Hopefully you have seen Haringey’s proposals for changes to Wightman Road/Alroy Road (see link at the bottom)
One of the main proposals is to stop pavement parking on Wightman/Alroy. Haringey have estimated that this will lead to the loss of 29% of spaces on Wightman/Alroy and that this loss will be mitigated by Wightman/Alroy residents using vacant parking places on the Ladder rung roads. Haringey estimates that currently, at peak times, 27% of available resident parking places on the rung roads are vacant.
The Ladder Community Safety Partnership (LCSP) will be making a response to the consultation and want to check if this figure is realistic. In order to do this we need to carry out an audit of as many Ladder rung roads as possible to find out if Haringey’s estimate matches the actual situation on our roads.
This will be a simple walk up and down a Ladder rung road, counting the number of parked cars and estimating how many cars can additionally be parked in unused spaces. To give an accurate picture the count will need to be held at the same time on the same day (when parking is at its busiest).
The count needs to be completed in the next two weeks so that the information can be included in the LCSP consultation response. If you think you can help by carrying out a count on your road (or more than one road) please send email me at email@example.com and I’ll get back to you with more detail.
Sorry John, missed your post. If you can do a street that would be great. Can you email me at firstname.lastname@example.org saying which one you can do and I’ll get the information to you that I’m preparing.
Michael, do we know how the Council got to their 27% figure? A logical approach to measuring current demand during CPZ hours might be to divide the number of resident and business permits issued by the spaces available. A sample of a dozen parked vehicles would give a reasonable 'available spaces/metre' estimate. Any other vehicles parking within this period should filling the Council's coffers. CPZ hours should be extended if there is significantly limited capacity during these hours.
But whatever the pros and cons of the Wightman plan, is parking being used as a means to defeat it, or is there a genuine desire to have parking for all on the ladder? It feels like the latter.
In the same way that less accessible roads are known to reduce overall traffic flows, it should also follow that fewer parking spaces should reduce overall demand. Some of those visiting friends or restaurants will opt for public transport, some residents will sell their cars etc. Shouldn't this be one of the goals?
The entire reason for this is because it's become apparent that pavement parking IS actually illegal and they need to move cars off of Wightman Rd. Wightman Rd is the same width as the ladder roads, which are one way because of their width, so they can't have parking on both sides. At the stakeholder group meeting I attended late last year they said that volumes were back at where they were before the closure for the bridge works but that they expected the work on Wightman, when finished, to not reduce capacity for the road to carry traffic at all. The implication was that it could carry more.
OK, that addresses the traffic and need for parking to me removed from Wightman. The question I had was more related to the capacity for parking and the idea that 'as much as we need' seems to be the desired outcome. I was suggesting that 'less than we need' might be a better target.
However on the map the arrow of traffic flow for Warham Road is reversed, if this happens it would make it less of a rat run for commuters coming from North East London going south to Central London, this would be great and significantly reduce traffic on Wightman Road encouraging commuters to use A roads, as well as reduce traffic on Warham Road the busiest rung on the Ladder.
As a pedestrian and a driver I think it would be great to have the use of pavements without obstructions on Wightman Road and the new proposed chicanes, new 'informal pedestrian crossings' etc would slow the traffic significantly and make it much less attractive as a rat run for commuters.
The downside is that evening and overnight parking at the top of the ladder roads would increase.
I don't see how informal crossings would slow traffic, unless drivers stop to drag the bodies of pedestrians to one side. Many don't even stop for the formal crossings.
ha ha...yes I wasn't sure what 'new informal pedestrian crossings' are, they are drawn as if across the whole carriageway so perhaps they are raised marked areas, I will ask tonight. Chicanes with tree planting and bike storage in the freed up spaces sounds good and I am glad to see that a new formal zebra crossing is proposed across Whitman at the Pemberton junction.
Sorry, I don’t know the methodology they used but I believe someone is trying to get hold of it. My suspicion is that they counted the number of parked cars, measured the length of the road, multiplied the number of parked care by X metres, took one away from the other and voila, that was the vacancy rate. If that’s the case it doesn’t take into account that cars don’t park neatly - there can be large but unusable spaces left - and that not all of the road is available for anyone to park on - disabled bays, zig-zag lines and so on. That why the decision to do the audit was taken. To do a bit of a reality check.
Another thing to consider is that there are often more parking spaces available during the school summer holiday - schools break up this Friday.
Totally agree, Angela. This occurred to me this morning. Mid-summer parking is always easier. I'd suggest that we won't get a true picture at this time of year.
Not unless we get a shift on and go out on the next evening or two !
So, Sunday evening coming then.