Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Summary of Harringay Traffic Study Survey
Attached is the consultants' summary of the feedback given in the recent engagement process on traffic in Harringay.
I've split the report into two parts to allow me to attach it here.
There's a steering group meeting next week and I'll add a further update following that.
Tags for Forum Posts: harringay traffic study
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
Given there were 5 options to choose from, I think it's remarkable that filtering Wightman Road was supported by (just) over 50% of survey respondents:
Three cheers for Living Wightman!
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I hope your expectations about that translating into council policy are realistic!
-
-
Well my excitement is slightly contained by the fact that "Wightman Road Mosque joined with St John the Baptist church, The Gospel Centre, Turnpike Lane Traders Association, Harringay Traders Association, and workers from Network Rail to submit approximately 3,500 signatures from residents and local stakeholders in opposition to the closure"
I haven't read the full report yet so maybe this alliance has proposed an even better solution to meet the Transport Study's objectives?
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Alexander on
-
Well, I wonder what percentage of that 3,500 are local residents rather than people coming from far and wide. Very disappointing that these establishments are quite happy to put their customers and parishioners from outside the immediate area before local residents in Harringay.
-
Permalink Reply by Malc B on
-
This is a point which could do with clarificaiton - it is either 35% from within Harringay (if you go by the table) or 55% (if you go by the summary of the table). Quite an important difference.
-
Permalink Reply by JulieB on
-
It looks like they have they have incorrectly labelled that chart.
Maths isn't my strong point but looking at the consultants figures for the petitions I think LW got about 763 (75%) signatures from residents living within the study area and the 'against closure/filtering' petitions got either 1,913 (55%) or 1,217 (35%) signatures from residents living within the study area.
-
-
Your maths is correct Julie (and it's definitely only 35% within the study, the 55% is a transposition typo), but it's a mistake to compare the two petition results since the methodologies and timings were totally different.
The Living Wightman petition was carried out mostly by taking the petition door-to-door on parts of Wightman and a random selection of about half a dozen rung roads, plus campaigners speaking to commuters at the train stations, plus the "bike breakfast".
The "Against Change" alliance petitions were collected at church/prayer services, or by GL traders. (Incidentally UK elections are apparently deliberately not held on Sundays to prevent excessive influence on voters by the church. Nor on Fridays to avoid influence by Tory brewers!).
You can criticise both petition methodologies, but it's not valid to compare the numbers.
It's also worth noting in terms of timings that the LW petition was carried out last summer. The efforts of the LW campaign during the online survey consultation period this year were focussed on, um, encouraging people to complete the online survey! If LW had continued their petition campaign instead - say by taking it door-to-door on previously unvisited rung roads - then there would have been hundreds more signatories.
-
-
Oh yes I've found the summary chart at the beginning of the report and it does say 35% = 1,202 signatures from residents within the study area.
I wasn't criticising either methodology and I disagree about the petitions or numbers being invalid, they are numbers given to us by the consultants in their summary.
As you say perhaps if LW had continued their petition campaign, or asked people over a wider area, the results might have been different.
-
-
Sorry Julie I should have said "one can criticise" not "you can", I know you didn't mention the methodologies.
-
-
Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
Customers and parishioners put funds into their businesses/coffers and thereby are responsible for their economic survival. Local residents as a group do not. (That I say this does not mean I agree with their position.)
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
And why not Karen ? We all have an agenda and they are just as entitled to put their views forward as anyone. Do turkeys vote for Christmas ?
As it happens, I asked someone from the Gospel Centre of the attendance had dropped off last Summer and they said they hadn't noticed it.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
