Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Update on plans of where to spend TfL's £1.2m for Harringay
In my last post on this subject which covered the first meeting, I wrote "This really is a great opportunity to make some significant quality of life enhancing changes to our neighbourhood."
That meeting was on 13th October. Last week, on 24th, there was a follow up meeting. We were presented with a summary of the first meeting interpreting what the consultants described as "what people think they want". (Yup, I picked them up on that one.).
You'll see the range of ideas covered is quite broad, but then we were encouraged to be broad. We were also told to think about plans for the Green Lanes Corridor, not just the road itself.
At last week's meeting we were presented with three plans. Copies of the diagrams representing them are attached below. In each case I was at pains to get a very clear articulation from the consultants of what the objective is for each plan. I have recorded these below. The plans are:
1. Duckett's Common
Primary objective: Though not clear from the diagram, the primary objective is "to create a safer" pedestrian crossing at Frobisher Road".
Secondary objective: To create more public space (in the area opposite the Queen's head, by moving the point that the feeder road from West Green Road joins Green Lanes).
2. Salisbury/Warham Street improvements
Primary objective: "a better shopping environment"
This plan involves widening pavements between Hewitt and Warham. Buses will be prioritised. This will have the effect of constricting the flow of all other traffic along Green Lanes.
3. Sainsbury's
Primary objective: Ease traffic flow (by eating in to the Arena Car park sufficiently so as to 'indent' the bus stop)
Secondary objectives:
a. to make it easier for pedestrians to move about (through shifting crossing opposite McDonalds to north of the Bridge and by improving the crossing at the Green Lanes end of Williamson Road).
b. to improve the entrance to Harringay
So that's yer £1.2m gone. At the first meeting expectations were raised that the safety, quality of life and health issues created by high levels of traffic in residential streets could be addressed.
This time round - who knows why - all options on that score have been closed down.
I'm aware that the Green Lanes crossing at Frobisher has been a key concern for local people fro a number of years. So that one gets a tick from me. But, actually the major money in that plan will be spent creating a public space. Very nice; laudable idea, but this is in in an area where we already have public spaces Duckett's Common and Green Gate Common. More would be nice but are not a priority at that particular point. And for that reason, newpublicspace, you're fired.
Wider pavements and stuff between Hewitt & Warham. Again nice, but not my priority.
Moving the bus stop in? I can live with that as a reflection of resident's priorities. Since the council messed up that end of Harringay we've needed something improved. This will help somewhat. And I can see the sense of easing/changing pedestrian movements in that area. Sure why not.
So in summary I see a couple of nuggets that reflect what residents have said in several surveys that they want, but I don't see these plans taken as a whole as reflecting the priorities of local people.
Ach, who cares.....only £1.2m......it's not our money......let's just let them spend it how they want, eh.
Anyway, let's try something new to comment on & discuss this issue:
Vote and comment on the plans and add your own ideas here
Tags for Forum Posts: consultation, green lanes corridor, harringay regeneration 2012-13, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
They would not be able to get out at the Queen's head. Mrs M has pointed out that emergency vehicles would need access and Chetwynd Rd only has width restrictions East bound... Thinking...
-
-
Permalink Reply by phippsofacto on
-
All very reasonable suggestions, and forward thinking. I believe that some good old fashioned enforcement of current rules would go a long way. I am seriously fed up with people parking inappropriately (on corners, crossings etc), jumping lights (not amber gamblers, just idiotic selfishness of not wanting to stop momentarily), over-weight vehicles on restricted roads, driving the wrong way along one-ways, speeding, parking/driving in bus lanes.......oh the list could run and run.
At points, the road already narrows significantly to deter the average driver from passing buses, but for an ample amount of desperates it is merely an incovenience that they pass on to others by forcing a way through regardless.
I am sometimes gobsmacked at the level of disregard displayed by people whilst driving through our community. So, back to my point...any suggested improvements would have to enforceable to really make a difference.
I await your criticism.
Thanks. Rant over.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
!. Wightman Road
2. Me
3. Me
4 . I'm not happy about it but would accept it as a quid pro quo if there were rigorous enforcement of the 7.5 T and 20 mph speed limit. Since the SID has been installed at the top of the southgoing Wightman, we can see how many drivers ignore the speed limit. Between 30 % and 60 % depending on traffic density. At the Transport Forum last November I pointed out as strongly as I could that the Council could introduce traffic calming measures until they were blue in the face but drivers would raise two fingers to them unless they were enforced. The Council representatives nodded and smiled.
-
-
Let's turn your argument around, just so answers to your ponderings are well framed.
If the traffic flow in Green Lanes speeds up and traffic is allowed unrestricted access to roads, controlled pedestrian crossings removed along with weight restrictions and speed limits raised to 40mph.
Who would this impact?
Who would have an opinion and voice it?
What might they say about it?
Motor vehicle drivers have been allowed to assume the rights to the road that they currently hold because in the past motor vehicle owners were only the wealthy. Your ponderings legitimatise the vehicle owners argument. Considering that motor vehicles kill >3000 people a year in the UK do you think it's fair that you should be seen to be even contemplating sticking up for them?
-
Permalink Reply by TTTH on
-
Hugh,
May seem like a stupid question, but are these the same funds that can be used on other roads in the Borough or must the works just be on the Green Lanes Corridor? I may be confusing it with LIP. I still haven't received any feedback on on my comments for LIP by the way. Have you had more success with this "consultation".
C
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
WightmanPaul seems to have a handle on this. Does this link answer your questions?
Oh and, PS, not a stupid question in the slightest.
-
-
Thanks, I think it is the same then. I will comment in the hope that it will be picked up as I haven't had much luck with the consultation process which is a shame.
-
Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on
-
Colin, I believe it is the same money which is listed in the LIP2 documentation - it's been cut by 28% apparently - so something over £900 000 now. I've struggled with the idea that while the LIP2 was under 'consultation' there were meetings going on to stitch up the definition of 'Green Lanes Corridor' to ensure that the money would be spent to the benefit of a particular constituency, and in particular, would be of little benefit in addressing many of the issues in the LIP2 documents, especially those in the Atkins' Environmental report. As the debates on HOL have demonstrated, any intelligent analysis of the detail of traffic flow, transport and the environment in this area would expose the definition of 'Green Lanes Corridor' as relating only to Green Lanes itself, as inadequate. Traffic flow - at least on the West side of Green Lanes - overflows. Transport issues - bus and train issues - reach beyond Green Lanes. Pollution reaches beyond Green Lanes. Which interest group has had sufficient influence to ensure that 'Urban Initiatives' terms of reference defied common sense and were restricted to spending on Green Lanes only and who was in a position to enforce such an undemocratic restriction in relation to our money?
-
Permalink Reply by E. F. Salzman on
-
Sorry out of country but I gather the consultants hadn't entertained any of these ideas in current proposals, which is point of petition?
Are they looking at or aren't they?
I'd love to know who say what the residents THINK they want!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
