Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Sustainable Haringey Criticise Lib Dems' 30 Mins Free Parking Campaign
Lib Dem Parking Campaign publicity photo
Last Autumn I questioned the wisdom of the Lib Dems' 30 mins free parking campaign. Today I noticed that Sustainable Haringey have taken a public stand against it:
Dear Lynne
Your petition: 30 MINUTES FREE PARKING IN HARINGEY
This is a bad proposal. You say it is "to help shopkeepers". But research over decades as shown that it will neither help shopkeepers, nor the vast majority who come by other modes.
The real problem and solution.
The thing that deters most shoppers - who are pedestrians (including bus-users) - above all is the domination of their shopping streets by fast, polluting traffic that confines them to narrow pavements, and makes crossing the road difficult. Those are the things you and your councillors should be addressing, rather than pandering to the already well cared-for motorists, who always protest in the UK as though they were an oppressed minority.
A policy worth pushing Government and Haringey to adopt is to reduce speeds in busy roads where there are many pedestrians, such as Muswell Hill Broadway, to 20 mph and ultimately 10mph, as is common in Europe.
Shopkeepers vastly overestimate car shoppers
Research has always discovered that shopkeepers believe that about twice as many of their customers come by car as actually do. Research has demonstrated this in Edinburgh (2003) and Bristol (2006), and nearly 20 years ago in what is now the traffic-calmed shopper-friendly city of Graz in Southern Austria. In Edinburgh, fewer than 25% (and falling) came by car. In Bristol, only 22% came by car, whereas shopkeepers estimated it was 41%.
Also, in Bristol, car-users tended to be 'drive-through' shoppers; they made 4 times as many single-shop visits as pedestrians (including bus-users) who visited several shops. [SUSTRANS 2003 and 2006.]
The quality of the shopping centre, not parking, has most impact on trade
Research in Leicester in 1992 showed that shop vacancy rates increase as the level of traffic increases. A study of 6 Midlands towns in 1994 showed that "parking provision does not have an influence on whether shops close or remain trading". The overall quality and attractiveness of the centres had more impact on trade.
Groningen in the Netherlands pedestrianised a large part of their central area in the face of a barrage of ferocious criticism from business, but the area is now prized by the population. That is the kind of long term target we should pursue here.
There is no such thing as a FREE lunch
Free parking is a way of subsidising motorists at the expense of the majority who come by other modes, often with considerable effort in the interests of the environment and the community.
Free parking at supermarkets is another way in which motorists are subsidised by the rest of us. An Act of parliament to introduce fair charges is a project I commend to you.
Kind regards
David Rennie
on behalf of the Sustainable Haringey Transport Group
For more on the Sustainable Haringey Transport Group, contact Chris Barker: contact Chris Barker - c.barker@lineone.net.
(PS: Don't you just love that PR photo? Scary!)
Tags for Forum Posts: high street parking, high streets, parking
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Neil, I think the issue has been that despite the repeated calls for free parking as a driver to high street success, there is in fact little evidence to support that it works. In a recent report, the Department for Busness said:
The ATCM and British Parking Association (BPA) have recently acknowledged the limitations of the evidence base around this issue, and are moving forward with proposals for more detailed primary research. (From "Understanding High Street Performance")
More recently, and closer to home, a London Councils report questioned the impact of parking on high street health. I'm quite sure that the argument is complex. Most of the studies on this emphasise how much this must be looked at on a case by case basis. My concern is with Harringay. While we should be thankful that it is thriving, it has been reconfigured away from serving local residents' needs and I can only see encouraging more car use worsening this position.I don't take a definite stand on this issue since I haven't seen the evidence to allow that. However, there is very clear reason to question calls for more parking without having first understood what the effects will be.
You're quite right to call for an evidence base. I've offered a couple of bits that I have to hand, but for my part I'd be making the call to the Lib Dems and the pro-parking campaign in the first instance since it is they who are calling for change. Karen / David, can you help?
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Actually I can't agree with you that this is about Featherstone bashing.
My dealings with Sustainable Haringey have shown that they are unlikely to make rash statements about things in the name of having a cheap dig at a local politician. They are far from self interested and want to support people in leading lifestyles that don't damage the environment.
From organising free workshops on insulation to food sustainability to (a subject dear to my heart), waste and its disposal (which is where I've had dealings with them- although them is a bit of a misnomer since it could easily be you they are very open), SH try to engage and educate from Tottenham to Highgate. They are also committed to not allowing political parties create what they see as artificial divisions between east and west which they see as only benefitting political parties.
I'm disappointed you've weighed into this group without troubling to meet, talk to or understand them. Can I suggest you attend one of their events or meet some of their members before you rush to judge?
-
-
I apologise then if you have become acquainted with the group and its activities. Your initial posting asking who are they, not being impressed with their wiki, self interested groups etc. suggested the opposite.
SH are part of a wider environmental movement which sometimes proposes radical ideas such as Buy Nothing Day which is an international day of protest. You can, of course, think some of these ideas are laughable, although I always think its worth finding out the thinking behind them before dismissing them out of hand. I recommend Good, Grist, Treehugger and Do The Green Thing for more insight/news into the movement as a whole and The Transition Network for the 'philosophy'.
Reading the piece, I see only the phrase 'This is a bad proposal.' The rest argues the case. I don't see this as an anti-Featherstone letter, just anti a proposal from the local Lib Dems. Of course, you are entitled to disagree with what they say but I think you are wrong to suggest he is 'slating the local MP'. I believe anyone is allowed to lobby their local MP. I've done it a couple of times myself.
Many councillors wear more than one hat and they often start at a grassroots level as community activists. Nothing weird about that. Weirder is a councillor who hasn't done their time at grassroots level. Rather a lot of those appear at election time. And disappear straight after. That Mr Rennie stands for the Greens is a reflection, no doubt, of the fact that they are a party who best reflect his personal beliefs. Again, no conspiracy there.
-
Permalink Reply by maggie on
-
We already have a scheme in operation at the moment, from HoL Dec 2012- "Traders on Green Lanes in Harringay will be offering shoppers who drive to Harringay free parking permits to encourage them to return to the area to shop. Traders on Green Lanes will be trialling a free shoppers permit parking scheme for a limited period in December and January. Funded as part of the central government 'Portas Scheme', the trial programme has been designed by the traders themselves. It echoes their concerns that what they see as high parking charges are damaging their trade, much of which now comes from out of town rather than from local residents. If the scheme is successful, the traders will be looking at how they can tackle parking charges in the long term."
Has anyone been offered a free parking permit? Who received these government funded permits? Was anyone monitoring the effect on shopping, parking or traffic? Anyone substantiate traders claims that high parking charges were damaging their trade and that much of it comes from out of town rather than from local residents? Why so much consideration for car drivers at the expense of locals, pedestrians, cyclists and people who travel by public transport?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I've been having a think about this and can see it actually causing more problems.
In order to make sure that a motorist has only parked for up to 30 minutes I assume they will have to get a free parking ticket from one of the machines. Beacuse it will be only for 30 minutes there will be a higher turnover of vehicles parked than at the moment so the traffic wardens will have to check more cars than they do now, perhaps leading to an increase in the number of wardens needed. So the free scheme is actually being paid for by the council and business tax payers in the area.
However, I can see the attraction to Haringey as I would imagine it would be much easier to run over a 30 minute limit that it would be for a 2 or 3 hour limit meaning more parking fine income for the council.
-
Permalink Reply by Frederick Guy on
-
There's a Dutch study (Mingardo & van Meerkerk, Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 2012)
linked in one of the other comments, which according to Pamela "indicates that the received wisdom that reduced or expensive parking reduces footfall in shops is largely incorrect". I've taken a quick look at the study. I'm an economist, and I'm familiar with the methods used. It's an interesting study but I have to say that its findings are pretty inconclusive.(1) They find no statistically significant effect from the number of parking spaces. However, with only 80 observations (and they throw two of those out because they don't like what they do to the results), this is not surprising. The study includes shopping centers of various types (regional, local, etc.). They try dividing into two types, and get different results for different types (and, since their samples of each type are now much smaller, they lose most statistical significance).
(2) They find that higher prices for parking are associated with higher retail turnover (sales). There are two difficulties in interpreting this finding. One, which they acknowledge, is that we don't know the direction of causation: (1) high turnover may *create* higher demand for parking, allowing prices to be raised; (2) high turnover may occur in areas that are very busy for other reasons, in which parking is high priced; or (3) high prices may keep parking spaces free, making it more convenient for shoppers to park. Of these, only (3) says anything about the price of parking affecting turnover (rather than the other way around), and their study can't distinguish between 1, 2, and 3.
The other difficulty in interpreting the finding that higher parking prices are associated with higher turnover is that the study doesn't tell us how high the prices are for the areas studied (in technical terms, they don't provide summary statistics - the means, variances and ranges of the variables they use in their study). The effect would probably be different at different levels - too low, and people park as long as they're allowed; too high, and nobody parks at all. In Green Lanes, last I checked, it was £3 per hour. Anybody have an idea what it costs to park in a comparable neighborhood in the Netherlands? I don't.
(3) More generally, lack of descriptive statistics makes it impossible to evaluate the practical importance of the effects they find (even assuming we have confidence in their results).
So, as far as the study goes, it's a good effort in an under-studied area, but it doesn't tell us much.
Why do I care, and take the time to read the study and write this? I don't have a car. I think the use of cars for grocery shopping is a blight on the face of the planet, and that free parking, as we see in abundance at superstores, has a big role in this blight (for more on this, see my blog post, Sisyphus aims to tax parking, any day now). But if we're worried about traffic in Green Lanes, put the blame where it belongs - Sainsburys, McDonald's, the Arena shopping centre, and all the more distant car-oriented shopping centres that draw traffic through here: don't fuss about whether it's a little bit less expensive to park your car while shopping in Green Lanes.
-
-
I'd be interested in the views both of you have on the Association of Town Managers' (ACTM) statement saying there is little evidence that more parking DOES increase footfall and the last year's London Council's report raising doubts over the issue - both mentioned above.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I think Frederick's point about the carparking spaces at the Harringay Arena is astonishing. Why have I not thought of this before? I'm way too obsessed with all the sneaky ways private citizens and small businesses game the car parking system in Harringay.
-
-
Haringey's Parking Gestapo needs to be controlled and this is one way the present disgraceful set up might get a rethink from performing as a cash-cow for an inefficient authority.
-
-
The version of this letter on the sustainable Haringey website includes this line, missing from the letter replicated above:
You say this proposal is ‘to help shopkeepers’. But where is the evidence for that?
This is a key point. I have asked local Lib Dem councillors to let me know what their evidence base is for this policy, so far they have been unable to produce anything to support their claim that this proposal will help shops in Haringey. As pointed out in this discussion, if parking spaces are not being paid for by charging those using them, the cost of maintaining and enforcing car parking falls to the council tax payer. If the Lib Dems can't demonstrate that they have calculated the free parking proposal would produce a net benefit to the local economy it seems unreasonable to expect everyone else to pick up the tab for the minority of shoppers arriving by car.
It's quite revealing to search the Haringey Lib Dems website - ‘parking’ reveals 28 hits, ‘walking’ 2 and ‘cycling’ 0. It's odd that they don't seem to have evidence on what they obviously consider to be a key concern.
-
-
Here's a thoughtful and heartfelt contribution from a Hornsey resident made on a local email group following the recent introduction of the Hornsey CPZ:
I've had a scheme in mind for a long time which would be much fairer, probably keep up the current revenue and stop the constant frustration of Haringey car owners (we can't all ride bikes or walk everywhere - especially the more elderly among us!!): namely, have a Haringey parking permit which any Haringey resident or worker could purchase at a reasonable cost (say £50 - £75 per annum) in return for which we can park anywhere we can find a space in the Borough. This would stop the craziness of individual CPZs with their different operating times and stop workers having to rush out in their lunch break to move from one CPZ to another........ I could go on, but I won't! When the recent consultation took place people were asked if they'd like to be on a Parking Focus group - I offered, but have heard nothing since. Another dropped idea?
There probably isn't a perfect answer, but there has to be something better than the present awful situation, which is harming community life in so many ways, not just the traders' aspect. My main point is that the community really ought to have a chance to put its collective head together and come up with some innovative ideas to which the Council would really listen - there has to be something better than what we have. I would love there to be a proper objective dialogue where we could think what's best for everyone, because we've all been put into a defensive mode now and tend to look at it from a very local point of view.
I agree that short free parking on the HIgh Street would help in the interim - Lynne F. may be able to whizz round the shops in 30 mins. (you're often almost that long in the Post Office queue!) but 60 or 90 mins would be a better option - people might be able to squeeze in a coffee and a chat as well then!!! I find the current parking restrictions are seriously affecting social interaction and family life too.
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
