Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Please comment on GL area traffic study
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/transport/green-lanes-area-transport-study
Takes a bit of time as there's a lot of detail - I've just spent a good hour with the document. It contains many good ideas, many things you might want to comment on, and some glaring omissions (no mention of improving pedestrian safety at the roundabout junction Alroy rd/Endymion road, for example).
I doubt they'll be able to carry out much of it - the document is peppered with caveats that these are just ideas, they all cost a lot of money and do not represent Haringey Council policy... but still, someone has gone to immense trouble to listen to locals and think things through and the least we can do is let them know what we think and would prefer to prioritise.
There's a chance tomorrow evening to go and see the plans and the planners at St Paul's Cavendish Church Hall, Cavendish Road, from 6.30 - 8.30 which I may well do despite already having submitted my comments.
You have until 14th May to comment.
Tags for Forum Posts: harringay traffic study, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
Whats my favoured solution? Well you've convinced me of the problems of one-way in your post about that so one-way doesn't seem good at all. There would still be lots of traffic on Willoughby - even just one-way traffic is still more than any other rung road gets, and as one-way it would be able to go much faster making a busy traffic barrier between the Ladder and the park in what is one of the more heavily pedestrian used parts of the Ladder with lots of people going to and from the buses, tube, train, park, several nurseries and NHP. I'd much prefer the Frobisher Gate or resident access rising bollards, or perhaps just leave it alone if they really can't think of anything better.
While I'm here ...The most significant other change for the Ladder is the Warham change, I can't understand that either. Thats about 2500 cars/day that would then need to go somewhere else - its just the Hewitt Rd one-way mess all over again. They've not bothered to count how many Warham cars currently turn north or south out of Warham so all we can do is guess probably more go south than north because some north bound traffic can go via Harringay Rd, so something like 2000 extra cars a day will now go via Matterson Rd, and thats on top of the thousand they already get so turning it into the busiest rung road - bussier even than Warham is presently. And all those extra cars also now need to go a couple blocks down Green Lanes and then turn right across the traffic flow causing lots of new congestion. With no other mitigations being proposed how is the Warham change a sensible idea?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Your figures for Mattison are wrong. Adding 2000 cars would bring it to under 10,000. Check Andrew's map that I linked to in my previous reply to you.
-
-
I was using daily count figures whereas that map has weekly? Could be wrong though, where do you predict the traffic will go and what sort of size change it will make? The consultants suggest a vague "at least more than a 40% increase" on Mattison.
-
Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
"Willoughby - even just one-way traffic is still more than any other rung road gets"
I don't think it's correct to deem Willoughby as a "rung road". It is the means of access to 5 roads which is 1/4th of the Harringay Ladder. It stands to reason that as such it would get the most traffic.
Warham Road thus gets the most traffic flow of any Ladder road. I support filtering but if that doesn't carry then I hope the plan to reverse direction of Warham Road comes to pass.
The current flow on Warham could be distributed between Seymour and Mattison which would be quite equitable if the council were willing to remove the right turn ban out of Salisbury Road.
Per the stats from SDG Mattison road gets 1000 vehicles per day. Adding 40% would raise that to 1400. Warham gets 2500; so that seems a fair distribution to me. I guess you live on Mattison Road, though.
-
-
Hi Knavel, I'm not convinced by what you say about the Warham change. You say Warham currently has 2500 vehicles and if direction change happens just 400 of those will go to Mattison. What happens to the other 2100 vehicles?
Hugh, you posted a detailed calculation of you views on the impact of the Willoughby change to come up with a decision to oppose the change. Do the same for this Warham change?
-
-
I'm disappointed that you guys who have done so many posts on traffic count analysis aren't choosing to do so for this Warham change. So here it is:
From the counts Warham currently has 17963. If the Warham change happened then all those vehicles need to go somewhere else.We don't know how many of them exit Warham north bound or south bound so we have to guess. There is the north route via St Anns / Harringay Rd so Warham almost certainly has more south bound traffic than north bound. So lets say Warham is between 50% and 80% south bound traffic which is 8982 to 14370 vehicles. It could be argued that some of the traffic will "evaporate". I don't think thats really likely with a change like this, but being generous I think Joe suggested there was an 8% overall evaporation during the bridge closure so lets use that as the upper bound so that 8982 count could possibly reduce to 8263. All that south bound traffic will move to Matterson as its extremely unlikely to go to any of the other rungs further south - if it wanted to do that it could use those roads already but doesn't and that bit of Green Lanes is the most congested bit so it will be trying to get to Wightman as quickly as possible. Mattison already has 7393 and that will remain so the total count for Mattison will become somewhere between 15656 to 22123.
15656 would make Mattison by far the busiest rung, but 22123 is way way more than any other rung gets today.Even forgetting about the congestion on Green Lanes caused by all that traffic trying to turn right into Mattison it seems a grossly unfair change to do to Mattison. As neighbours we should rally around to make sure it doesn't happen.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
And I'm disappointed that nobody is addressing the real problem - that there are too many vehicles trying to use the limited limited road space. You can tinker all you like but even if you achieve a reduction in some roads, in ten years, probably fewer, with the increase in vehicular traffic you will be back to square one.
We have to educate people to use public transport and walk. One bus carries about 100 passengers: the tube many more. People don't like buses because currently they are slow.Take 100 cars off the road and that bus will fly along.
All the energy so far expended in this thread with the "what ifs" and the " but thens" could power one bus from Wood Green to Oxford Street
-
-
The problem with expending no energy on this John is that just leaving it alone doesn't appear to be one of the options. So its:
- WL1: Minor improvements
- WL2: Wightman Road one-way (northbound)
- WL3: Wightman Road one-way (southbound)
- WL4: Wightman Road closed (filtered)
is going to happen. For me at the moment this Matterson Rd thing rules out WL1. WL4 seems like it will get far too many against from the wider area so would be a wasted choice. WL3 has all the drawbacks of one-way without many benefits. So it seems like WL2 one-way north bound is the best of the choices.
One-way north bound makes a big reduction of traffic on Wightman and gets parking off the footpath. It fixes Warham, it fixes Beresford, and it fixes Fairfax. So it doesn't seem so bad. The main draw back of one-way is speeds might increase on Wightman. Maybe averaging speed cameras would be an option to fix that?
-
-
-
I remain firmly against either one-way option for the reasons I've highlighted in Note 3 of my draft response to the consultation.
I've no idea how you arrive at the assumptions that underpin your support for a one-way northbound, but apparently not southbound. Joe has done a lot of work on why in fact southbound would work better - but as I said I favour neither one-way option.
-
-
-
Those are not " options" Ant - they're just a summary of what the residents said they want. The Council will do, as it always does, what it wants - which could be nothing.
-
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
Hi Ant - I think you have some disinformation here "WL4 seems like it will get far too many against from the wider area so would be a wasted choice"
It's a survey not a vote, choosing to support one does not prevent you supporting another. You can say you (strongly or otherwise) support or oppose each package (actually each option within each package) independently.
Also choosing not to support one the grounds that other areas might oppose it - that kind of pessimism just becomes self-fulfilling!
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
