Harringay (Green lanes Area) Transport Study

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on October 29, 2016 at 12:39

Before I found this discussion I had contacted the council directly. To my surprise they actually got back to me and moreover, someone was kind enough to take the time to write a specific response. The highlights of this email are as follows:

The Green Lanes Area Transport study was commissioned to help address these concerns and others in a strategic manner in order to avoid problems that can result from piecemeal projects delivered to alleviate individual local concerns. In other words, we are determined to introduce improvements that are sustainable and that will benefit the area as a whole.

The main thing I take away from this statement is that the council would seem fully intending to do *something*, which is encouraging.

The other part of the email which was news to me at least -- next steps:

We plan to consult residents and businesses within the study area in January 2017 on a list of proposals to help address the safety and traffic related issues within the study area. This would be a good opportunity for you to feed into the study.

It looks like we will be seeing the proposals in the next couple of months(?)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on October 29, 2016 at 12:45

In pertinent part, this was the response I sent across -- not sure if anyone will ever read it but if the idea  is not "a piecemeal" solution, in this scenario if I were judge and jury this is how I would approach the matter to help me organise my thoughts:

Thank you for your considered response to my suggestion / query last week. Further to your information, I will look to participate in the January 2017 consultation.

 

I am happy also to learn that a comprehensive solution is the objective. That being, I hope none of you mind if I see if I can help organise the analysis before you:

 

1. Public Policy

First, I hope that the council has a clear statement of what it is trying to achieve as an outcome once studies, consultations, etc have completed and it then comes to the phase of implementing solutions.

 

These policy objectives can be anything and likely a combination--cleaner air, less traffic (of XYZ nature) in ABC place, reduction of X-thousand vehicles passing Y streets to Z-thousand per week/month/year; better facilities for cyclists (which was certainly an objective elsewhere in London resulting in the blue lanes), promoting access to local shop customers, etc.

The list is not exhaustive as my example considerations above I hope demonstrate. The key to me is to agree on a policy outcome(s) at the outset.

 

2. Stakeholders

Next to me is to discern who holds an interest in any outcome and who is benefitting most now? I think of these as stakeholders. Here is my non-exhaustive list of stakeholders:

 

i) Local residents (and subsets of them, e.g, "those who live in _______ Road")

ii) Local traffic motorists

iii) Through traffic motorists

iv) Public transport / its users

v) Local businesses (and access to them)

vi) Cyclists

vii) Pedestrians / children

viii) the environment

viii) the council

ix) surrounding residents / boroughs

 

3. Current Status Quo

Strictly in my opinion, the current traffic set up favours what I call the "Through Traffic Motorists" greatly. This is not all negative: This status quo probably helps local businesses and perhaps even the council in one sense as it thereby avoids complaints of over congestion in certain areas. Public transport (buses) are favoured by workable traffic movement on Green Lanes.

 

Similarly in my opinion, the least favoured stakeholders are currently the local residents whose streets are the subject of the Green Lanes Traffic Study. Your traffic studies from when Wightman Road was closed over the summer 2016 should provide the most convincing evidence to the assertion that a staggering percentage of the traffic on the Ladder is through traffic--i.e., at zero benefit to the locals only those using the roads.  

 

Digging down further, these local residents are also subject to disproportional exposure. [...]

 

Cyclists, in my view, are also near the bottom of the list as Green Lanes and Wightman Road are both difficult to navigate and seem more dangerous each for its own reasons (I cycle everywhere--this is strictly my opinion but a fairly formed one I think).

I could discuss other stakeholders and where I feel they stand but hopefully the idea comes across.

 

4. Outcome(s): Implementations that will achieve the policy and how these will affect the stakeholders

 

I appreciate that one change can and likely will have a knock on effect which is the thrust of your 19 October email to me. If the council is intending to make changes therefore I would hope it identifies which stakeholders it wants to benefit most and which it wants to impact most as this will in turn guide the decisions to be taken.

 

I feel it's at least a reasonable assumption on my part that a reduction in traffic of convenience with minimal hit to local businesses and local services (I love Green Lanes I don't want to see its character change). There are considerably more ways to achieve this than I could articulate--not just changing directions or blocking roads, but congestion type charges, eliminating street parking to a degree or entirely on Green Lanes, etc.

 [...]

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Chalk on October 29, 2016 at 13:32

I completely agree the congestion charge idea. I suggested from north circular road.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JoeW on October 29, 2016 at 13:56

I'd like to see a congestion charge, amongst other things (a charge on its own might reduce traffic would not necessarily rationalise it or make it more equitable - Wightman shouldn't be carrying more traffic than nearby A-roads in any circumstances).

More importantly I agree that there need to be clear, measurable policy objectives, "success criteria" for judging the effectiveness of any changes. For example, one criteria might be to reduce the number of journeys on each Ladder rung road to less than 1000 per day/100 per hour. If any proposed change is not likely to achieve or contribute to that goal, it should be rejected. And the objective should be measured again after the changes are implemented, in a month or 6 months or a year's time, to check their effectiveness against the criteria.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 16
• 17
• 18
• Next ›
• Page