Local transport strategy

We have responded to Haringey's consultation on its stransport strategy for the next 3 years, chiefly on how it will spend TfL grants to further the aims of the Mayor (Boris's) transport policies. We welcomed the inclusion of the target to cut CO2 by 40% by 2020

We said:

1. Generally, we welcome and support the proposals in the LIP. However we do not think they go far enough, and we would like proposals strengthened within this LIP with other policies developed longer term (se last section below).

2. Transport challenges and indicators. We very much welcome the inclusion of the target to cut CO2 emissions by 40% by 2020. We think that more could be done to spell out how this might be achieved, i.e what contribution might be made by switching to low carbon vehicles, what by reducing the need to travel, and what by encouraging modal shift from cars and vans to walking, cycling and public transport.

3. We also endorse the comments made by the Haringey Cycling Campaign and Living Streets.

4. Comments on individual sections

2.2.7. This (and 2.3.3.5) refers to the Greenways as if they are completed projects, which is misleading.

2.3.2.3 Box - Haringey challenge (and 3.3.46). This calls for enhanced capacity on the West Anglia main line. Is this a reference to the 4-track proposal, or are there other capacity enhancements that could be achieved without that? We do have concerns about 4-tracking south of Tottenham Hale - its possible impact on the Walthamstow Reservoirs and Walthamstow Marshes SSSIs. And we wonder if this is driven largely by the envisaged expansion of air traffic at Stansted. The second runway has now been ruled out for the foreseeable future, and we are opposed to continued expansion of air traffic.

2.3.2.5 refers to the threat of increased traffic from Barnet. Haringey - and the Mayor/GLA - should be pressing Barnet to adopt its own traffic reduction targets and measures, and adopting stronger London-wide targets

It also refers to the desire for car ownership in the east of the borough. This indicates that we need stronger measures to encourage car clubs, walking and cycling in this area especially, including the positive promotion of car-free lifestyles

2.3.3.2 on air quality suggests that reducing car traffic will be a major help. We certainly want to see car traffic reduced, but has there been analysis of what proportion of PM10s and NOx is emitted by cars, vans, lorries and buses so we can assess what impact reduction of car traffic is likely to have?

Reducing congestion would also benefit air quality and help encourage cycling and walking, although we recognise that congestion also acts as a disincentive to driving and therefore has its plus points.

2.3.3.5 We strongly support car ownership restraint measures such as CPZs and planning restrictions on conversion of front gardens to hard standing. Car-free housing in new developments, hand-in-hand with CPZs, are also important to stop new housing creating a worse problem. We would support measures to encourage householders and landlords to re-convert hard standing to porous and green surfaces.

2.3.6 says transport is responsible for 16% of CO2 emissions equating to 0.7 kilotonnes per resident per year. This should be 0.7 tonnes?

The Haringey challenge box says a major reduction in CO2 from transport may not have s significant impact on overall emissions. Well, transport needs to play at least its proportional part, and so we welcome the 40% target. In some ways it is quicker and cheaper to achieve reductions from transport - it's easier to reduce a few car journeys than to insulate a solid-wall house, for example.

2.3.7.4 - 2.3.7.7 set out some ways in which car traffic can be reduced and we support all these. But these paragraphs do not include the use of CPZs to reduce traffic by making commuting and some local journeys less convenient. This played a major part in reducing traffic in Camden, the best example so far of traffic reduction.

3.2 - we strongly support expenditure on Smarter Choices as a cost-effective way to reduce traffic.

P38 - what is an ETP?

3.3.2 - Green Lanes corridor. This is an area that many cyclists find frightening. A segregated bike lane would be helpful, if possible. Failing that, a north-bound advisory cycle lane with parking enforcement especially during the evening rush hours would be beneficial.

3.3.3 We support measures to reduce traffic on Wood Green High Road, including rationalising buses. Currently much of the delay is caused by buses, many of them quite empty, a bit like Oxford Street.

3.3.5 Seven Sisters Road is fairly wide but also frightening for cyclists. The pavements are mainly quite wide and in places little used by pedestrians. Could a segregated cycle lane be created along it from Seven Sisters to Finsbury Park, or at least along the sections adjacent to the Park and Woodbury Down (needs cooperation with Hackney)?

5. Other borough-wide measures

Enforcement against illegal drivers and vehicles.
It is said by some police officers that illegally driven vehicles lacking one or more of driving licence, insurance, MOT and road tax) make up 10-20% of vehicles in Tottenham. These constitute a hazard to other road users, and are likely to be often poorly maintained so more polluting. Enforcement campaigns often discover people with outstanding arrest warrants. A consistent enforcement campaign should be developed in liaison with the police, using fines, associated costs and revenue from seized vehicles to fund the operation. This would make streets safer and reduce traffic and the number of parked cars on our streets.

Controlled Parking Zones
CPZs are mentioned in the LIP but there is no mention of an overall strategy. A strategic approach should be developed aiming eventually to extend CPZs (and estate parking schemes) across the whole borough. There should be much stronger measures to discourage gas-guzzlers, ie higher charges, and much higher charges for 2nd and additional vehicles. The income derived can be used to fund short-falls in LIP funding from the TfL.

Congestion Charge or Workplace Parking levy
We would like to see Haringey working with adjacent boroughs to develop a congestion charge zone. This combined with CPZs will be a highly effective tool to reduce unnecessary car journeys and should generate a surplus which can fund other measures. Failing that, the borough should introduce workplace parking levies to discourage use of private non-residential parking.

Freight traffic
There is little or no mention of reducing freight traffic or its impacts. There should be a clear strategy, linked into the LDF, to get local deliveries of goods done by bicycle trailers (for smaller items) and electric vehicles for larger items; and use freight hubs to reduce the movement of large lorries in Haringey (and indeed in London); and use planning policies to require developers to service new developments using the lowest-carbon and cleanest vehicles.

20mph zones
These are mentioned but we would like to see a stronger policy with a rapid extension of 20mph zones to residential streets and all but the largest through-roads.

Funding
We recognise the financial difficulties facing the Council, and the fact that LIP funding is being reduced. We call on the Council to maintain funding for measured to reduce traffic and encourage walking and cycling in particular. We have pointed out some ways in which revenue could be increased to help maintain programmes and work towards the 40% CO2 target.