Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Wightman Road closed just before the bridge (only) - from 2012
I have had a number of conversations with locals and frustrated vehicle drivers along the lines of "why have they closed it all the way down?". From memory I tried to recall incidents during which Wightman was closed at the bridge end only. One such happened in 2012, Michael opened a discussion about it. I was drawn to the comments at the end of the thread relating to the traffic situation.
The area cordoned off is from South of Umfreville Road (open) to just after the modern block of flats on the left towards Endymion road where the road descends, so it also cuts off the little turn-around by the Albanian shop.
All traffic down Wightman Road towards Endymion Road is being turned off onto Burgoyne Road and then Green Lanes, hence the gridlock.
and
Went out at 9 this morning - total chaos. Returned about 2 p.m, still chaos - it took half an hour to drive from Oakfield Road to Umfreville. I could have parked and walked home much quicker, except I don't think Green Lanes A parking permits are allowed to park in Green Lanes B areas any more. Traffic was still turning from GL up Endymion intending to use Wightman Road, only to find it cordoned off, then trying to turn round at mini-roundabout to join queue back onto GL.
Full thread here.
Tags for Forum Posts: traffic, wightman bridge, wightman bridge closure
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Exactly, Paul. It's just what I've been saying. The aim of the Council approach was to distribute the Wightman traffic as widely as possible across the Primary Route Network.
If they'd left part of Wightman open, motorists would still have been much more likely to continue to drive as much of their old route as possible. However, since part of that route would be closed, they'd divert to Green Lanes for that part. It would likely end up with Green Lanes being much more congested than it is now. What closing the whole of Wightman has done is to spread the primary route misery more evenly across the area.
I'm sure that the Council will have learned from this past experience.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
And you would have seen a hell of a lot more of this! Cars trying to get out of rung roads onto GL blocking the northbound carriage way!
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
When I see photos like this, I can't help but think that some kind of zonal congestion charge should be introduced. One that links road space with number of passengers carried.
The photo also backs up my thinking that much better quality middle to longer distance public transport investment needs to be made urgently.
A tram every two to five minutes in the peaks down from Enfield on 'Green Wave signals' to Moorgate connecting at Manor House with one from Tottenham & Edmonton to Camden Town and Euston. Plus some additional tube lines are necessary. - these lines don't need to be so deep in the suburbs.. I'm sure cut and cover would be a cheaper option ??
Please don't mention CrossRail 2 - as it's just a means of providing an underground railway that has nothing to do with LUL with it's personnel problems. In parts, it's a good idea. But is mostly a hack's railway..
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
I thought we were supposed to be getting yellow box junctions on Green Lanes....why have they not materialised?
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Box junctions have to be monitored by cameras, which cost. They could be marked with white Keep Clear boxes, which I think are advisory not mandatory but would show all but the most idiotic that there's no point creeping forward if there's no way out, and that it costs nothing to let other motors cross your path if you're going nowhere. (This should happen without road markings, however they don't make drivers like they used to.)
In the above pic, it's bad driving - no anticipation - by the black car on the left that is causing the problem.
-
-
No they don't have to be monitored by cameras...they only have to be monitored by cameras if you want to issue enforcement notices.... it's just like the 20mph speed limit...
-
-
What actually happened Pam is that two vehicles turning right came out of the exit of Pemberton together. The first was let out by the black car, the second shot out in front of the northbound car even though there was no room for him southbound. Shockingly selfish! The black car actually left space for the mini that came out first.
The issue, I suspect, is that both went up Warham road thinking they could get up Wightman, but with the sign behind a tree they did not realise they could to get where they wanted to be!
-
-
I think that is only recent, only a month or two ago that the notices went up.
-
-
Thanks Paul and Hugh. This full disclosure on Wightman's full part-closure should save a lot of redundant questioning and bellyaching. A stabbing south of Burgoyne sets off a raid and moped abuse in Seymour, not to mention ladder-wide alarms about Moka coffee accessibility. Butterfly flutters its wings in Finsbury Park and Turnpike grinds to gridlock. 2012 lessons well learnt. Keep 'er shut!
-
Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on
-
Linda, I think you may have missed the original point of this discussion. On the day in question the area was gridlocked. I remember leaving home at 7 40am and reaching Muswell Hill at 9 20am. The entire Ladder blocked, as did Green Lanes and Turnpike Lane etc. To represent the potential scenario as a build up around Burgoyne Road fails to recognise the volume of traffic, its behaviour in the circumstances and the nature of the junctions from rung roads onto Green Lanes.
-
Permalink Reply by James Hawtin on
-
The day wightman road was closed (with the new bridge work) there was also grid lock, people take a while to adjust to new routes, so taking an example of a road being closed on one day and saying so we are best off closing the whole thing is invalid.
-
-
Fair point about folks taking time to adapt, but I what I thought Paul was responding to was the criticism that one of the possible three options originally under consideration by the council was implemented (the full closure), and not one of the other two (including a partial closure of Wightman). I do not think he made a value judgement.
Now, the outcome of the other two options are going to be speculative, as they are counterfactual (they will never exit), and the point being made is that there would have been just as much congestion with 120,000 + 160,000 vehicles per week trying to get onto Green Lanes via Wightman and various rung roads (GL carried 160,000 vehicles per week pre closure). As things stand there is no ambiguity, the road is closed, and it is hoped (hoped) that some of the 120,000 Wightman vehicle drives make different choices and you do not end up with 280,000 vehicles a week on GL and completely clogging up all the Ladder to boot (see the image above).
The reality is that the best of a bad bunch was chosen. Sadly though it is easy to bemoan the fact that other options were not implemented. To my mind, no one has offered a logical demonstration as to how a partial closure would have been a better option, nor how it would have played out. This is what I saw Paul responding to.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
