Consistently agree with all of this but I get the impression that we're seeing a rubbish halfway house of what's intended. The painted over/burned off road markings are still visible - and in some cases not removed at all - and that's causing confusion because people are following the road markings only to find themselves facing one of the build outs.
Is the intention to fully resurface Wightman? I didn't see any reference to this but the way the pavements that are intended to be level have been left suggest another layer of tarmac is to go down. Re-mark it and you might solve some of the issues.
Also think I'm with Hugh on playing the waiting game - I think it will end up *better* than what is there now... But that doesn't mean it'll be "good".
does anyone know what 'good' looks like and how it's measured?
There's probably a more formal set of measures but...
In 6.8.3 and 6.8.4, reference to post-implementation studies of both traffic speed and traffic volumes are to take place.
So that's how they'll measure it, I suppose. God knows what they're aiming for.
In the same report average speeds are reported as between 17.5 and 21mph - they acknowledge these are broadly within the speed limit so presume they actually won't be measuring a reduction in average speed (EDIT: or if they do, they won't necessarily see such a reduction as a positive? Not sure...)
Thanks! Golly - I see so much wrong here in methodologies.
For their outcomes speed and volume, they make no evaluation assessment for other significant influences on both (e.g. weather, time of day, etc). Still, you are right Dave - there doesn't appear to be an issue! Maybe they were surveying at 8.30-9.00 am :).
Anyway, it is worrying when such an impactful project has no clear objectives.
As for the comments on air quality...wow! This will be more attractive to cyclists? I would love to hear about the times the staff involved in this cycled along wightman road before, during, and after.
This is a hit and hope.
Completely agree with you Neil. I'd been hoping for a better environment for pedestrians and cyclists, but the new layout doesn't seem to be doing much for anyone (and that's after months of horrible air quality as cars stack up behind the temporary lights).
We had friends visiting from out of town on the weekend and their initial feedback was that the street layout was confusing and dangerous.
The problem with those "islands" that narrow the street is that 1) they come out of nowhere with no warning 2) they are on both sides so drivers don't anticipate the oncoming traffic to move towards them 3) are very hard to navigate as one wants to avoid going into oncoming traffic but at the same time trying to not damage the car on the curbs and black bollards. Also turning out of the Ladder Roads has become very dangerous as one has to go into the other lane which again is not expected by drivers on that side of the road
I don't think road markings will make much of a difference. They chose a design which doesn't work for a road like Wightman road but is more suitable for a little residential road. It is not reducing traffic because it is still faster to drive on Whightman Road than it is on Green Lanes. It has disrupted traffic flow and is leading to more start and stop traffic making air pollution worse (subjective impression). Speed has certainly been reduced but I feel like 2 speed cameras could have achieved the same. Finally it is way more dangerous for cyclists now given cars swerving around.
Agreed re cyclists, used it a couple of times in the past 3 weeks and you have to maintain the primary position to avoid running out of road and crashing into the new "islands". In the past I could stay near the kerb and turn off at Fairfax, not anymore. Stay safe fellow cyclists, ignore the car horns and stay in the middle of the road
After finishing the chicanes, HC will probably put one of those cables across the road - maybe at various points - to measure the flow of traffic volume. They may also measure the speed of the traffic to see if it has reduced.
It would be very easy to make this look 'good'.
For instance, measuring traffic volume must be done in a way which ensures that we are examining the 'new' information (road changes) as rigorously as possible. The assumption that drivers will seek new ways, depends on lots of other trade-offs. Such as Sat Nav and the average time taken to turnpike lane to fins park.
Same with the speed of traffic (no idea how HC would measure that), which arguably will be inversely related to volume (in that people will drive faster when the roads are clear, which IMO was the speed problem). As was mentioned before, speed was not considered an issue in the report.
If HC wanted to reduce speed, they could have just put up a speed camera box, with no camera.
+ I can't wait to see the cyclists queuing to lock their bikes at the 5 bike stands at the end of fairfax road to go to, errr well the park?. What a fantastic use of public money and a tick in the 'greener travel' box :)
Still the trees are nice (there's a step in the right direction).
I'm still really unclear of what on earth is going on, what the money spent on this is meant to achieve, and how this will be evaluated. There is no accountability here.
In the submission to the original consultation on the Wightman changes the LCSP made it’d clear they expected an evaluation of the scheme. The Haringey response document was silent on that point.