Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
St Ann's LTN start date - 22 August
I'm not sure whether this has been shared elsewhere on HOL - can't see it in a search but...
We have recently received a note through our front door that the St Ann's Low Traffic Neighbourhood will be implemented on 22 August.
This is a heads-up for anyone living in or driving through the area between West Green Road and St Ann's Road. There will no longer be a direct route between the two major roads unless you are a bus or have a 'X2' exemption pass.
Woodlands Park Road, Black Boy Lane, Cornwall Road and Avenue Road will all be closed to through traffic.
The restriction points will be monitored by CCTV, so no doubt LBH will be issuing lots of PCNs! Drivers beware!
I attach two documents, one a map of the area showing the traffic cells as they will be after implementation, and the other the supporting document.
Tags for Forum Posts: low traffic neighbourhoods, st anns ltn, traffic
- Attachments:
-
-
LTN map.pdf, 834 KB -
LTN Doc.pdf, 1.1 MB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I'd be very happy for the parking question to be settled by an accurate parking vacancy survey.
If those Gardens cross-streets are not really used for the purpose they're currently intended and they're largely empty, I don't see why they shouldn't be used. If they are used and the Gardens suffers the same parking pressure as the Ladder, then I'd withdraw my suggestion.
This isn't about beggaring any neighbour. This is about finding where there is availability of a scarce resource.
Would you advocate the parking being split evenly, irrespectiev of current pressures on parking?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Chris on
-
Like much of the debate, this aspect also seems to be based on false assumptions. Firstly that the Ladder roads are full. The council's survey suggested 30% of spaces are unoccupied. The ladder residents' own survey at peak time still found over 20% were unoccupied.
Secondly, there is no need to create any new parking spaces on either side of GL. There are only a hundred or so parks along GL (railway Bridge to Jam in a Jar) and many of them are currently used by business owners and delivery bikes. Even if half of those currently parking on GL tried to find a spot up the hill, they would represent only 10% of currently unoccupied spaces (as per the Residents' survey).
The businesses already have their parking allocated in the Gardens. Shoppers already have spaces at the Ladder and Gardens junctions with GL.
And what happened to evaporation? Do we not get to apply this concept to the parking issue? If there are fewer parks, fewer people choose to drive. The CPZ also needs to be extended to 10.30pm.
As for any complaints from business owners, there is a large body of evidence that refutes entirely any claims of loss of business when parking goes (or fees increase). Most studies suggests greater spending.
-
-
-
Chris, I assume that you're referring to these surveys.
The first thing to note is that they're four years old. Since then scores of parking spaces have been lost from Wightman Road and parking pressures have increased. We'd need a new survey to judge the current situation. The Council's survey was inaccurate, even at the time. However, if they're even-handely inaccurate, we will still get a sense of relative parking stresses.
You may feel that there will be no need to create more parking spaces for shoppers, but, to the best of my knowledge council and trader thinking is at a very different place.
The removal of all parking from Green Lanes is being discussed and is very much in prospect. The Council is already engaging with the traders about this and trying to win their support. Success will almost certainly require additional off-Green Lanes parking.
I can't comment on evaporation. I have no more idea than you how realistic that is.
I'm very aware of the studies about high street footfall and car use and indeed was citing them more than a decade ago. Those studies will no doubt have been presented to the traders. It may be that things have changed, but all previous attempts to convince them that the studies present a realistic picture of the outcome of parking removal have apparently failed, as has been the case with trader groups around the country. The issue will be a highly emotive one for the traders and the Council will have to demonstrate some flexibility. The plan will not go ahead without the traders on board.
-
-
-
Yes Hugh the Ladder roads are at capacity because of the new mega restaurant business (not 1 restaurant unit but up to 4 shop units opened out with how many tables?!) attracts many more eaters than it did ten years ago. Larger premises generate more profit and larger business taxes going to the council.
The removal of parking spaces to make the traffic slow down on Wightman Road means parking on Ladder Streets by these residents. It's pretty simple I guess where you think the parking goes but yes it's strange that whenever I've driven through and around the Gardens (estate agent construct!) there is so much free car parking space everywhere except of course close by the GL businesses.
There has to be give and take when you live in a cosmo city and of course I like the vibe of these restaurants in the area. However, they are the cause of parking demand. The people who own and run these businesses don't live here. We pick up the downside. It's time for the Gardens to bear more of this burden in my opinion.
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
My observations, living in the lower (GL), half of one of the Ladder roads is that Green Lanes and in particular along the Grand Parade stretch is that it has to cope with a different spectrum of visitors at different times of the day, and days of the week. Peak demand would appear to be the early evening rush hours which is quite understandable.
With regard to the evening economy, once the rush hour is mostly completed, parking seems to be reasonably well absorbed by Green Lanes, likewise during the daytime. Monday - Friday outside of the rush hours is comparable and granted it can be a bit busy, IMH it isn't unbearable. I like the buzz of Green Lanes in the main with the convenience of the wares on offer, so I would be loath to see it changed radically.
It's analogous of trying to squeeze a quart bottle into a pint pot. Satisfying all of the users requires a delicate balance and compromises need to be made. The underlying fact is that we are all having to adjust our behaviours due to the current climate emergency and whilst some of that might be an inconvenience our choices might be necessarily limited for the benefit of all now, and in the future.
-
-
-
Barbara — Your final comment goes to the nub of the problem (“time for the Gardens to bear more of this burden”). I’m not a Gardens resident, but I bet they breathed a sigh of relief when they got LTN-ed: no through traffic, quieter roads, even spare kerb space; precisely what many Ladder residents want for themselves and why they support road closures so that all those visiting cars will go away and somebody else will bear the burden.
GL has two incompatible functions: a major north/south trunk route (“through traffic”) and a shopping/entertaining street for locals and visitors (“local traffic” and parking). Both generate difficulties, but the solutions can’t be the same for both. Until and unless the underlying problems are dealt with, it’s just like a game of ping-pong, with cars being shunted from area A to area B for locally expedient reasons.
-
-
-
I have always opposed this scheme on several grounds:
The council acknowledges that there are only three roads in the ward that cause problems, including Avenue and Black Boy Lane, but no alternatives to massive road closures were considered (eg filtering, directional flow at certain times, chicanes, etc). Residents in side roads will be adversely affected by a scheme designed only to tackle specific blackspots.
Closing through routes to everyone will displace traffic on the three busiest roads onto boundary roads that the council itself acknowledges are already at capacity (Green Lanes and West Green) or almost (St Ann’s). GL and West Green have accident and crash statistics that are many times worse than any of the St Ann’s roads — they are already far more dangerous, so this looks likely to get worse. Hugh’s recent comments on the 1990s road closures plans for the Gardens, etc, and the justified complaints over 20:years from Ladder residents, highlight that supposed “evaporation” of traffic is a myth. Has the council asked West Green, St Ann’s and Green Lanes residents how they feel about increased traffic and pollution on their equally residential roads?
The council was reported to be deferring the St Ann’s LTN until improvements had been made to Green Lanes. There is no sign of any current or planned changes to enable GL to take the increased traffic, or mitigate the knock-on effect on the Ladder roads as traffic from east of GL tries to get through on the west instead.
All this is being done just as public transport (primarily buses) faces its largest and most devastating cuts for decades. It’s all very well to put in bollards and flowerpots but, as always, no provision is being made in advance for alternative public transport. Unlike the council planners, not everyone in St Ann’s is young enough or able-bodied enough to walk or cycle. If bus routes are curtailed or abolished and remaining buses can’t get through because of massively increased congestion on main roads (cf the effect of the notorious Wightman closure) many, many people will be seriously disadvantaged by this scheme.
Yes, we need to decarbonise overall, but persuading people out of cars requires councils to take the initiative by improving public transport and offering viable alternatives before closing roads, not afterwards, and to show they’re serious by electrifying all their own vehicles and installing EV charging points across the borough. LB Haringey has conspicuously failed to come up with any plans in this area. It’s all very well trying to kick residents into changing behaviour, but a responsible council would be leading from the front and showing that they’re doing their utmost to improve their own behaviour before imposing ill thought-out restrictions on residents with insufficient mitigation in place.
-
-
Sarah —
a) Sort out Green Lanes: completely remove or severly reduce all parking from the Arena to the Salisbury and install a northbound bus lane; restrict loading and deliveries to specific bays at specific times — and enforce it; work with TfL/DfT to limit or prevent traffic turning to/from the North Circular at morning and evening peaks (preserving north/south access to/from Palmer’s Green only at these times).
b) Electrify all Haringey’s own fleet vehicles and insist that all their contractors, such as Veolia, use all-electric vehicles or don’t get the contract.
c) Fit lamp-post EV charging points across the whole borough and negotiate an affordable borough-wide pricing deal.
d) Work with all other London councils to require that all service and “last-mile” delivery vehicles (BT, DPD, British Gas, etc, etc) across the whole GLA area are electric — if Amazon and UPS can do it, so can they.
e) Combine with all other London boroughs and the Mayor to lobby the Treasury to prevent their imposition on TfL of devastating cuts to buses and lobby hard for rail fares not to go up by (probably) 15% next January, on the inflation+ formula.
f) As this will cost more than a few bollards and CCTV cameras do, finance it with a precept on Council Tax for bands D and upwards — Crouch End subsidises Tottenham.
And, while we’re at it… Install ANPR cameras at the junctions of Lancaster, Florence and Victoria Roads with Upper Tollington Park to stop all those “holier than thou” car-owners from the Ladder using them as rat-runs — sorry, “short cuts” — to avoid the Stroud Green traffic lights or get to Crouch End. Oops — only joking….!
Banging on about LTNs in Walthamstow or Islington, as so many campaigners do, is also irrelevant: the former has specific geography that enabled the LTN to be an island surrounded by roads able to carry extra traffic, and Islington admits that pollution and congestion have both increased on boundary roads. Harringay also has specific geography (the railway line that’s an almost impenetrable barrier) that means that unless Green Lanes is dealt with nothing will improve.
If the council is seen to be leading from the front it will be able to make a far more convincing case for everyone else to follow. At present, it isn’t.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
I love your Green Lanes ideas, it's the only thing that will work there.
I think it's still early days for the new Islington LTNs, the thing with LTNs is that they are designed to discourage car use. Behaviour change takes time though so it hasn't quite had the intended effect yet.
-
Permalink Reply by JulieB on
-
I agree with you on all your points Don.
I think the deadline for spending the funding allocated to St Ann's LTN is September so I'm guessing that's why they can't wait for the GL/Ladder project.
-
Permalink Reply by Mattie on
-
if we don’t make any changes now then when? Electric cars do no ease congestion. Think we need to do something and gradually we will see an improvement and with less car traffic on our roads public transport can work more efficiently. Let’s support the council on taking this first step to making our borough a better place for us all.
Excellent article that explains it all!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/low-traffic-n...
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
