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 Hugh on
-
No easy answers. Those who don't favour the one-way option would certainly be well advised to get their duck's in a row. Firstly about what's wrong with the one-way option, secondly a convincing argument for a realistically achievable alternative.
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
Ok as a start towards getting those ducks in a row:
1) Its not good having two options for one-way so the list of packages should be changed to be a single option about being one-way and have the direction of the one-way being one of the things discussed in the public engagement.
The only people who could realistically get that change made are the steering group members. And it would need not just the Ladder area members to support that but the other members too. I think most people in the other areas would support this so their steering group rep should reflect that view. Eg suggest to a Gardens resident that an equitable change would be for Warwick Gardens to be open one-way too and they immediately see this unfairness of the one-way bias for Wightman.
Can you around all the steering group members to convince them of that change before this goes out in the public engagement?
-
-
Putting some granularity to the case against:
1. Studies show that speeds tend to be higher on one-way streets. Two-way streets tend to be slower due to "friction"
2. Safety tends to be lower with studies suggesting that drivers pay less attention on them because there's no conflicting traffic flow. One study showed that collisions are twice as likely in one-way streets as in similar streets with two-way traffic
3. Livability: vehicles stop less on one-way streets, which is hard for bikers and pedestrians.
4. Traffic flows on one-way streets are often significantly higher than on two-way streets.
5. A US study showed that one-way streets are associated with higher crime rates and lower property levels than two way streets. It says that two-way streets "bring slower traffic and, as a result, more cyclists and pedestrians, that also creates more "eyes on the street" — which, again, deters crime. A decline in crime and calmer traffic in turn may raise property values.
South Gloucestershire Council recently issued the following warning:
Many streets suffer from ‘rat-running’ or high volumes of traffic. Creating one-way streets is one way of solving this problem. However, there are also disadvantages to altering the direction of traffic flow in this way.Residents should be aware that the following may occur:
Some through traffic will simply be diverted onto other, less suitable streets
The new one-way street may attract more traffic, albeit in the remaining direction
Residents may have to access their street by an alternative, and less convenient, route, which may involve the use of other neighbouring streets
Traffic speeds may increase due to drivers’ perception that there is no on-coming traffic
Without physical traffic calming, there may be an increase in accidents and their severity
Some short sections of one-way street are likely to be contravened by drivers – which may require police enforcement.
With a possible hint about Haringey's wider agenda, they added "The council is unlikely to create a one-way street in isolation, due to the costs and resources required to carry out such a scheme. It is much more likely that it will consider changing the direction of traffic on a street as part of a wider review of traffic management in an area."
One US Study said, "If your goal is to move traffic quickly from one place to another, then one-ways are a great method to accomplish that. But, if your goal is a productive place with thriving local businesses, then slowing traffic with two-way streets is a much better plan. It's a tried and true method."
For me there's no case at all for a one-way street other than it serves the Council's plans for Wood Green.
-
-
I was away for the meeting so can't help. Also whilst I was away there was apparently a scrutiny committee which spent an hour on the study. I've added a post about that here. You'll probably learn as much form that a you will from the 'steering group'. The group has never really had a jot of steering to do and seems to me to have ended up being window dressing for community engagement.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
It seems that the conclusions of the Scrutiny Groups are invariably overruled by the Plenary meetings of the Council.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
