Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Traffic group meeting this week
Anyone able to give us an update on what happened at the traffic study meeting on Monday? One of the steering group members have suggested "The next couple of months could be critical and we will need to lobby", so would be good if we could all be kept updated on what happens at the meetings.
On a related note, these from the HCC meeting minutes:
(1) Gary Smith of LBH is working on a 2-way scheme for Tottenham lane existing 1-way section
(2) There are sketch proposals for a W bound segregated cycle lane on Turnpike Lane W from Wightman Rd.
(3) Wightman Rd:
- it was agreed the pinch points must go
- filtering ladder roads at the lane a possibility but would increase travel distances for residents traveling E/W.
- Pavement parking should be removed, parking one side of road (alternating) possible.
- Introduce zebra crossings.
- There should be a timed N bound cycle lane on green Lanes as a minimum.
Those all sound interesting. (1) could help a lot with all the congestion that was around the bus stop by the New River there while Wightman was closed. That (2) means up the hill under the railway bridge I think, would be good, I usually ride on the footpath there as the road seems too dangerous.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
That is not really a logical argument. Even if the size of the city somehow matters, we aren't talking about 600 sq miles we are talking about a few square miles in one part of north London.
Jan VH is basically saying it will work out the way I said. Pain at first and then fine. I went through the "Gardens" streets yesterday for the first time. They are blocked off. Why is it a problem to extend this west?
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Because the displaced traffic will want to find another route and the people living on that other route will be upset at the increased traffic and pollution. Haven't you read the comments from people living on Green Lanes during the time Wightman was closed ?
-
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
John D - the traffic is "displaced " onto the A-roads which is where it belongs. Also some traffic will be "displaced" to walking, cycling, public transport or just not making unnecessary journeys at busy times.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Nick on
-
John D - the traffic is "displaced " onto the A-roads which is where it belongs. Also some traffic will be "displaced" to walking, cycling, public transport or just not making unnecessary journeys at busy times.
Endymion Road isn't an A road.
-
-
-
Nick - Endymion did see some increase in traffic volume during the bridgeworks - even with that increase it still carried less than Wightman does normally.
The main problem on Endymion - the thing that caused the queues (mainly at weekends IIRC, weekday mornings it was usually quieter than normal) was the traffic light phasing and generally dysfunctional junction around the Arena.
-
-
-
JoeW
Green Lanes is an A road ( A105 ) Those who live on it were very unhappy about the increased traffic when Wightman Rd was closed. You make my point for me
-
-
-
John D - the traffic needs to be rationalised - through-traffic should be on A-roads, it should not be allowed to cut through the side streets.
Once all the traffic is where is should be, it's much easier to address the pinch points caused by right turns, u-turns, inappropriate parking, loading/deliveries at peak times, insufficient bus lane hours, traffic signal timings, badly located bus stops and junctions, etc. (These issues are all mentioned in the Package of options proposed for Green Lanes).
Once you've done all that, there may still be a role for rationing, but on its own rationing is a very blunt and inequitable instrument.
-
-
-
The spike in flow on Green Lanes during the summer bridge works was fractional compared to the figures of traffic reduction on Wightman at that time. These threads are unwieldy to navigate I appreciate that, but I did talk about it.
And in any case--too damn bad: If someone buys or rents on an A road in particular, there has been a noticable downward price accounting for the A road proximity. People on the residential roads pay--what--40% more than A road renters and purchasers?
It's axiomatic that when road use comports with its clear designated use, why should any one be all that emphathetic e.g, with someone on Green Lanes? It's not like they couldn't have known going in.
-
-
-
From the last census, the majority of residents don't have a vehicle (although I suspect that this won't be taken into account, most planning still seems very traffic flow based).
I agree that bollards in the middle of the ladder wouldn't work unless parking was removed which wouldn't happen. I also wonder how rising bollards would work for non-residents (e.g. deliveries, taxis, etc). Would they have to reverse out?
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
Its true, they don't seem at all interested in rising bollards for the Ladder, they get dismissed with comments like "bollard envy". Once it was suggested it might not be possible to have them on Wightman as they need clearance of at least 1 metre undrground and there are lots of services burried in the ground along Wightman, though they admitted that was a complete guess and they've not checked if that really is the case. From this FOI request the Gardens Bollards were actually quite cheap to install and maintain, so they seem quite a good solution to me, especially compared to these packages being suggested here.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
On the Gardens scheme, what is missing from the costing is the cost of managing the scheme, which is going to be mainly around the supply and replacement of the fobs people use for access and egress. At the moment these are provided free on issue, so Haringey bears the cost
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking/parking...
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
