Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Traffic group meeting this week
Anyone able to give us an update on what happened at the traffic study meeting on Monday? One of the steering group members have suggested "The next couple of months could be critical and we will need to lobby", so would be good if we could all be kept updated on what happens at the meetings.
On a related note, these from the HCC meeting minutes:
(1) Gary Smith of LBH is working on a 2-way scheme for Tottenham lane existing 1-way section
(2) There are sketch proposals for a W bound segregated cycle lane on Turnpike Lane W from Wightman Rd.
(3) Wightman Rd:
- it was agreed the pinch points must go
- filtering ladder roads at the lane a possibility but would increase travel distances for residents traveling E/W.
- Pavement parking should be removed, parking one side of road (alternating) possible.
- Introduce zebra crossings.
- There should be a timed N bound cycle lane on green Lanes as a minimum.
Those all sound interesting. (1) could help a lot with all the congestion that was around the bus stop by the New River there while Wightman was closed. That (2) means up the hill under the railway bridge I think, would be good, I usually ride on the footpath there as the road seems too dangerous.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
Also of interest to me was that the north ladder section of Green Lanes N4 went up in June 16 by only ~17.5K and Green Lanes N8 up by only ~11.5K from January 16.
Meanwhile Wightman Road went down by 90K in N4 and 108K in N8 from January 16!!!
This seems very suggestive.
-
-
I like best 4 or 5; 4 possibly being better for Green Lanes congestion as seen last summer when option 5 was in place.
4 (the bollards) would still help Wightman considerably as all the traffic that pours onto it from the ladder (or in order to cut across any given ladder road) would be eliminated. Surely the traffic that uses it from end-to-end versus what pours on and off of it via the ladder can be reasonably quantified--so that the anticipated reduction be stated? For some it might still be worth going around the long way but I don't think many.
But at the end of the day the idea is to discourage vehicle use especially for running to the corner shop. You have to break eggs to make the omelette and being faced permanently with Green Lanes of last summer should hopefully discourage the casual drivers. 4 and 5 will best accomplish this. And 4 is the cheapest as I seem to recall a pittance of a budget, if that is a concern.
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
Knavel, there was a discussion about the traffic using WIghtman end-to-end versus what pours off onto (or enters via) a rung back here. I think maybe only 25,000 per week use the full length. Maybe another 20K live or have business on one of the 20 rung roads. The rest - 150k+ individual journeys - are cut-through traffic.
In fact the ANPR data suggests the majority of these are completely through traffic - they are not going to Sainsburys or one of the grocers, jewelry shops or restaurants on Green Lanes, they are just passing through. They should probably be on the North Circ or Seven Sisters or some other arterial route, but the road layout of the Ladder is just a ratrunner's paradise.
-
-
The point that jumped out from the notes is that "doing nothing" is the sixth option.
-
-
I'm personally not in favour of any of these options and frankly I feel underwhelmed with what I hear and read about the traffic study to-date.
I'm strongly against one way systems (they're being disentangled across London), extensive turning bans or bollards in the centre of rung roads (eastern ends of rungs would be overwhelmed with parking and I envisage aggressive driving and damage to cars with poor reversing/turning). With the Warham proposal I predict a Hewitt style outcry.
The closest I feel comfortable with is option 1 but with measures that go further; improving conditions on Wightman generally but completely remodelling the Wightman/Turnpike Lane junction to 1 or two lanes at the Wightman end (and removing the ability for any lane other than the left hand turn to enter Turnpike Lane westbound) and also narrowing the entry into Wightman Road. I think we should get parking off the pavement too.
I feel if we had a number of these priority over oncoming vehicle lanes (which are extensively used across Islington), along with other traffic reduction measures, it would go some way to reduce traffic using Wightman as a cut through, unless drivers were prepared to wait their turn in long tailbacks. It would however result in pollution from vehicles stop starting, but we can't have everything.
-
-
I agree this sort of priority-over-oncoming-vehicle road-narrowing can be effective on simple road layouts like Sunnyside but not sure how effective on the Ladder layout it would be on its own - there are just too many opportunities to cut down a rung. You'd need either bollards to prevent that or right turn bans to make it unattractive.
-
-
Nick,
With a bit of luck there might be a box to tick saying 'None of the above'.
I don't have the answers either. I just hope that what ever gets the nod is trialed before they cement or bollard over the whole area.
Everyone needs to remember that people often profess to have all the answers but rarely hold their hands up when everything goes pear shaped.
Opinion poles! Brexit! Trump! Anyone?
I'm a firm believer in evolution reather than revolution.
But I'm not holding my breath.
-
Permalink Reply by Nick on
-
I have to agree; I don't think radical changes are the answer here. Option 1 is the sensible choice, as it will recover the pavements and increase visibility exiting onto Wightman Road. The only drawback is the loss of some parking spaces.
Any of the other options, if implemented, will have obvious major repercussions affecting not only Green Lanes but the wider area, and it's difficult to see a majority favouring any of these, especially given that the SDG study showed massive opposition to the Wightman closure.
-
-
Massive opposition by whom? Enfield residents? This is the "majority [not] favouring" any action?
If whoever actually makes the decision is concerned about e.g., how the ~2490 vehicles per day that use Warham Road as a cut through think then it's a first class failure of public policy.
I feel as though I have given the published documents a good look but i am learning in this discussion I haven't seen it all. I would be appreciative for a link or upload of the "SDG Study" referenced.
-
-
Opposition by locals who were adversely affected by the closure. This includes a number of ladder residents. The SDG study responses are summarized here:
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/engagement_fee...
The map of responses:
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
