West Green Road Urban Realm Improvements - Consultation

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hugh on November 30, 2011 at 23:34

At a quick glance, exactly the right thing to do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eona Bell on December 1, 2011 at 11:44

Agreed - the pedestrian crossings in their current positions never feel entirely safe and the proposals seem very sensible, keeping cars further from the entrances to the park and schools. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paulie on December 2, 2011 at 10:14

I would have gone if I didn't already have a commitment I can't get out of.

 

Who comes up with these ideas? (Serious question).

 

If I have to cycle to Edmonton / north Tottenham - which I do regularly - I have to negotiate busy Black Boy Lane and (sometimes obstructed) Clinton Road but at least gained comfort from the fact that at the top I could just go across the pavement and over both pedestrian crossings and straight into the park.

 

The existing pedestrian crossing takes you straight into the combined foot / cycle path that runs up the western side of the park. So why on EARTH is it being suggested that this crossing be removed?

Nor am I happy that they are barring access to Philip Lane to traffic coming from the west. However, if that will make things safer for the adjacent school then of course I will not object.

 

I will however be urging them to leave the pedestrian crossing firmly where it is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher Fowler on December 2, 2011 at 10:46

Geoff: Thank you for posting this and alerting everyone to the exhibition and meeting. In general this looks like a big improvement. The only downside is that when going eastbound, we will need to walk between the 341 and 41 stops, but for those of us whose legs are still OK, that is a bit of extra valuable exercise! Will try to get to the event Saturday, as it's only ten minutes walk away.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by hhnrau on December 3, 2011 at 23:35

As a cyclist I have to agree 100% with Paulie - losing the combined cycle crossing into the shared-use path through Downhills park is a serious loss to cycling facilities in the area.  The existing crossing from Clinton Road provides a continuous safe cycle route from West Green through Downhills Park and on to Lordship Rec.

The sensible thing to do would be to maintain this as part of the redevelopment.   In fact, what about linking to Chestnuts Park too  - easily done  southbound via Clinton road/Falmer Road (possibly by removal of the small concrete fence at the elbow of Falmer Road) and/or linking up the traffic-free streets in the Gardens?  This would create a wonderful North-South route parallel to Green Lanes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerry Platt on September 8, 2012 at 13:12

This project is nearing completion and, as an experienced cyclist, I'm very unhappy about it.

The original proposal included a shared cycle/pedestrian path along the northern part of the triangle. I have just read the results of the consultation and there were no objections and no mention of any change to this:

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/signed_delegate_report_west_green_rd_urb...

Instead of the cycle facility there is a pedestrian zone (see attached photo).

I am a confident cyclist and, when necessary, I will take the centre of the lane (primary position) in order to avoid being overtaken dangerously or being hit by a car door opening. It is preferable to engineer roads and junctions so that this can be avoided, this project fails in this respect and I fear that it is only a matter of time before a collision when a frustrated motorist overtakes a cyclist when it is not safe to do so.

My daily cycling includes the route between the Downhills Park Road/Phillip Lane junction and the roundabout at the North of Black Boy Lane; in both directions. I now find myself taking the primary position for the complete route in both directions; with the exception of cycling Westbound along the Southern side of the triangle.

Inexperienced cyclists often cycle nearer the curb which puts them in danger so the safety of this re-engineering depends on all cyclists being confident to take the primary position and all motorists to respect that this is appropriate (both unlikely).

I am particularly concerned when traveling Eastbound and turning into Spur Road at the new roundabout because as soon as I make this turn there is a climb. At speed (say >10mph) I have to lean which means I stop pedaling and my speed is reduced on the slope. If I have stopped at the roundabout I have to pull away into the slope which reduces my acceleration. Bear in mind that there is most likely a motorist, who has been behind me since the Black Boy roundabout, waiting to overtake but I have to maintain the primary position as there parked cars on my left. Next there is a zebra crossing on the right bend followed by more parked cars.

The alternative, when traveling Eastbound, is to break the law and to cycle (considerately) in the pedestrian zone: my choice. I will be contacting the council to make this maneuver legal!

Right now I'm not sure what can be done about my other concerns.

I hope this doesn't come across as a rant. I do feel passionate about this and I think that the council has missed an opportunity to create a safe environment for all road users.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duguneek on September 8, 2012 at 18:12

I cannot see your photograph but I guess if there was a change contrary to the signed report then they should change back or at least consult cyclists to encourage them to use the triangle safely. This may result in shared use ped and cycle ways - I'm sure less advanced cyclists should be encouraged by the council to recognise this as a safer crossing than before?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duguneek on September 8, 2012 at 18:14

Cyclists have to be considerate towards pedestrians though! I just prefer to avoid busy roads and will find a way of doing that without impinging on others, I take my time and no-one complains

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff Amabilino on September 8, 2012 at 22:39

Gerry,

I caught your post almost by accident.  I've copied your comments to the Highways engineers responsible for the project (John McQueen and Tony Kennedy at LBH), and will let you know if I get a response.  It makes much more sense to make that bit dual-use.

Geoff

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerry Platt on September 9, 2012 at 10:23

thanks Geoff, my interpretation is that LBH is already committed to make it duel use because this was in the original proposal and no objections, or alterations, were mentioned in the consultation process?

The consultation is devalued if changes are made afterwards.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerry Platt on September 9, 2012 at 18:48

I've just received the following from The Haringey Cycling Campaign:

"I emailed Haringey and the project engineer has advised that the signage and shared surface areas at the West Green Road project are not yet fully complete.

He will be finishing the shared surface singing and additions by the end of September and once these have been undertaken, he will be more than happy to meet with us on site to discuss and walk through".

Of course it would have been best if the signing was right from the start, but at least there doesn’t appear to be a change in the intended outcome.

My reply:

thanks for that, if poss I'd really like to be included in the walk through, better still 'ride through'.

Before I comment further I must acknowledge that I've never re-engineered a junction & recognise that the whole job cannot be done in one day. 

Having said that I think it would have been preferable to put the final sign up  (eg. no vehicles except cyclist). I guess this would have saved a bit of money. 

Let's hope no cyclists get hurt before the project is finished.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff Amabilino on September 9, 2012 at 18:56

Thanks for the update.

Please let me know when you get the date for this as I'd like to pop along as well.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page