Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Harringay (Green lanes Area) Transport Study
A letter just dropped through y door asking for feedback. Here is mine:
"I hope the council considers the permanent closure of Wightman Road. Gradually commuters and long-distance drivers are realising they need to either use alternative main roads, or switch to public transport or cycling. The study shows that residents overwhelmingly do not own a car (61%), and prefer public transport, walking or cycling for their commute (82%)."
Tags for Forum Posts: harringay traffic study, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by V&M on
-
It seems like the general consensus re: Green Lanes is:
- GL parking should be moved to surrounding roads within 1-4 mins walk of GL (including Wightman) as pay-and-display spaces, replaced like-for like (i.e. same amount)
- Possibly longer hours of operation on the Residents bays at the ends of streets adjoining GL, to prevent residents from not being able to park near their houses at weekends
- GL becomes either a red route or shared street, possibly with a 15mph speed limit (no-one has explained how this would devalue GL or make it hostile to shoppers, but please do if that's your view because I feel I must've missed something)
So, if that were to happen with GL, hopefully making it run a bit smoother, what would you want to do with Wightman?
-
Permalink Reply by Nick on
-
How would a red route improve Green Lanes? Or removing the parking? If the intention is to effectively widen the road to accommodate two lanes of traffic each way, this would only serve to make the road far more pedestrian unfriendly.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I agree, I don't think a red route is the answer but if the current parking restrictions were actually enforced, bus journeys would be a lot better. Does anyone know how you tow away a Tesco HGV? Ditto Iceland?
-
-
If delivery rules are like taxi rules they can pretty much stop anywhere to unload for X amt of time without getting into trouble. It's not that the rules aren't enforced it's that they've got a get-out-of-jail-free card. So the current parking rules don't make any difference.
-
-
Update - you can park on a double or single yellow for up to 40 mins if you are loading or unloading bulky items. Only exceptions are clearways (i.e. most bus stops), red routes and restricted loading areas. That's why no-one says anything about vans unloading on GL.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
But the loading/unloading allowance is subject to restrictions at peak hours. Look at the signage for details. Also loading and unloading has to be continuous.
Not that the enforcement officers care.
-
-
I think you're missing the point. First, it doesn't have to be a red route, there are other ways of going at it. It's just one of the suggestions, more are welcome.
Second, something needs to change on GL, because it's not working. GL and Wightman are inextricably linked. When open, Wightman takes nearly as much daily traffic as GL, because GL is often congested. That level of traffic is not appropriate to Wightman, which is why with the closure many are keen to revise the setup before it re-opens. However, any revision needs to take in GL as otherwise it will be roundly blocked as the perception is that GL will be further overloaded, essentially remaining as busy as it is at the moment.
Pedestrians are important. Locally, I'm mostly a pedestrian so I'm on side. Pedestrians would benefit from not walking alongside idling vehicles in a queue on GL. Pedestrians already have access to a good number of safe crossing points on GL. Pedestrians could be further protected with a low speed limit on that section of road. Opening up a second lane doesn't have to mean it turns into the North Circular, but it could mean a consistent, low speed traffic flow with better access for buses and bikes and of course better air quality for residents and visitors. Which is why an intervention would improve GL.
Context is important. If GL was nice and functional there'd be no need to fiddle with it. It's not.
-
-
I'm not sure how allowing more vehicles to use Green Lanes will reduce pollution - increasing the capacity of the road will just encourage more journeys.
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
Before moving to discuss Wightman, have we established whether GL is wide enough for 4 lanes? Or maybe 3-4 lanes with a central kerb, which could be (a) designed to make crossing safer for pedestrians (like the Arena crossing) , and also prevent right hand turns (either right hand turns into a Ladder rung or Garden road, or right hand exits from them).
A large part of the flow problem is due to turning and parking movements - the car in front of you is waiting for a gap to turn right, or reverse parking, or the bus needs to enter your lane because someone is parked in the bus lane etc. Additional parking restrictions on GL would alleviate some of this, but requiring cars to park in the side streets could make some of it worse particularly if they are allowed right turns.
-
-
IF you removed all the parking both sides of green lanes you'd get three lanes.
-
-
Yes please, this is interesting. Seems to be general agreement on the benefits of moving parking, but not at all clear what would/could/should happen next. Completely agree re: waiting for people who are turning. If moving parking off GL would create a third lane, would it be useful if it was central and divided into a series of 'splitter' lanes (almost certainly not the right term), allowing cars waiting to turn to move out of traffic flow until there is a gap?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
