Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Proposed Safety and Accessibility Improvements for Wightman Road and Alroy Road Public Consultation
The changes to Wightman following the Harringay Traffic study have been revived out of the blue.
The main benefits of this should be slightly slowed traffic and less cluttered pavements.
The downsides will be:
- the loss of real pedestriancrossing points - gthe replacement of traffic islands with "informal pedestrian crossings", which many fear will be laregely ignored
- probably significant increase on parking pressure through the loss of parking places on Wightman road with the expectation that additional cars can be accommodated on the Ladder rung roads. This is set against the backdrop of wildly inaccurate parking space usage calculations. For example the Council calculate that my road has an overnight spare parking space capacity of 30%. Ask anyone who ives here and they'll tell you it's more like 0%.
The thread about these particular changes from the start of the year can be read here. (The full set of threads around the traffic study can be accessed by clicking the tag at the bottom of this discussion).
Please answer the consultation and give your views. Once it's done. it'l be too late to change for many years. Full set of documents attached.
Tags for Forum Posts: harringay traffic study, ladder parking changes, wightman road improvements
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Maddy on
-
I didn't even know there were these 'informal crossings' at Endymion/Alroy though I stop for pedestrians there all the time, as I think they don't have a proper crossing point.
-
Permalink Reply by maggie on
-
Me too, as a driver and a pedestrian I had no idea what the red strips were and I doubt if many others know.
-
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth on
-
I've been in contact with the council about this over the past few weeks. I emailed them on Wednesday regarding the enhanced crossings saying:
I can’t find any research indicating that these crossings make the roads safer. If there is any I would be very grateful if you could forward it to me. If there isn’t then I question why you are choosing this route.
I'll let you know if they come back to me with any information that suggests the crossings are safer.
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
Have been following these discussions with interest.
I am really in favour of the less cluttered pavements (and perhaps slightly slowed traffic) on Wightman. It a miserable road to walk along, especially if you are pushing or pulling anything. I can't see another way of addressing this without sacrificing car parking (unless you do something very radical like make it one way).
I'm also concerned about the informal crossings. I agree with all the other posts here that they are of little benefit to anyone, largely because nobody really knows what they are. In addition to the one on Endymion I often cross Park Road at one (by the junction to the cricket grounds in Shepherds Cot) and cars rarely stop. I wonder whether they are actually worse than nothing but from a quick search can't find much evidence of their effectiveness. I'll be interested to see the response Liz gets to her query.
What do people think about the alternatives to the informal crossings if the islands are to disappear? Currently the islands disadvantage cyclists but they are very helpful for pedestrians when they are crossing the road. The proposal as I can make it out from the plan is to keep the two crossings by Harringay and Hornsey stations and add a zebra crossing by Pemberton because of the school. So that is three crossings for 20 Wightman/ladder rung road junctions, with the largest gap (I think) between the Pemberton and the Hornsey station crossings.
Should we be asking for zebra crossings instead of the informal ones - but accept that we'll obviously not want/get enough to replace all the islands? Is that realistic - and if so what might we argue for? I can't think of a comparable road that has a large number of 'formal' crossings like zebras so am struggling to think what might be reasonable. Certainly I could live without the islands if there were (say) 2-3 zebras interspersed between the push button ones. Very interested in what others think.
-
-
Generally Alison we seem to be in agreement. Although I think it is unrealistic to expect them to replace all the proposed informal crossings instead I think there is potential for a compromise which adds one more crossing to the plan. Below is my response to the consultation which includes my proposal and the rational behind it.
The key thing is don't just discuss the issue on here - email Haringey - the more people clamouring for additional safe places to cross the more likely they are to listen. (email: frontline.consultation@haringey.gov.uk)
Email in full:
To whom it may concern
I went to the Wightman Road and Alroy Road Proposed Safety and Accessibility Consultation last night. I met Greville Percival who suggested the best way to get my views across was to email this address.
I don't think the plan is perfect, however I do think that it is a vast improvement on what we have on Wightman Road at the moment. Therefore I would like to support the proposal but I would also like my reservations noted - and ideally acted on.
Putting a zebra crossing opposite the top of Pemberton Road is fantastic. Given that there are many children who need to cross here to get to South Harringay School I am delighted that this has been proposed.
I am fully supportive of the idea of moving parking off the pavement. I hope that the chicane this produces will slow down, and deter, other traffic on the road. It will also make life a lot easier for pedestrians.
I very much like the idea of adding trees to the street.
However, the proposals for enhanced crossing and removing the Islands elsewhere fills me with dread.
Having spoken to the Engineer last night I can appreciate that removing the islands makes Wightman Road safer for cyclists. However do not delude yourselves that the proposed pedestrian crossings made by adding red anti-slip surface to the road will make crossing the road any safer for pedestrians.
There is this type of crossing on Endymion Road which I use to try to use - both with a buggy and whilst jogging towards Finsbury park. No car has ever paid a blind bit of notice to it or me.
Now whenever I go to Finsbury Park I cut down Lothair Road South and come out by the zebra crossing further down Endymion Road.
I've learnt to avoid the informal pedestrian crossing because it does nothing. Therefore I am ignoring the proposed red anti-skid crossings in your proposals. They may as well not be there.
I do however use the islands to cross at because with a road as busy as Wightman it is often very hard to find a gap in the traffic going both ways. The Engineer I spoke to last night suggested that people with prams don't like to stop at the islands because they are too narrow to accommodate a person and a buggy. I have a double buggy, it is tight but possible and better than the alternative of not having a refuge to aim for.
Bearing this in mind and looking at the plans this means there will be the existing crossing at the top of Fairfax Road and then there is no safe point to cross until the Zebra Crossing at Pemberton. That is a distance of six ladder roads (Effingham, Beresford, Allison, Hewitt, Seymour and Warham) and after the removal of six existing islands.
This means that anyone from coming from around 117 Wightman to roughly 243 Wightman will not have a safe place to cross should they wish to head to Green Lanes. Equally those who live on the ladder roads mentioned above (or the corresponding sections of Green Lanes / the Gardens) and who is heading to the train stations at either end of Wightman or further west will have the choice of trying to cross Wightman Road or they have to cross a number of ladder roads to get to another crossing.
I appreciate there are budgetary constraints and it would be over kill to add a zebra crossing or lights where there are currently your proposed red crossings. But I do think one more place to cross equidistance from the existing crossing at the top of Fairfax Road and the proposed Zebra Crossing at Pemberton would vastly improve the plan and act as a further traffic calming measure. This could be located between Allison and Hewitt which is currently a place with poor visibility and would further serve the cut through by new river to Hornsey Train station.
Moving on.
As you drive into Wightman from the Turnpike Lane end there is a digital display that flashes to alert you if you are going faster than 20 mph. This helps to reinforce the speed restictions and salerts people if they are exceeding the speed limit.
As you drive into Alroy/Wightman from the Endymion Road end there isn't this electronic sign. So you are only alerting cars going in one direction. Why isn't there a sign at the other end? This is a particularly dangerous places as people often speed away from the roundabout onto Alroy and there is a Garage opposite the top of Lothair Road South which often has cars parked on the pavement outside it forcing pedestrians and those with buggies onto the road.
Thank you for running the consultation and I look forward to seeing your response.
-
-
Down with the infernal crossings, say I, obviously the perfect accessory to the infernal traffic. Slightly in two minds about the traffic islands' removal as I was a bit fitter to tackle the full width of Wightman back in 1980's when traffic was lighter. More zebras needed, I think,
Delighted to see Wightman Road has finally got a woman who means business, and even more delighted that she's my next-door neighbour. How come it's the Lizes on this site who are most down to earth? I totally agree with Liz's analysis and proposals on this and agree, too, that we should make sure to get back to the Frontline.consultation rather than just vent about it all here. I'll give it all a little more thought.
Meanwhile, if LBH can get up a small Lollipop Fund I'm sure we could recruit a dozen Dad's Army veterans along Wightman to man or woman all the more danger points. John D? Any others?
-
-
Excused for now, John.
-
-
An interesting point re: the big stretch with no crossing being Effingham, Beresford, Allison, Hewitt, Seymour and Warham with Allison in the middle.
One of the proposed safe walking paths was along the New River at the top of Allison to Hornsey station. Having such a path but without a safe crossing anywhere near to get onto it seems a bit of an issue.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Quite honestly, I think it is ridiculous to try to improve safety for cyclists while making things much more dangerous for pedestrians. There are more pedestrians, often with small children going to school, than cyclists.
Cyclists should learn to consistently " take the road " at pinch points thus educating drivers that cyclists have as much right to the road as the drivers.
-
-
That would be a good solution if some cars didn't try to overtake anyway. The main benefit of taking the road is you have a little more space to escape into when the cars misjudge the overtaking speed and pull back in on you. Personally I don't really want to educate drivers at the risk of my safety. Designing in danger and then expecting the individual to alter their attitude to avoid that danger goes against every health and safety manual.
The ridiculous thing is that they are trying to improve the safety whilst keeping the traffic moving as quickly as possible with minimum disruption. The choice isn't cyclists or pedestrians, the choice is cyclists and pedestrians or cars.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I'm fully supportive of making Wightman Road better for cyclists and I'm told by those who know better that the current proposals do that. They also get the cars off pavements and that's good for pedestrians. However the absence of safe crossings is a critical failure of this scheme. (see my comment on last page about how even Highways England wouldn't recommend these crossings on this road).
I can't see that cycle safety and pedestrian safety are mutually exclusive. All that is needed is to replace some of the informal crossings with zebras. This may slow down traffic a little, but surely the maintaining of traffic speeds on residential roads ought to be the least of the traffic planners' concerns.
On my web trawl last week, I saw informal crossings also referred to as suggested crossings, courtesy crossings, mobility crossings and highlighted crossings. Methinks that this confusion of mealy-mouthedness shows how little meaning these crossings actually have.
Overall, in the current plan, it seems like pedestrians lose out - and that can't be right.
It's true that 'informal crossings' are cheap, but what's the value of our convenince and safety?
As things stand, I feel like I'm being consulted about one poorly imagined option. I'd like to see better choices supported with better data.
Understandably, cost might be an issue. So, let's look at the crossings from a cost point of view.
The costings below are an amalgamation of the costing bands for different types of crossing, given on the websites of Cambridgeshire, Wiltshire and Bristol Councils:
- Informal crossing: including bollards and associated works £3,000 - £5,000
- Zebra crossing: (including high friction surfacing on approaches) £15,000-£30,000
- Puffin and Toucan crossing: (including high friction surfacing on approaches) £47,000-£125,000
Not including any crossings at either end of Wightman, the current scheme includes treatment for 20 crossings on Wightman Road:
- 17 new 'informal crossings' at on Wightman at 15 different points.
- 1 new zebra crossing
- Retention of 2 existing pelican crossings
Using average costs of the figure ranges I found on the web, crossings for the existing scheme would cost:
£4,000 x 17 + £22,500 = £90,500.
An alternative scheme could provide for 11 crossings at 11 different points:
- 6 new 'informal crossings' on Wightman at 6 different points.
- 3 new zebra crossings
- Retention of 2 existing pelican crossings
Using average costs of the figure ranges I found on the web, crossings for the existing scheme would cost:
£4,000 x 6 + £67,500 = £91,500.
Or, if a few more 'informal crossings' were wanted a few thousand more, but I think we could live with four fewer crossing points than the amount in the current proposals.
After cost, we'd have to consider the implication on how many extra parking spaces we'd lose by using zebras instead of 'informal crossings'. But please, let's have some properly constructed options with a full set of data so we can make an informed choice. (Poorly supported choices being submitted for consultation seems to be becoming a national sickness!)
Unless someone can explain otherwise, it seems to me that the informal crossings are a waste of money. Sutton Council found this out to their cost recently - having installed them, they had to replace them with zebras.
Let's get it right first time and plan for our safety and convenience rather than the convenience of passing traffic. New options with better data please.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
