option. They're checking if there is any more info they could share.
Given that, is it really worth doggedly holding on to pursuing it at the expense of all other options? John, did you or Jono ever look at anything like this northern gate option in the past?
-
-
I doubt anyone has ever looked at closing Whightman, but perhaps Wightman.
I think your northern gate option is very unfair to the first road south of you that runs west/east. Drivers are maniacs for maintaining forward momentum and will go to illogical efforts to avoid congestion and traffic lights.
-
-
Drivers that go to illogical efforts to avoid traffic lights wont be part of this...because the Frobisher / Green Lanes junction has traffic lights :)
Help me understand your comment though:
The west/east traffic you're talking about is presently all going to be coming out of the Frobisher / Green Lanes junction, and after the change some would get displaced to go via Turnpike Lane and some would go to the southernLadder roads. Of that portion going to the Ladder it will get spread over several roads but the first would likely get a higher proportion.
So that first road south is only go to get a portion of the existing Frobisher / Green Lanes traffic.
If the Falkland direction switch is done as part of this change then Falkland will be that road.
So Falkland would get only a portion of the existing Frobisher / Green Lanes traffic, and, from Nicholas's earlier comment Falkland presently has a rough time with its traffic going the other way -
" it receives more than its fair share of traffic. It is the first road on the Ladder which has direct access to Wightman Road for drivers travelling down Green Lanes, and it also gets a lot of the traffic coming east from West Green Road. It also has its fair share of lorries and is the black cab road of choice"
so how do we actually know that swapping Falkland's existing bad situation for just a portion of the existing Frobisher / Green Lanes traffic will in fact be "very unfair"? Maybe it would be better, or different, or comparable to their current situation. Nicholas, a Falkland resident so aware of what the local streets are like, commented the he broadly supported the change.
We'd obviously need to try to understand it better but i think that shows it needn't be just dismissed out of hand as very unfair, yet.
-
Permalink Reply by empyrean_aisles on
-
This is not particularly apropos to the closing of Frobisher/Wightman/any other roads, but this discussion has prompted me to ask: why on earth is there no pedestrian crossing light at Green Lanes along with the lights for the traffic at the Frobisher/Green Lanes junction? It seems like a really obvious place to put one, and would make things so much safer for pedestrians. Does anyone know who at the Council I could contact to make a request for this?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
A 'signalised' crossing on Green Lanes just north of Falkland is part of the regen plan!
-
-
Awesome. I'm very happy to hear that!
-
-
I've a silly story about this crossing:
I heard the new crossing was happening and wondered as there are so many children around here and the crossing will be on the route to a few primary schools wouldn't it be nice if instead of the traditional green man the symbol used was a child, say a little girl, like this:So i asked the council. It whizzed around there for a while, i think they could see the humour as it went around quite a few people and then they said it would have to be Transport for London to say. So i talked TfL who eventually said no, the only Signs which we are permitted to use are covered under Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002.
I went and read the TSRGD 2002 and i found at the bit about pedestrian crossings, schedule 9, section 4003.1, that about the crossing symbol it had a note, item 4, saying "the legend may be varied to another legend approved by the Secretary of State".
So off i went to find the Secretary of State. Turns out thats Patrick Mcloughlin who is the Secretary of State for Transport. I emailed him and was passed around the DfT a bit and they eventually said "The red and green figures are well understood by road users and we would not consider authorising the use of a different design."
So I tried to appeal.Eventually i got back quite a lengthy response which i've included below. I gave up at that point but i don't really buy their answer. Germany must be a signatory to that Vienna convention and they use these children symbols in a few towns so it must be possible. And as for the suggestion people might not understand the signs - "Oh look, a little green girl. Well I'm not crossing, I'm waiting for the man" - yeah right.
---------
Dear Ant,
Thank you for your further email of 7 March about the “little girl” legend.
I regret there is no formal appeals process regarding policy on traffic signage. Meanwhile, national consistency is of primary importance so as to ensure driver understanding of traffic signs, given that the UK road network is the safest in the world. It is essential that we do not make changes to the factors that contribute to this without robust evidence that any proposed change will not adversely affect road safety.
Traffic signs must give road users their message clearly and unambiguously and this is the foundation of our traffic signing system. This system is based on international standards set in the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals 1968 and it has been in operation for the last 50 years. Since its implementation, various traffic sign reviews have been carried out by this Department (“the DfT”). The last major review was completed in 2011 and there are no plans to change this particular item as a result of that review. A full report can be read on the DfT’s website at –
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/signing-the-way-traffic-...
I hope this clarifies the Department’s position.
Yours sincerely,
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
This would obviously endanger boys who would be reluctant to use the crossing on the grounds that it was " girly "
-
-
-
Here's a quick tour around the world's pedestrian signals from Der Spiegel.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
The Wikipedia article is interesting on the Ampelmännchen in former East Germany. It explains that Karl Peglau who came up with the idea, also suggested different shaped symbols for people who are unable to distinguish the colours.
When I first saw "Puffin" crossings installed by Transport for London I worried that the red/green lights were no longer visible looking across the roadway. They explained that the aim is to get people paying attention to the traffic rather than just the "green man".
Which on reflection seems very sensible. Especially given the frequency with which some drivers and cyclists jump the lights.
It's not just lights which pose a potential danger if you don't watch the traffic . For many months Tottenham resident Chris Protz waged a one-woman campaign trying to get the Council's Highways staff to remove this misleading sign painted on the roadway. As you can imagine, they had every possible excuse.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
