A VISUAL REMINDER OF THE LACK OF SPACE FOR ACTIVE TRAVELLERS AND VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN ALEXANDRA PARK.
Government new statutory guidance on active travel EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS (ETROS) state that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and modal filters can be installed urgently by councils, as neighbouring Hackney has done thoughout the borough.
And that they should stay in place for 18 months so that they have a chance to bed in and councils can collect meaningful data.
But Haringey has not designed an EMERGENCY TRANSPORT PLAN thoughout the borough. The result of this inaction has been discrimination against disabled active travellers in wheelchairs, scooters or on adapted bikes/trikes, and little or no space for the majority of the population who walks or cycles.and/or uses public transport. Pavements are cluttered with cars and refuse bags, limiting movement for the majority of the population. There has been no EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT to show that this limitation of footpath and street space for active travellers is legal. On the contrary, it violates equality and government guidance to have increased walking and cycling substantially by 2030.
The UN has warned that greenhouse gas emission are at a record high https://www.un.org/en/un75/climate-crisis-race-we-can-win
Haringey must radically reduce the use of cars, and replace them with active travel as a matter of urgency. In Alexandra Park, we have a train station, 2 bus routes and 2 tube stations within walking distance. Most cars are either passing through or parked for 95% of the time - but they take away a massive amount of space that could be filled with active travellers. Haringey council needs to follow the science and reduce car parking and traffic thoughout the borough with an EMERGENCY TRANSPORT PLAN.
Replies
Regarding the lack of space for active travellers and vulnerable people, does anyone know what can be done about the selfish and irresponsible practice of leaving wheelie bins out on the pavement all week?
This is particularly bad in Victoria road. If residents cannot manage to bump the bins down their steps, Haringey can supply bags as an alternative. At first it was just a few houses, now it is commonplace.
However the council does not seem at all concerned about this hazard, which especially impacts the differently abled and those with pushchairs and indeed contravenes equal opportunity policy.
Couldn't endorse this more. Behaviour change is difficult as we all know but, as COP26 and its supporters around world confirms, carbon-free transport is now a non-negotiable issue
"the area is already de facto a LTN"
What total nonsense.
"94% of residents reject councils proposal"
What total nonsense.
94% of residents in Stephen's imagination
Hi Stephen,
Where did you get: '94% of households reject the council's current plan'?
You didn't knock on my door.
Everyone has an opinion on this, but there is no point trying to amplify yours by doing your own research, which doesn't sound impartial, objective or fair.
The petition was always intended to be part of the response. Before the Cabinet accepted it as such, the Council's Democratic Services section scrutinised it and the analysis of the results. The Council's acceptance indicates that it passed that scrutiny.
It is generally accepted in the LTN C that the overriding, indeed the sole issue is the Winton Avenue-Blake Road rat-run. Hence the suggestion put forward in the petition - and restated in the deputation included in my original post - of timed cameras at peak times, to which residents of LTN C would also be subject.
The acceptance that residents would be subject to timed cameras would meet Haringey's criteria set out in the LTN FAQs updated in August: Allowing residents full access to the LTN can be done by ANPR but we would not support such a proposal as it would be counter to what we are trying to achieve. This would not be an LTN.
TfL, DoT, Sustrans and the Mayor of London all state that the primary purpose of a LTN is to reduce / prevent through traffic. This is exactly what the residents' suggestion aims to achieve.
When they suggested it to the Council in June, the response was that simple timed cameras would be insufficient to meet the criteria for DoT funding.
Thus it appears that the extra Council proposals, so roundly rejected by residents as unnecessary, related not to identified issues within the LTN C area, but rather were included in order to satisfy external funding criteria.
Stephen, thank you for starting this discussion about the Bounds Green LTN. There is one particular issue that I would like to raise. The petitioners state that 'the primary purpose of an LTN is to prevent or reduce through traffic', but this is only part of it:
A timed closure in Blake Road during the evening rush-hour would do little to reduce overall traffic, and thus road danger and air pollution in the neighbourhood – in particular for the sake of children (see below). There is also no mention in the petition of the rat-run in Gordon Road past the BG medical centre. Presumably during the hours when Blake Road was filtered (and maybe at other times too), traffic would just nip through Gordon Road instead of Blake, dramatically increasing the air pollution for patients attending the surgery as well as local residents?
To many people the idea of switching from cars for some trips to public transport, cycling or walking is a no-no. So, yes, maybe switching modes of travel is not for them. But for many other people (in particular, many children) such a change from car-dependency could be welcome, IF (a big IF) our roads were not so dangerous (and polluted). And many parents, too, would welcome not having to use their cars so much, if only for the sake of encouraging healthy travel by their children (parents are also younger and less likely to be disabled than many others in the population). So a shift from cars for some journeys would benefit some people, leaving more space on the roads for others, and for necessary car journeys – for older people and the infirm, emergency services (see Gear Change reference above for more on these), deliveries, journeys which are longer and/or for carrying equipment etc.
I think there are two very specific and important beneficiaries of reducing the number of car trips (and hence overall traffic) on our roads – children, and the climate. The latter I will leave to another post – but will say something below about the Bounds Green LTN consultation which, like the petitioners, I see as inadequate.
Children
suffer most from air pollution, because their lungs are still developing, and because they are often closer to the source of pollution (though air pollution levels can be higher in a car than outside). Roads are its main source in urban areas (British Lung Foundation).
Bounds Green may not seem very polluted, but the NO2 level outside St. Martin of Porres primary school is four times the current WHO safe limits (2021), and this does not include pollution from particulate matter, the dangers of which are increasingly emphasised by scientists (the Council are, I understand, monitoring both types of pollution, but I am not aware that they have made the results public?). Since PM pollution from cars is caused mostly by tyre, brake and road surface wear, EVs are as bad as fossil-fuelled vehicles on this measure, in particular because they are on average a quarter heavier. PM emissions are of course one of the issues raised by the proposed Waste Facility at Pinkham Wood, which you have yourself campaigned about so brilliantly and – seemingly – successfully.1
Children's health would benefit, of course, not just from reduced air pollution, but from the many positive aspects of active travel, reducing the incidence of obesity.
Lack of road safety is cited by parents as the main reason they do not allow their children to walk or cycle. It is presumably for this, very understandable, reason that households with children in London do more car trips than those without children – half as much again. These trips are not just for the school-run (though this accounts for ¼ of the morning rushhour), but also after-school trips. Households with children are also more likely to have access to a car than households without children, at all income levels (two-thirds compared with just over a half, respectively).2
So there is a vicious circle. Road danger causes more households with children to own more cars and use them more frequently than those without, which in turn increases the road danger for children, increasing air pollution with its long-term effects on children's health, and limiting the opportunities for children to have a more healthy and independent life-style of walking and cycling.
But IF roads were made safe for walking and cycling, many parents would no doubt be the first to take advantage of this for the health of their children.
50 years ago this year, in 1971, a study showed that 80% of 8 year-olds went to school on their own. This was not because people did not own cars – by this date, just over half of households nationally had access to a car or van, increasing to 79% in 2020 (many households today, of course, have access to multiple vehicles).3
The wider context
One LTN is not going to achieve much on its own in encouraging active travel – but the Council plan to have a network of LTNs in the borough, linked by cycle lanes. One or two low-traffic corridors could connect residents to the schools and other places that they need to get to, encouraging the use of, for example, the Dutch Bicycle Bus as an alternative to the school-run by car, and the use of cargo bikes.4 Green Lanes could be optimised for motor traffic, with the removal of the obstacles that currently deter motorists from using it, and 24-hour bus lanes, as well as cycle tracks.
The Bounds Green LTN consultation
At the meetings with the people from Sustrans, two possible schemes for an LTN were presented to attendees, without, I thought, attempting to address the latters' concerns about having an LTN at all. I felt that attendees needed much fuller information about how LTNs work in general (also at the meeting earlier in the year with Cllr Matt White), and how one might work in practice in Bounds Green. The Council is keen to consult with residents, but this of course requires engaging fully with them – listening, discussing and providing information (I wrote to the Council twice about this, after each of the sets of meetings).
Finally, I don't understand the layout of the proposed LTN – why so complicated?! Whatever their reasoning, maybe the best tactic at this juncture is just to try it out - I believe there is general consensus in the neighbourhood that SOMETHING needs to be done. These kinds of schemes are so easy to change if they do not work - it just needs the Council/Sustrans to improve their method of engagement while the trial is ongoing...
It has been pointed out to me that the petition asks for two timed filters, in the same locations as the emergency access filters proposed by the Council. So they would be in Blake and Gordon roads, which would deal with both rat-runs. Sorry for saying otherwise!
The point about children suffering from the sky-high pollution has just been highlighted by BBC news::
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-59095864
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next