Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Attached is the consultants' summary of the feedback given in the recent engagement process on traffic in Harringay.

I've split the report into two parts to allow me to attach it here.

There's a steering group meeting next week and I'll add a further update following that.

Tags for Forum Posts: harringay traffic study

Views: 1538


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Rumour has it that St John Baptist Church was an original sponsor of the alternative route from Palmer's Green to Wightman Rd, back when they used to have all three councillors stitched up.

The only real support for filtering came from respondents on the Ladder.

Not true. Residents in Hermitage supported filtering for Hermitage Rd and residents in the Gardens supported filtering for the Gardens.

You're right of course, John. I was referring to Wightman filtering and should have specified that.

It's not true of Wightman filtering either Nick, 52% of survey respondents from outside the area were in favour of that.

"The Study Area" isn't only the ladder. Of those whose area is known (i.e. the Gardens, Hermitage, St Anns) there is very little support. 

Personally I would feel very uncomfortable supporting a change which has such significant opposition from my neighbours.

It's a specious point Nick, with all due respect.

It's always comes down to competing inconvenieces.  People who roll in from the M25 and North Circular want the fastest way possible to where they are going could give a rat's bottom about what that means to those whom their actions are a detriment when they drive up a Ladder road in an HGV.

Look no further than the "minimum impact" approach to demonstrate this--only ONE street of 20 in the Ladder would be somewhat better off with option 1 (Warham Road because of the traffic direction change).

Yet in earlier discussions we have seen people like Ant and that other lady who is scared to post here who lives on Seymour lament that they would get more traffic from the slight benefit to Warham Road. So in that example it's 1 street versus 19 others. By your logic, the fact that in this instance only people on Warham want the road's direction changed and no one else does would be dispositive--but actually it's near meaningless as the people on the other 19 streets are NIMBY-ing.

Accordingly, the fact that only or largely residents of the Ladder support filtering is meaningless--as it was obvious that is how it would come out from the get go. Some plumber in Enfield who rat runs everyday is pissed off that the Gardens are closed and the filter option only upsets him more. He could care less about the effect of his diesel vomiting 2004 van on my children.

We've been told on many occasions that the filtering will benefit the entire area, but of those who will be affected, the only support comes from the ladder itself.

Should it be only ladder residents who get a say in the future of Wightman Road?

The survey was open to both local and non-local residents, and the majority view is in favour of filtering Wightman.

I know what the study area is Nick. And the area where survey respondents live is known for most of those outside the study area - there were only 24 unknown.

The turnout was really low in St Anns, Hermitage, and the Gardens - a few dozen people in each. That's hardly "such significant opposition".

You can't just add together petition signatories with survey responses, they are totally different processes.

For example, over 4m people signed the EU remain petition, you can't just add those to the referendum result and say that Remain won.

I'm not denying there is some opposition, but it's a minority view.

The majority view of those who took the trouble to complete the online survey (which unlike a petition actually required some time and effort in terms of reading through the Council's documentation and understanding the detailed questions being asked) is in favour of filtering Wightman Road.



© 2020   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service