Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
St Ann’s LTN — feedback and/or objections required
The council has launched an online feedback questionnaire/website for comments and reactions to the St Ann’s LTN to date. The survey window is from today until 10 March; it’s at: stannsltn.commonplace.is
There is a separate e-mail address for “formal objections” to the experimental traffic order (the LTN is, at least nominally, an experiment): traffic.orders@haringey.gov.uk The deadline for objections is 22 February; anyone doing so is required to set out the specific reasons for their objections, according to the council flyer put through my door.
Sadly, my own experience of corresponding with this e-mail address last autumn is that it results in an auto-response but no dialogue or actual reply, but the council may perhaps have improved on this now that they’re publicising it more widely.
Tags for Forum Posts: low traffic neighbourhoods, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Harringay 4eva on
-
The boundary roads are residential streets too, lots of people live along green lanes, Phillip lane, West Green Road, Belmont road etc.
-
-
Rory — This and John Stevens’s comment above are very ungenerous. If Helen’s road is now clogged up with additional traffic that wasn’t there before the LTN, then the LTN has failed. The myth of LTNs is traffic “evaporation”; what it means in practice is that traffic is displaced onto somebody else’s streets and becomes “their” problem and not “ours”. (Just as my “short cut” is your “rat-run”.) Residents of Bounds Green discovered this to their cost when Enfield created an LTN across the boundary from them and Helen is obviously suffering from the same displacement problem. Residents on “boundary roads” have been thrown under the bus (the one stuck in traffic) for the sake of just three roads in the whole St Ann’s area, when safety statistics show that all of them were already far, far safer than West Green Road or Green Lanes, where traffic is now forced to go instead.
Yes, traffic needs to be reduced overall, but it needs a London-wide plan, not just piecemeal blockages in selected botoughs; in Haringey, the key problems are Green Lanes (a major N/S trunk route) and the constriction of insufficient crossing points over the railway for W/E traffic. The council has done nothing to tackle either of these (eg by controlling traffic to/from the N Circular, reducing parking on GL and prioritising buses), providing EV charging points across the borough or electrifying its vehicle fleet, and this is against the background of continuing and persistent cuts to bus routes and frequencies that make public transport progressively less attractive. Just because three streets now have less traffic (and BBL, for one, looks increasingly scary at night because of the lack of people using it) doesn’t mean an LTN is a benefit when all it does is shift the problem elsewhere.
-
-
John Stevens — The government has mandated the end of petrol/diesel vehicle car production, presumably on the grounds that they cause the bulk of pollution, so there needs to be an alternative. EVs don’t emit toxic fumes (though there may well be environmental impacts from their construction), but congestion itself is not the problem — it’s the pollutants from burning fossil fuels. Maybe in an ideal world everyone would be within a few minutes’ walk of their work, leisure activities, families, shops, etc (and how dull that would be if nobody ever left their immediate home area), but London isn’t like that. There will always be a need to get around and public transport (which I use frequently, as I don’t drive) doesn’t cover all possibilities. In the circumstances, wouldn’t enabling people — to say nothing of BT, DPD, Haringey council, small businesses, BG, Royal Mail, Tesco et al —to move to electric vehicles be a benefit?
-
-
As a regular (stuck in traffic) person without any other option, I came across the various fake consultation boxes polluting the various LTNs. They ask the residents INSIDE the LTNs for their responses. However the people on the main roads OUTSIDE the LTNs are not included. That is the people queing for 20 minutes, the people on delayed buses, and the residents on the main roads with additional fumes!
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I had thought the same thing as Philip. Can you explain what is false ?
-
-
But as far as I have seen, the posters are only on the periphery of the LTN . It's quite likely that someone living on Green Lanes or the Harringay Ladder would not have seen one, although affected by the LTN restrictions.
-
-
John D — Yes, many posters on the St Ann’s roads that never needed an LTN (eg Avondale, Conway, Cranleigh, Glenwood) in the first place because they were already quiet and peaceful, but none visible on Green Lanes or the Ladder as far as I can see.
-
-
In October 2021, Ealing council removed seven of their LTNs, following huge negative feedback and their own monitoring. The council’s press release quotes the council’s deputy leader as saying “We remain committed to active travel, but…. we know we must take local people with us. We have pledged to be an open, transparent and inclusive council, and that includes being honest about what works and what doesn’t”. It would be good to think these were principles Haringey would want to follow, too, but there seems little sign of it so far. Full text of Ealing’s PR here:
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/news/article/2115/removal_of_seven_low_tr...
-
-
I think the bus companies operating in the Turnpike Lane/ St Annes Rd areas will have the proof on their bus cctv video how snarled up these routes are now, and how extended time-wise they have become, to the point now where bus passengars on the 41 for example bound for Archway, are suddenly told 'now only going to Crouch End'. Get off and wait in the bitter cold or rain for the next one to arrive and hope he too is NOT being turned around short.
Other bus routes must also be suffering loss of revenue with buses idle in bumper to bumper traffic. They should be consulted and asked to hand over there footage. Even so, buses have trackers and these too will be showing bus companies [public too] their data if they've got the nouce & patience to make sense of it. And there is the rub. One person's [bus company], [passengar] etc 'sense' is different to another persons [council] [ authority] sense. This 'experiment' cannot be allowed to stay as is unless a 'buses only' lane is made the length of Green Lanes from Manor House to Jolly Butchers Hill. Get joined up thinking through the boroughs !!
-
-
Obviously the difficulty there, looking at the 41 bus for instance, is working out whether any delays have been caused by the LTN or the near constant roadworks on Turnpike Lane and beyond (or both).
Data is available here for bus performance but it isn't really granular enough to see if anything specific is having an impact.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/buses-perform...
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I got the 144 both ways on Saturday and on Sunday and it took 25 minutes to get from Turnpike Lane station to just past the railway bridge because everything was reduced to a single lane due to the roadworks at junction of Hornsey High Street and Church Lane. The queue was back up Westbury Avenue and down Green Lanes and Wightman Road
-
Permalink Reply by Helen on
-
Hi,
Re any impacts on buses - The Traffic Order Regulations (Section 6 Consultation, Table item 5) states the authority making the Traffic Order must 'consult the operator of the service' (extract below and link to TO Reg's below that). I guess this goes back to the question of whether impacts on buses in the wider neighbouring areas were considered appropriately and whether as a result of that, the operators were or weren't consulted.
. Where the order relates to, or appears to the order making authority to be likely to affect traffic on,–
(a) a road outside Greater London which is included in the route of a local service; or
In case (a) the operator of the service (b) a road in Greater London which is included in the route of a London bus service
In case (b) the operator of the service and London Regional Transport https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/6/made
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
