As mentioned over here the first of the traffic study workshops was tonight.
There were a bunch of posters presenting various options and you could put a post-it note on them saying what you thought.
Photos of the posters are in a zip file here.
The workshop is repeated this Saturday so if you have any comments tell someone who's going along.
To make it easier and for those not invited along to the workshops here's all the proposed options in a survey. Add your choices and I'll forward along all the answers.
Certainly some interesting options in there. Are the options limited to those suggested there or are they still option to suggestions?
You'll just get some more traffic islands for that money. Look how much it costs to build a short connecting road (£5 million).
I think so too, £350k isn't much at all so its going to be the cheaper things that get done sooner. Fiddling with the Green Lanes pavements and car / bus lanes probably costs millions, and are places like TfL going to fund that when Green Lanes already had millions spent on it just a couple of years ago? If most people focus on massive changes to Wightman and Green Lanes is going to be the things like GA-05 that get done first.
You could suggest whatever you like on a post-it note. Whether or not it would get much attention at this stage is a different question.
Thanks for taking the photos Ant - SDG's visualisations of the different layout options for Wightman Road are very useful. Was angled parking included as an option at all?
To make it easier and for those not invited along to the workshops here's all the proposed options in a survey anyone can fill in. Add your choices and I'll forward along all the answers.
Thanks for setting this up. My additional suggestion was:
Would be interesting if in the option for a 24hr bus lane, if this could be changed depending on the time of day. For example in the mornings (given 3 lanes), in the mornings:
- Northbound Traffic
- Southbound Traffic
- Southbound bus lane
And then in the evening:
- Northbound bus lane
- Northbound Traffic
- Southbound Traffic
This in combination with a bi directional cycle lane on Wightman I believe would be a great combination, allowing a good flow of public transport and a less busy cycle area for people passing though (ideally this an additional exit/entrance added to Finsbury park to allow cycles to flow directly from Finsbury park station though the Harringay Ladder area)
Nice work! Filled out.
Probably most people wont look in the zip file at the top of this thread, so here are the photos of the proposed options for Wightman Rd (you'll need to zoom in on the image):
The best of those to me is number 5, and thats the only one that says Wightman Rd would be "closed to through traffic", but is it just pie in the sky stuff?
The £300k spent on the Gardens recently got just a few junctions paved, how much would a "redesign the road as shared level surface" the length of Wightman cost - several million? Also, they don't actually say how Wightman would be closed to through traffic, after the bridge closure experience would a majority agree to just blocking it off at each end? And look at all the trouble we're having getting seating and planters along the Harringay Passage, would "planters, seating, art etc" ever really happen along Wightman Rd?
What are your thoughts on these 5 Wightman options? Fill in the traffic survery - https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/KLYYVB5
Option 5 does look ideal, in terms of the objectives of reducing pollution and encouraging walking and cycling and generally restoring the "loss of amenity" caused by traffic. A shared space would only work with very low flows of motorised traffic so you would have to make Wightman access only.
Option 4 also looks good although I think could possibly be further improved by reducing the width of the 2-way cycle lane to 2m and therefore eliminating the need for pavement parking on the other side. According to this http://www.transport.gov.scot/report/j185500-05.htm 2m is needed for either 1-way cycle lanes with heavy flow (allowing cyclists to overtake each other), OR is the minimum width of a 2-way cycle lane with flows of up to 200 cycles per hour. The heaviest flow will be southbound in the morning and northbound in the evening so 2m might just work. This option seems to meet all the objectives of providing a safe and attractive environment for walking and cycling, while reducing unnecessary vehicle trips. It would also be fairly inexpensive - would just need road markings and armadillo dividers to segregate the cycle lane.
Options 1 and 2 make walking easier but not necessarily more attractive, and don't do anything to promote cycling; and Option 3 isn't much better as the cycle lane is in one direction only and you'd be at constant risk of being car-doored.