Comment by Matthew Kitching on September 1, 2013 at 19:03

Alan, the three solutions proposed do not make use of road tables, pinch points etc. rather they involve one way systems or a right turn ban from Warwick onto the North Circular. All the options proposed acknowledge that traffic on York Road will be increased in every case and also on Lancaster, Natal, Bosworth and Wakefield, depending on the option. Clearly a solution that simply moves a problem in relation to Warwick Road a
onto other adjacent roads and residents rather than tackling the underlying causes is unacceptable and no solution at all. I will be opposing all three options as they are currently proposed.

Comment by Alan Sitkin on September 2, 2013 at 1:42

Hi Mathew,

Re: tackling the underlying causes, I couldn't agree more! (read above). But given that TFL and Haringey Council won't budge, does that mean we should do nothing? Don't think so - we have to optimise as far as possible within the constraints we face.

I also agree the road tables, pinch points etc. are tools that can be used - with or without changes in the road scheme. So actually, the right way to read the document we are circulating we have the following combination of possible outcomes:

- status quo

- status quo with additional features 

- one of the three road scheme options (to be decided) but with no additional features

- one of the three road scheme options (to be decided) plus additional features

Please understand that none of these solutions is perfect. For instance, you've pointed out that some could have the effect of taking some traffic from Warwick to York. I saw that too. Otherwise, you will find that some of your neighbours have a major aversion to speed tables and/or humps because cars make noise travelling over them. Otherwise you will find that other neighbours do not like pinch points because they reduce the number of parking spaces. It's complicated!

Explaining why we Bowes Labour councillors are working so hard to try and come up with possible remedies - again, within the unwanted constraints weighing on us.

Look forward to seeing you on the night. Please tell everyone that starting time is actually 7.45 (it's stated on the document we are circulating). 

-

Comment by Alan Sitkin on September 2, 2013 at 1:44

REMINDER - THE 16 SEPT WARWICK RD AREA TRAFFIC MEETING IS ACTUALLY STARTING AT 7.45PM

Comment by Alan Sitkin on September 3, 2013 at 0:42

1. So far we've distributed the report and invitation to Highworth, Union, Warwick, Lancaster, Wakefield, Bosworth, Natal and York. Will go to Shrewsbury, Maidstone, Ollerton and Evesham over the next few days. Everyone is welcome on the night.

2. It is crucial for people to know that we (the Bowes Labour councillors, the Council officers) have no agenda and are not trying to force any solution on anyone. The people may vote massively to adopt one of the options on the shortlist (they are all imperfect but we've already discarded many that were even more imperfect). Or the people may not vote for any of the options. We will support whatever the meeting wants (within reason - I strongly doubt, for instance, that the new Stanley Rd school playground closure will be dismantled)

As someone who has been working for years to get his head around the area's traffic problems, I can promise you that it's complicated. No solution will be perfect and I have no real preference one way or the other. The only goal Achilleas, Yasemin and I have is to serve. A great many residents on Warwick have been asking us to explore possible alternatives and we have done that. But we don't decide what comes next. Residents do. We are simply here to serve.

Comment by Matthew Kitching on September 3, 2013 at 22:11

Confronted with three options that make no sense and make the road I live on more dangerous and unpleasant for my two young children I find that I'm bound to opt for the status quo.  We need to be clear that the document circulated on behalf of our Ward Councillors makes no reference to that or to the 'additional features' you refer to.  York Road already has (more or less ineffective) speed bumps so the noise of cars travelling over them is already present.  Incidentally the traffic calming measures we were promised last time round via a 'consultation' document were not implemented to the circulated design (or timescale) - they were meant to incorporate speed tables as I recall - we never got them.  Doesn't give much confidence that your references to 'additional features' not shown on the drawings would ever materialise.  The problem (as acknowledged in the 'Warwick Road Area Traffic Issues & Community Meeting' circular) is that 50% of the traffic on our local residential streets is rat running.  On Warwick Road the northbound traffic is 'by far the busiest', with 870 vehicles travelling in the direction of the North Circular between 7am and 7pm each day.  The three options proposed all block this traffic from joining the North Circular.  This traffic will, in almost all cases, use York Road instead.  Hey presto, the problem merely shifts from one local road to another.  The fact that York Road is arrow straight and has no traffic signals at one end (unlike Warwick) will increase our current problem - that rat running traffic drives dangerously fast down York Road. We seem to be suffering from three odd decisions that need investigation (1) the ban on vehicles turning left from Bounds Green Road onto Brownlow Road (2) the inclusion of a signalled junction at the junction of Warwick Road and the North Circular (3) the prevention of vehicles except buses turning right from the North Circular onto Brownlow Road.  I'm sure some TfL wonk somewhere has justification for all of these decisions, however they have the same effect - to force through traffic onto our residential streets rather than keeping it where it belongs, on through roads.  I look forward to meting you on the night and I will certainly be informing my neighbours of the new start time.

Comment by Alan Sitkin on September 3, 2013 at 23:54

That's totally fine, Matthew, seriously and to repeat, we are here to simply listen and - within the very real constraints that we all face - obey. 

By the way, I don't understand the thing with speed features. Having had speed humps on York for several years now, you know what they are (or one variant) and that the Council does in fact sometimes make them "materialise".  Of course, there are other possibilities, like tables, pinch points, electric signs, etc. None is perfect but we're willing to try different things.

Lastly, if you've been checking our blogspot http://boweslabour.blogspot.co.uk/, you'll know that we have in fact already set aside a sizeable chunk of last year's Residents Priority Fund - meant for the whole of Bowes ward - to help the Warwick neighbourhood's traffic problems. Please bear that in mind. Proof if need be of how very focused we are on trying to make things better. 

Comment by Alan Sitkin on September 4, 2013 at 16:44

That's fine Joshua, the meeting will give you and your neighbours on York a chance to confer with your neighbours from Warwick and other streets. All we are doing is facilitating that. I have no axe to grind except to be a good councillor!

I still don't understand what you guys are saying about speed humps but maybe I'm being obtuse. Yes, the stats say that they've led to a 2mph fall in average speed. You say "only" a 2 mph fa;; but I'm not sure how much more of a reduction in speed was expected. The stats also say that, thank God, there have been "no collisions resulting in injury...recorded across the entire 20 mph zone" since it was introduced, whereas "in the 21 months before the 20 mph zone was introduced, 4 collisions resulting in injury were recorded". Now, statisticians might question the causality and say that this improvement in safety might be due to other factors. But it is just as likely that it is due to the 20 mph zone. So I really don't understand the issue at that level - esp. since the 20 mph zone was implemented in 2010-2011 after local people strongly voted for it!

But anyway, we're getting off topic. I also noted in the three options in our document that each expected a partial shift in traffic from Warwick to York. Which is one of the many reasons we opened up this consultation to everyone in the neighbourhood, and not just one street. Again, because that is what we think is the right thing for councillors to do!

Looking forward to seeing you on the evening. We'll start with an introduction by us, officers and TFL; break up into small groups so neighbours can discuss with each other; and then reconvene the full meeting so that each mini group can report back. I think it works?

Otherwise long time no so, hope all is well. See you on the 16th Alan

Comment by Matthew Kitching on September 13, 2013 at 21:11

Tom, have you looked at what has been proposed?  If objecting to a 'solution' that merely shifts one local problem onto other local people, without tackling root cause is NIMBYism, then I'm all for it.  Call me a NIMBY if you like. I'd be happy to answer this charge face to face at the meeting on Monday.

Comment by Kevin on September 14, 2013 at 17:02

It would be interesting to understand if the (re)introduction of a right hand turn at the junction of Bounds Green road and the A406, might encourage drivers not to turn into Warwick road to access the westbound North Circular.  At present the only way residents or rat runners from Gorden Road down right down to Cline Road can get west bound on the A406 is via Warwick road. 

Improving the west bound right hand slip lane off the A406 onto Bounds Green road might also help reduce the level of south bound Warwick road traffic that has built up now that Brownlow road is inaccessible to west bound A406 traffic.  The design of the existing slip lane is so bad that it frequently reduces the A406 to one lane as the traffic backs up, cars continue on the NCR using Warwick to to access the local area. These change might at least offer some reduction in traffic volumes.

Comment by Matthew Kitching on September 15, 2013 at 9:10

The issue is that the proposals that have been published (in my view – I’m no traffic engineer) will move all or the vast majority) of the rat running traffic currently using Warwick Road directly to York Road and the figures published alongside the proposals demonstrate this.  I want to understand more and will be attending the meeting tomorrow in the hope of understanding this better, as I say I believe face to face discussion within the community as Alan has organised is essential here.  However if my concerns are correct then I'm afraid the proposals do not represent a problem solved or shared among neighbouring roads, rather a problem entirely dumped from one to another road.  This is what I object to, not to the right of residents to try to find a solution to a perceived problem and I’m happy to discuss options that are reasonable.  A couple of things though, as York is slightly wider and straighter and has no traffic signals (unlike Warwick) some rat-running traffic drives at dangerous speed and there are no mitigating measures in the proposals for this.  Also I have to say it is not ‘lightly parked’ – it is heavily parked on both sides by virtue of the fact it is on the edge of the Bounds Green CPZ and is used daily as a car park by commuters using our local stations.  Your point that there are no ‘through roads’ is lost on me - the relative increase in traffic posed by changes in traffic flows on local A and B roads would be negligible compared to the relative impact on local residential streets and this needs to be taken into account.  I concede that there are problems on Brownlow (B) Road at rush hour but it is relatively free flowing outside of these times.  Bounds Green Road and the North Circular are A-roads so my point is that through traffic flows should use A and B roads rather than local roads (the A406 scheme had this as one of its stated objectives).  One of the issues is that people believe the current set up actually encourages traffic to use local roads (witness the sign on Bounds Green Road that directs traffic down Warwick.  I would also point out that local people (including residents on Warwick Road) bought into the A406 scheme and endured the ensuing disruption on the basis of promises that the problem of rat running would be comprehensively tackled, only to find decisions were implemented that meant the problem has persisted.

However unless you look at the proposals and accept my points that (i) the proposals will shift the vast majority if not all of the problem directly from one local road onto another adjacent road and (ii) that this is not a reasonable proposition to ask the local community to accept , we aren’t going to find common ground so I’ll move onto what I hope is a more positive and constructive suggestion in my next post.

Add a Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page