Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Really P****d Off
I hope all you who have the vote in Harringay will remember tonight ( and certainly other nights to come ) and at the next election vote out the incompetent shower responsible for the introduction of the LTN.
My weekly 5-minute journey from Wightman Road to Green Lanes took 45 minutes, including 30 minutes to go the length of Hampden Road. Yes, I know that there was a burst water main. But in happier times traffic would have been distributed across the roads now blocked off and not confined to Green Lanes. Yes, I know that I could have taken a bus to sit in the same traffic jam as I did this evening but in any case there aren't any buses between my house and the bottom of Effingham Road.
I understand the concerns of those residents living in the LTN who hope that the pollution in their streets will be reduced but don't the residents of Green Lanes, Turnpike Lane and Wightman Road breathe ? don't their children have lungs ?. Where did the Council think the LTN traffic would go ?
And please don't suggest to this disabled person that I could have cycled. I couldn't.
Tags for Forum Posts: low traffic neighbourhoods, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1 on
-
For those who have referenced Islington and the issues in their monitoring, Imperial College have released a paper on the LTNs there. Headline figures look positive both in terms of pollution and traffic, both in the LTN and on the boundary roads:
LTNs reduced NO2 both within intervention areas (5.7%) and in boundary areas (8.9%)
Traffic volumes were reduced by 58.2% within LTNs and by 13.4% at LTN boundary sites.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922003625
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
The report was covered on BBC London news this evening
-
-
Come on, Michael. As we can clearly see from this thread, people opposing the LTNs have no interest whatsoever in evidence or proof and the concept of patience and empathy. It impacts them, personally, today, so it has to go. End of. The selfishness and sense of entitlement apparent here in these comments is shocking and depressing. The world is burning, and all people care about is that Haringey, whose roads have always been congested, historically far worse than right now, are temporarily slightly more congested. We get the Earth we deserve, I guess.
-
-
Rory — As one of the commenters here, I’m quite happy to look at evidence or stats — and I pointed others to crashmap.co.uk for irrefutable stats about how dangerous two “boundary roads” already are in comparison with those in St Ann’s where allegedly the major problem lies and why adding new traffic there is a terrible idea. As a walker/public transport user I’m in favour of making those better, but it has to be done first, not “maybe, if you’re lucky, after we’ve done everything else” if the idea is to persuade people out of their cars. Livi has given a cogent view of why buses often are so unattractive and I bet she’s not alone; I’m not complacent about climate change but I think Haringey has failed to tackle the real problems of Green Lanes, is attacking the wrong targets, and shows no leadership in putting its own house in order before lecturing everyone else. Leadership, not instruction, is what’s needed: wagging fingers and waving a big stick is an ineffective way to get people to change their behaviour, unless the carrot to encourage them is bigger. No sign of this here so far.
-
-
the big flaw in this study is the collection of data which was not completed independently.
-
-
Are you suggesting that both Islington and TfL sent false data and that experienced researchers at Imperial College conspired with them to do so?
-
Permalink Reply by James Hawtin on
-
Well, I we just had a consultation though the door about putting school streets at North Harringey (I assume south Harringey is being consulted on too), so thats going to add even more fun an hilarity to the local area. I hate to think what my road Lausanne will be like. I wish they actually had a proper plan about what to do, it seems to be like... wack a mole and shock horror somewhere else gets worse so wack that one... repeat... No joined up thinking.
-
-
By 'hilarity', you mean safer streets with less pollution for primary school children? Being against safer and cleaner streets for primary school children feels like a very, very strange thing to be against.
-
-
The UK is 40-50 years behind the Netherlands in getting people to shift from car dominated urban areas. They all own & use cars, just not for trips easily done using other modes of trans. If people support these LTNs and seek solutions instead of retrograde, sometimes politically motivated negative actions, things will move forward.
The situation just could not stay as it was….
-
-
We speak about the LTNs and how to reduce the impact of air pollution on people and predominately our children, however, it is beyond me how we ourselves are not taking responsibility of the day to day pollution inside our homes which are causing a drastic impact on our children’s lungs and health. A study from Clean Air Day in 2019 concluded that our homes have 3.5 times ‘worse pollution’ than outdoor air, and The Royal College of Paediatrics conducted a study in January 2020, revealing that children’s lungs where being affected by indoor air at a certain considerable rate! Whilst the LTN tries to reduce ‘outdoor pollution’ in certain streets, it does nothing more than move the pollution elsewhere.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Links to the studies you mention would be very helpful.
If this is one the reports you meant, I couldn't find the research you specified.
https://www.cleanairday.org.uk/files/clean_air_day_2019_celebration...
Is the other report this one?
https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/news/growing-evidence-linking-i...
Plainly it's very worrying. But I'm unsure of your argument here. Are you suggestion that external air pollution shouldn't be a priority?
-
-
Rory — This sequence is now so convoluted that I can’t post in the right place. Even in your explication of the purpose of LTNs, the underlying message is that they displace traffic, rather than preventing it (you talk about satnavs reconfiguring to avoid jams and drivers “choosing another route”), which is one of my fundamental objections. Traffic doesn’t “evaporate”, it goes somewhere else — “not my problem, guv”. Enfield creates an LTN, all the traffic goes into Haringay, as we’ve seen; St Ann’s becomes an LTN, all the traffic goes onto GL and WGR…. and so on. Where do you want it to go next — the Ladder? Crouch End? Ally Pally?
Locally, as I’ve said earlier, the council needs to work collaboratively to sort out the N Circular junction, along with showing green credentials by electrifying all its own vehicles and forcing service vehicles to do the same (UPS and Amazon have done it, so can the rest). Banning parking and prioritising buses in GL would encourage much greater use and improve reliability. Nationally, the government needs to back up its ban on petrol vehicles with EV-friendly measures that make it possible for people change, rather than just relying on “the market”. As for the commuters, I don’t know why they choose cars over, say, trains, but to crack that conundrum, maybe improve the train service/lower the fares/reduce overcrowding, etc, to get more people out of their vehicles. Deal with the source of the problem and people will change; bugger up their lives by deliberately making journeys more difficult and they’ll just resent it.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
