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 Clive Carter on
-
IT WAS no accident that in this thread one contributor mentioned in a jokey/intimidatory way, the home addresses of our elected councillors.
The hostility, aggression—and sometimes criminal damage—offered by LTN-opponents may be one of the several reasons why active-travel in Haringey is retarded by so many years.
-
-
YES; the most rabid car-owners are prepared to wield their tonne of metal as a weapon and risk killing other road users.
Their often bloated machines are unconsciously thought of as a private space like their sitting room; comfortable; heated or cooled; entertainment on tap, insulated from the outside world. Increasingly smooth and safe for themselves. And not seen as the potentially lethal weapon for others that it is.
The only consolation is that they have so few arguments. They resort to intimidation because they have so little else to offer.
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon Farcas on
-
The car is a remarkably efficient and convenient way of getting around London in comfort. It's safer than public transport, particularly at night, and allows you to carry things easily that you could never carry on a bus or train (ask any parent or local tradesman) in any weather.
Plus you can chose who you sit next to, thereby avoiding the diversity of unwashed, sneezing, nose picking, farting, yelling and toenail clipping masses.
I have a clean, low polluting car which I maintain. I also pay insurance so other road users have recourse in then event of an accident and I pay road tax and parking fees which ultimately make their way into public coffers to help fund transport infrastructure for everyone.
I don't intimidate anyone else on the road and rarely run down cyclists or pedestrians.
That's my argument.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
Rarely?
You remind me of taxi driver who told me "I've only run over one pedestrian"
-
-
Cars are terribly inefficient both in terms of the space used (not just whilst driving but also whilst parked) and their emissions.
If people want to use such an inefficient mode of transport then fair enough but they shouldn't expect the majority to continue to make concessions for that minority.
-
-
ALL rational arguments favour a trimming of car ownership but, unlike neighbouring local authorities such as Camden, the conservative New Labour Haringey Council just does not know which way to jump.
.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Williams
-
I'll be happy when footway parking is finally removed from my street (see image below). It's absurd that it takes so long to implement when it's been official council policy for many years already.
I understand that the council is legally required to consult on any changes to parking. I wish they could just make these common-sense improvements without the need for endless consultations.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh
-
It does seem a rather odd set up on Eade. From what I can see on Google Maps, the pavement parking is on the odds side, only up to number 45. The road doesn't look any narrower than the Ladder or Gardens roads. Does it get wider east of number 45? It doesn't look like it. I can only think that this is a hangover from the days when the road was a rat run between Seven Sisters Road and Green Lanes (pre-early/mid noughties?). It was probably welcomed by residents at the time but is now probably an anachronism. Moving all parking to off-pavement is relatively straightforward and a good political win for the politicians Have you contacted your councillors about it? If you're interested drop me a note and I'll give you a couple of suggestions about doing it.
-
-
Yeah, it's a weird setup. I think what you're saying about it being a hangover from when the road was a rat run makes sense. I'm not sure when the filter was installed, but it's been there since at least 1999, along with the footway parking. An elderly neighbour who has lived in the area for many decades told me they installed the filter after a child was hit by a driver.
The road is narrow but about the same width as those on the ladder & gardens. I don't think it's much wider past number 45, if at all. The good news is, even if it's too narrow for parking on both sides, there's a huge amount of spare parking capacity to the east along the undeveloped section of the road. Thames Water have equipment there at the moment while refurbishing the New River, but that's temporary (Note: Even with Thames Water occupying ~20 parking spaces from the street, there are still spaces along the residential stretch).
I'll drop my councillor a message about this. Obviously, I am biased here, but I do think Eade Rd should be a priority. It feels like a street where a lot can be improved without a big investment.
-
-
ON their twitter account, Haringey Council wrote that they were "looking at the removal of pavement parking on a number of roads across Haringey to help make the borough more accessible for pedestrians"
That was almost 4 (four) years ago.
They said they would listen to "residents" views. The (conservative) Council appear to have listened carefully to the views of car-owners, and so council pavement-parking continued. (removing pavement parking is possible. Even the ultra-conservative Highways Department managed to remove it on Wightman Road).
The council is practised at publishing action plans and strategies and PR. When last year they published their Parking Strategy, the document was long and chatted all around the subject from every angle: but there was no meaningful conclusion.
Their strategy document was complete, except for the total absence of any meaningful strategy. Unfortunately, this sclerosis is set to continue.
There is a real absence of leadership. If the current leader were serious about transport, she would have appointed someone to head up Transport who were in turn, serious about the subject.
-
-
Funnily enough, they used photos of the exact street I’m complaining about in their tweet from two years ago.
Totally unrelated, but China has built 5,000km of high-speed rail since then.
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
