Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Last chance to Support Living Wightman, go the extra yard & make your mark.
We can't be complacent, many leaflets have been dropped advocating no change, which will be the poorest outcome for residents across the Ladder,
this is the first time our lungs have been considered, don't let Haringey council muddy the water, we need to go for it now.
I'm sure there are other posts on interventions, but this is my reminder.
Living Wightman's link here:
http://www.livingwightman.org/p/faq.html?m=1#faq11
or follow the 10 step guide through below:
Q11: How do I complete the survey to support the filtering of Wightman Road?
https://www.research.net/r/GLATS
Haringey council's engagement survey asks for your opinion on ten different 'Packages' of options, each Package has between 5 and 14 options.
For each option you can click a button to indicate how strongly you support or oppose that option:
In total there are over 70 options across the ten packages, (yes really,)
so allow yourself time if you want to read all the accompanying details & wish to answer every question.
It is possible to simplify the options, if you just want to support Living Wightman's aims.
If all you want to do is indicate support for "Package WL4: Wightman Road Closed (Filtered)",
follow these steps:
• Go to https://www.research.net/r/GLATS and click Next
• Click No to "Would you like to comment on this Package (AW - Area-wide Improvements)" - then click Next
• Also click No & click Next for the next two Packages PC and GL
• Click Yes to comment on Package WL
• For Package WL1, click "I don't know/not applicable" for each option
• Also for Package WL2 and WL3, you can click "I don't know/not applicable" for each option (you can click Oppose to options WL2-01a and WL3-01a if you are against one-way)
• for Package WL4, click "Strongly Support" for all options
• Question 13* is where you can indicate your preferred package as WL4
(note that the question number may be higher than 13 if you clicked Yes to comment on any previous packages.)
• Click No & click Next for the last two Packages HE and SA
• The final question asks for your house number and postcode, this is just to allow the consultants to classify responses according to where they live (and stop the same household responding more than once!)
If you did want to comment on any of the other package options you can click Yes to any Package and then support or oppose the options as you wish. Most of us are strongly opposed to one-way (package WL2 and WL2) and generally support the various area-wide traffic calming and streetscape improvements and cycle schemes.
For Living Wightman the single most important goal is to maximise support for Package WL4 as this is the only option to ensure long-term drastic reduction of traffic on the worst affected Wightman Road.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by matthew cuthbert on
-
Sophia I'm glad you've posted, I never had any time for bullies in the play ground, and I don't much care for it on any platform, I've had my share of rebuttals myself. I hope you will continue to post as often as you wish to. There's always two sides to a coin, and we need to remember that, even if we don't agree.
-
Permalink Reply by JoeW on
-
Sophia, Seymour traffic levels average less then 30 vehicles per hour for most of the day, or 1 car every two minutes. That's less than half the average for a Ladder rung, and less than 3% of Wightman Road itself. Wightman gets over 1000 cars per hour, with peaks around 1400 per hour, or 1 car every 3 seconds.
So I'm not surprised the councillor you spoke to wasn't concerned about the potential increase on Seymour.
I am surprised that you don't support filtering, since it would bring traffic levels on all rungs, and on Wightman itself, down to the same sort of level that Seymour enjoys. I think you're right though to identify that other options (including no change) will bring increases on Seymour.
I am also surprised that the canvasser you spoke to said that neighbouring councillors were resisting opening their roads in order to absorb the traffic, since the idea of reopening any currently closed roads was thankfully ruled out months ago. The point of filtering is, again, to level down, to allow Wightman and the rungs to enjoy similar traffic levels to those in neighbouring filtered cells. And to force all the through traffic onto the intended A-roads where it can be managed.
-
Permalink Reply by ant on
-
Hmm, so "reopening any currently closed roads was thankfully ruled out" is a Good Thing, but dumping some of Warham's traffic onto Seymour (and Mattison) is not a Bad Thing? That seems hard to justify when opening closed roads is ruled out - if moving traffic to Seymour is ok why not reopen the Gardens and Hermitage to help share the burden of some of the Ladder traffic? Don't we aspire to other Ladder rungs being as quiet as Seymour so should be trying to protect Seymour's quietness not move traffic to it?
-
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Tris, I think you'll find that Ant was being tongue-in-cheek and pointing out to the detractors of the filtering of Wightman Rd what it means by looking into the past not panicking about the future.
So what you are saying is that the closure of Wightman Rd would:
- Remove a nasty rat run.
- Decrease congestion on Green Lanes due to a reduced number of vehicles turning at these junctions
- Decrease traffic significantly on the Ladder roads with vehicles unable to cut across Green Lanes to and from the gardens.
-
-
-
Tris, the traffic at the top of the ladder was definitely made worse by the gardens closure. East West traffic through Harringay needs to get across the railway at either Turnpike Lane, Endymion Rd or Seven Sisters.
If you can guess something about the gardens closure then I can use the exact same guesses for the ladder and Wightman Rd.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
This isn't aimed at you Andrew but the suggestion made by several people that we should wait until there is a whole area solution. I personally have been waiting for 33 years here, on Warham Road, for things to improve but instead they have got worse every year. I'm normally quite a laid back person but frankly I think I've waited for long enough.
-
-
Changes will come to Green Lanes, but will only come once something is resolved for Wightman Road, when we say Wightman Road this really means Harringay Ladder, as we will all benefit from a cleaner community zone, a former Labour policy.
-
-
It was a triumph for people walking to Hornsey and Harringay rail stations, they didn't come home smelling like two stroke petrol. Residents didn't feel at odds with their own road, and their was more social interaction from neighbours.
-
Permalink Reply by 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
I don't know where this "overwhelming consensus" comes from. Certainly not from the people who live in the area in question. It really doesn't (or shouldn't) matter what someone in e.g., Enfield thinks. Keep in mind there is a public policy initiative to discourage private vehicle use. Making it difficult to use our residential streets as a cut through by thousands of vehicles per day, reasonably comports with this policy.
It's not just cyclists who benefited. Anecdotally, there are four non-cyclists in my own house and I can assure you they prefer last summer to status quo. Oh, and cyclists are also a favoured transportation class, as a matter of public policy. As filtered closure would encourage cycling, this would also favour the filtering of Wightman Road.
-
-
Depending where you look the overwhelming consensus was it was a good thing, was a bad thing, didn't make that much difference.
I spent the first part of the bridge works cycling and walking and it was pretty pleasant. I spent the second half on public transport as I had a bad back and it wasn't that dissimilar to when the bridge was re-instated.
Most of those who say it was a disaster seem to base it on anecdotes rather than data (there are various threads comparing vehicle numbers, bus times, air pollution, etc on here if you'd like a more objective view).
There is scope for mitigation measures (traffic light timings, one-way street directions, prohibited turns, bus lanes, etc) which may be introduced if the filtering is permanent.
-
-
What your saying is by introducing these mitigating issues you can reduce the increased traffic the Wightman rd closures will create in other parts of the area. Dose that mean we think the current levels are ok?
With regards to the people who said it was a disaster/very unpleasant/ nightmare ....., Were the people who were effected by the greenlanes grid lock. Apparently the pollution for standing vehicals was awful, along side disruptions to public transport etc.
-
-
I suggest it's a possibility, I'm not a town planner so couldn't guess at all the implications and some changes will improve one mode of transport over others (e. implementing a bus lane).
That goes back to my point about anecdotes versus data. A lot of the bus times, particularly during the week, weren't much different per the TFL GPS data. The pollution levels on Green Lanes were lower than the previous year. There's a variety of analysis on here if you look for it.
Personally I think the current levels of traffic are way too high and filtering Wightman will probably assist in reducing this (although it may take some time for the behavioural change to filter through). Given that the majority in Harringay don't own cars I feel there is too much pandering to car owners (it's not just a Harringay issue but the council is particularly bad compared to others in London) and not enough focus on other methods of transport.
This old chestnut
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
