Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Liveable Crouch End possible impact on Wightman Road
I am not sure how aware you are of recent developments in relation to Liveable Crouch End so thought I would post a message as there is a consultation taking place which may impact on Wightman Road and the Harringay Ward generally.A new questionnaire has been launched by Haringey Council and one of the questions relates to the possibility of closing major roads such as The Broadway in Crouch End.If the Broadway closure were chosen as an option then the diverted traffic clearly would have a major impact on Wightman RoadYou may want to look at the questionnaire and the Liveable Crouch End website.From an FOI that I submitted to TFL I received the attached very basic traffic modelling information (with many assumptions) which you may also find of interest.This also shows the advantages and disadvantages of the different options. Prior to the questionnaire being issued I had thought that these more radical options were not being considered, but as they are now being included and as Cllr Hearn (Haringey Cabinet Member leading on the scheme) is saying that TFL (the funder) will likely chose the option put to them that is the most transformational then I think the option of Haringey closing major roads can’t be dismissed.
Tags for Forum Posts: liveable crouch end, liveable neighbourhoods, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by DanielJ on
-
I'm on Sydney Road, actually, which bears quite a bit of SE-bound rat running avoiding Turnpike Lane...
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Nail on the head, Daniel. The solution needs to deal with both Crouch End AND Harringay - but not piecemeal (we’ve been there before) - the solutions need to be implemented simultaneously.
-
-
The map of diversionary routes looks unrealistically empty of routes within broader Crouch End.
Ferme Park Road (the route for the frequent W3 bus) doesn't feature on it or on the Network diagrams below. If the Broadway is blocked that's what I'd use from Stroud Green rather than go (even) further east.
Similarly there are diversion routes west of the Broadway that wouldn't take me right over to Highgate Village.
In fact I read that as a rather large 'Anywhere but Crouch End' 'bribe', visually rather than in likely practice.
This isn't to deny an increase on Wightman Rd - and to some extent on Green Lanes too, which hasn't featured in the discussion above so far.
-
-
Hugh, I think the real issue here is that I don't think simultaneous implementation is at all realistic, either politically or practically. It's imperfect, but making sure one scheme lands home first is the best chance of another scheme coming into fruition. We have to change/challenge the status quo.
I do agree that this is probably the time to step up some serious campaigning efforts re the Ladder.
I also think that we, collectively, need to come to some kind of common understanding on the approaches that actually work (i.e. based in evidence), otherwise residents can never present a united front (in as much as this is ever possible) or at least avoid being split by fear-based negative campaigning. It's clear from some of the comments in this thread and the other one about this scheme that people still think that road capacity reduction/filtering simply moves/diverts traffic - yet the evidence is so strong that it also acts to reduce demand and reduce the number of motorised trips. The strategic gap in Haringey's thinking is both not making significant through-borough road capacity reduction a key aim (bearing in mind that main routes are TfL's responsibility anyway), while also not enabling local residents the means to get around their local area without resorting to driving (which requires understanding movement patterns and impediments to change). The resistance of traders to change is a key issue too. A strategy should exist to enable quicker and more positive/aligned local decisions to be made. All of this is non-intuitive. All of this is essential.
-
-
What you say makes sense, Daniel. But we know that Wightman is conceived of by Haringey as part of an unofficial Wood Green bypass (search HOL on that phrase for more). As such, they’re very reluctant to give it up. Against this background,, it’s almost Impossible to conceive that sucking up a situation resulting in even more traffic on Wightman would lead in any short order to action to reduce traffic anywhere in Harringay.
A minimum requirement should be a costed plan for action on Wightman along with that in Crouch End.
-
-
I do agree, Daniel. But that's a *huge* cross of the fingers. There's no guarantee (and we've see the council so obviously has no stomach at all to address traffic on Wightman or Green Lanes) that this could, would, or might happen. If I thought closure of the Broadway would hasten traffic abatement on the Ladder I'd support it immediately. I wholeheartedly support traffic calming for all the reasons: cleaner air, more walking/cycling, less car use so better for the environment, again, it's so obvious as to be embarrassing. But if a cleaner Crouch End means more pollution on the Ladder, I just can't support this. It's a scandal that this is what it's come to. One side of a community opposing the green policies of another side of the community because their green policies might damage our quality of life. What a situation to find ourselves in! Just make your entire borough healthier Haringey, eh?
-
-
Exactly. The fact that this is even being discussed in relation to Wightman demonstrates that failure.
-
-
Hi Rory! I do agree this is a shocking position to be in, with tactical considerations trumping what should be a positive development. However, I'm more positive that there will be change. First, this isn't a zero sum game - significant changes in Crouch End result in a better general outcome for all of us, even if there is some local impact. You can always find opposition to a scheme if you look outside the boundary of direct beneficiaries, but we'll never get anywhere as a society if that prevents progress.
What I would argue though is that: a) the context has shifted considerably in the past couple of years; b) there is also significant risk/cost of doing nothing. The context is different because e.g. neighbouring boroughs are doing some great things: Enfield and Waltham Forest with the Mini Holland schemes; Islington & Hackney are stepping up their programs. There are now tangible examples of what does/does not work within a few miles of Haringey. Public awareness of climate issues, pollution and appetite for change is rising. We have a declared Climate Emergency, even if that is yet really to translate into significant policy changes. Sadiq Khan - despite signing off Silvertown Tunnel, a shocking act of vandalism! - is running on a green ticket for the next mayoral election.
I'd also say the cost of doing nothing is high. Currently, the biggest impediment to change is the councillors - there's no political cost to inaction, nor is there any perceived political benefit to be gained from sticking your neck out. An effective and popular scheme in Crouch End (for it will likely be effective, if it is ambitious enough - per Walthamstow) will change perceptions, not least among traders. I remember when the anti campaign was running against Waltham Forest Mini Holland and the Orford Rd traders carried a coffin down the street in protest... I'm willing to bet that none of them would now be in favour of reverting the scheme! If this scheme gets shouted down, it will reinforce the perception in the council that the cost of change is high, and this will be a worse outcome that if this had never been consulted on at all. Positive business benefits experiences by Crouch End traders could swing Green Lanes traders in favour of change.
I do hear what you're saying, and it does worry me too. I just think the risks of inaction are greater than the risks of dealing with any side effects of action.
-
-
I also agree with that. Of all the options status quo is the worst.
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
There are plenty of good reasons above, and in principle I don't disagree with the Crouch End plans, however I cannot support it in its current form that suggests that Wightman Road and the Ladder are once again being asked to be the sacrificial lamb in having to suck up the displaced traffic. Enough is enough.
The ancient LBH idea of using Wightman Road as part of a western Wood Green bypass has to go it is so past it's sell-by date. It's a road to nowhere, with no disrespect to the residents of Endymion Road, and onwards.
The traffic department at LBH is a dinosaur, and LBH have not accepted their responsibilities of care and could possibly be accountable under equalities legislation in respect of health outcomes through their policies.
There doesn't appear to be any consideration in the plans to attempt to reduce traffic, just displace it in piecemeal fashion. The only solution IMHO is to filter Wightman. I haven't had a vehicle for nearly 20 years, fortunately I have a freedom pass and my legs are still good, thankfully. The public transport facilities in London are great but too expensive I think.
I'm afraid it means that we will have to come together to campaign & fight our corner yet again, so I'm in if others are willing to commit. The data that was collected 2 years could form a basis I would think. It was such a pleasure for the few months when Network Rail replaced the bridge and I would wish that for all, far & wide especially for our children & grandchildren.
What sticks in my gullet is the cavalier manner in which the corbyn council proudly proclaimed a climate emergency but are so incapable of delivering it. Words are just that, words. We have been led by donkeys time after time.
The LCSP traffic sub-committee used to meet at the Langham which they gave us for free. Any takers? Daniel & Rory, I don't recall you being involved in 2017, or Matt and any others. Are any of you interested in forming a new group or meeting up to see whether we can take it on again? It will need action away from the keyboard and being prepared to be ready for a long haul.
It would appear from posts on this thread and the other one "More traffic on Wightman..." that the CE folks have a degree of sympathy for the situation on the Ladder and might be willing to help us get off the ground.
I don't take any pleasure in opposing our neighbours aspirations.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Ruggles on
-
Has anyone considered Safety Factor or Closing Wightman Road off as a through Road
For the likes of Emergency Vehicles, where the area has a very large number of people living
Which could face large loss of life if Emergency vehicles can not get access to them
Especially Blocks of Flats
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
