If vehicle ownership is this low, then a great argument to get rid of parking altogether and create more space for pedestrians and cyclists.
I also dispute that the majority of the rest of the borough has breathable air and a reasonable level of peace. A significant number of schools in the borough have pollution levels above the safe limits. These schools are disproportionately in the East of the borough.
I guess the 33% should have the same rights to car ownership as every other borough resident. Or do you suggest that there’s an argument for treating Wightman Road residents differently?
Agreed, I was talking about Harringay rather than Wightman specifically.
Natasha, I have no choice but to accept that because 52% of my eligible compatriots who voted, chose to leave the EU, then we're almost certian to leave the EU. But, I thank God that no serious suggestion has yet been made that because 67% of my neighbours choose not to have a car i also must not have a car.
As to the majority of the borough having breathable air, I'm taking my data from that given in Haringey's new Draft Air Quality Action Plan (which you can read all about here.)
I agree that the east of the borough is disproportionately affected by bad air quality. I'm not making any special pleading for Harringay or Wightman here - just that they be treated the same as anyone else.
Andrew, I think the point holds whether we're talking about Harringay or Wightman. I'm happy to stand by my comment whether it's read as Wightman or Harringay.
I have an issue with Wightman Rd being the only remaining cut through and thus getting far more traffic than any other road in the surrounding area, the majority of which is not local residents doing day-to-day things.
I have the lowest emission car I can afford (well within the ULEZ requirements) and will swap to electric as soon as it comes into my price range. I walk whenever possible, use public transport but yes, also need to have a car for work, and much as I've tried, I can't get the economics to square with swapping to a car share service instead. So it's not a blind or lazy choice, it's the best I can manage, with an eye on reducing the impact as soon as it is feasible.
I'd like to park my car within a reasonable distance of my house. If I can't do that any more, I'd like the trade-off to be an improvement for cyclists and pedestrians, and cleaner air for everyone. None of that is happening, which is the main theme of this thread.
So, what about all that is hypocritical? By all means carry on with the sneering but do you actually have a point?
Quite right. Ignore the nonsense.
What those defending car ownership don't seem to realise is that your own vehicle makes a disproportionately large contribution to air pollution in your street. In terms of NOx emissions from a petrol vehicle when setting off it's equivalent to about 5 of those non-local cars whose engines and catalytic converters have had the chance to reach normal operating temperature.
Add in the extra dwell time when maneuvering, parking and idling, and - like it or not - you are undeniably a significant part of the problem.
And if you own a diesel vehicle, it's time to get rid of it if you care about air quality. In the time it takes you to get it started and away, it will have emitted at least 300 times the NOx pollution into the airspace in front of your house than the non-local petrol vehicle passing by at 10 mph.
Regarding journey end points, the council's traffic study suggested that about half of the traffic is local, having start or end points within the study area (broadly Harringay and a bit to the east) and a significant proportion of the remainder is local to the wider borough.
Do you have a reference for that 50% figure. It may or may not be an accurate figure for across the whole study area. I imagine areas like the Gardens and Hermitage/Vale west of the barriers are more like 90% local, but it’s certainly not accurate for Wightman, the Ladder, St Ann’s Road and Blackboy Lane.
Hi Hugh, that’s from the SDG traffic study and relates to the ANPR origin / destination survey. I don’t have it in front of me right now and the analysis is quite complex so I’d suggest you take a look and draw your own conclusions. You’re correct insofar as a no through road won’t get a lot of through traffic, of course.
I think even if your own cold vehicle produces a disproportionate amount of air pollution compared to warmed-up through-traffic, the biggest contributor will still be through-traffic on WR?
During the bridgeworks when WR was effectively "residents access only", the volume of traffic reduced by a factor of 10 or more e.g. a typical WR resident who normally sees 1000+ vehicles per hour passing their front door, saw less than 100ph. Assuming those 100 cold locals produce 5X the pollution as the 1000 warm rat-runners, about 2/3 of the pollution is still coming from non-local traffic.
There are several other issues which are not disproportionate too e.g. particulate emissions, noise, road safety, impact on cycling (I think most cyclists would be happy to cycle on a road with <100 vehicles per hour, but many would be discouraged when there are >1000)
So by your calculations, 10% of the traffic is generating 1/3 of the pollution? Admittedly the actual picture is probably more complex than that, but it does serve to illustrate my point that “local traffic” is not entirely innocuous and perhaps people should be giving more thought to reducing their own emissions.
Ok, that gave figures that applied to the whole study area. It's not possible to isolate Wightman or Ladder rung road data from it.
The data Joe has given above provides a better idea of the tiny proportion of traffic using the Ladder that is generated within it. This accords with the reports of the Haringey staff stationed at the Wightman Road closures that more than 80% of traffic originated from out of borough.
Consider also that the level of car ownership is only just over 30% on the Ladder and that that the area contains only about 5,000 dwellings.
That's right Tris, local traffic is very far from innocuous.
One way to encourage local residents to walk and cycle more frequently would of course be to reduce overall traffic on WR to <100 vehicles per hour.