Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Another Assault on Our Road Use
Just when you thought Haringey Council's anti-residents parking assault had been beaten back a bit.....
Now the Council intends to spend more money it doesn't have on narrowing the borough's roads - including through routes - and further eliminating space to load, unload and park.
This time, the proposals are characterised as a "Kerbside Strategy". When I last looked, "kerbside" was either "road" and "pavement" separated by a kerb, and sometimes "road" and "verge" likewise.
Now, in a deceptively-worded policy trail in a Commonplace consultation at https://haringeykerbsideandevstrategies.commonplace.is, we are asked to accept that parts of "road" are to be made available available for other uses:
"The kerbside is the space that sits on the road next to the pavement. You might currently find cars, trees, cycle parking, or taxi bays here. Well-designed streets and spaces should benefit everyone, not just a few. We are considering proposals for other kerbside uses such as more trees, planting, car clubs, seating and outdoor eating areas and deliveries. "
The consultation that follows does not ask whether you agree to removing parts of the road for the other uses. It just asks questions as to what one would like to see or prefer for these uses. It also asks you to " Suggest locations for things you would like to see prioritised at the kerbside in Haringey." https://haringeykerbsideandevstrategies.commonplace.is/en-GB/map/Ke...
Some may disagree, but you may want to respond to the survey at Commonplace, and/or to tell your councillors that you do not want any further narrowing of roads or reduction of the limited space currently available for loading and parking in busy parts of the borough. The proposed narrowing at Turnpike Lane is a good example of a costly further restriction in an already slow-moving through road.
NK
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
I cycle to work through Haringey, Hackney, Islington and Camden. Those three other boroughs are upgrading the cycle infrastructure they already have to make it even safer. That makes them all two steps ahead of Haringey, where there is barely any infrastructure in the first place. The most dangerous part of my commute is the one mile through Haringey to get home.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
POLICIES are one thing, and practice is another, whereby action to enable walking and cycling has long been actively resisted by the gatekeeper (the Highwaymen).
Haringey council has been pleased to style itself as the "Rebel" Borough.
But their Highways Team are hide-bound and ultra-conservative. They rebel against the higher standards of the neighbours.
They are on the side of motorists, while their political mistresses are either uninterested, or content to go along with the Highwaymen or lack the knowledge or experience to promote progress.
Either deliberately or unconsciously, our elected representatives' expectations of employees in the Highways Department seems to be unusually low.
-
Permalink Reply by Geraldine
-
"If your politics are such that you wish to restrict the use of vehicles on our roads, in particular private cars, then say so"
Where does politics come into it?
-
-
POLITICS*
In the field of whipping-up opposition to car-control measures, few groups created as much noise and confusion as the disgraceful Tottenham Tories.
In the latter part of 2022, this tiny group published a series statements concerning LTNs that were scurrilous on two levels:
- That the closure of Edmonton's big IKEA store was due to LTNs & ULEZ
- That these were the policy of the Labour Party
The first point was flat-out untrue. Their claim was reckless and likely made, knowing that it was untrue.
The second claim was wholly misleading and due to wilful ignorance.
Funding for LTNs became available due to a Conservative London Mayor who was a firm advocate of low traffic neighbourhoods (Boris Johnson).
In a by-election in Tottenham, the little group campaigned on a purely pro-car agenda that was consistent with pollution-indifference.
However, their dishonesty was not rewarded in the ballot box.
One Full Council meeting was abandoned after an aggressive, howling anti-LTN mob threatened mayhem. I was in the carriageway at the time, safely behind a street-wide phalanx of police officers. Did that mob make a lasting, out-sized impression on councillors?
Haringey's ruling Group appears to have been divided on active travel. This century it has thus far failed to advance in the way our neighbouring Boroughs have.
Chronic caution at political level dovetails with the resistance from the employed Highwaymen.
* I'm not a member of any political Party
-
Permalink Reply by Brian
-
Seeing some of our councillors I think they could benefit from regular walking and cycling. That would certainly set a good example.
-
-
Brian, there are few citizens who would not "benefit from regular walking and cycling".
You appear to encourage active travel, as occasionally council PR does. This comes cheap.
One needs to distinguish, as I have tried to do, between encouragement and enabling active travel.
Have you experienced, or do you know what a "close pass" is?
I would cycle more in our Borough if I felt the roads were less hazardous. I expect more residents would chose to cycle for all good reasons, if they too felt less at risk.
Too often our roads are flooded with cars. The sheer numbers promote driver frustration and aggression. Cars bodies have become bloated and are often driven too fast with little margin for error.
Haringey Council has allowed our carriageways to become dominated by cars. The "good example" that this Council needs to set, is to take action and make more space for other kinds of road-user.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I don’t get this. Whether the side of the road is used for parking, a cycle bay or a tree it narrows the road. What the object plonked there is makes no difference to the road width.
-
Permalink Reply by Yasmin Jefferies on
-
I agree with you about the road width being no different. However it does make a difference to the number of users benefiting from the object plonked down. Parking benefits car users typically one person taking up that area for hours or days. Cycle bays which are about the same size benefit a larger number of people, cyclists whose carbon footprint is nothing, make no noise and are less risk to pedestrians.. Trees and SUDS (sustainable urban drainage systems) clean the air, polluted rain runoff from the roads benefiting the environment which includes everyone.
-
-
I agree Yasmin. My comment was in response to the premise that using the side of the road for things other than parking narrows the road whereas at the moment it’s parked cars that do that. What I would love is if I was allowed to rent the area of road outside my house for around £200 a year, which is in effect what resident permit holders do. I’d go for a huge raised bed filled with plants and perhaps a bird bath.
-
-
Wonderful idea. I’d love to do the same thing outside my house.
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel on
-
The second survey linked from the previous page
https://haringeykerbsideandevstrategies.commonplace.is/en-GB/propos...
asks exactly those questions.
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
