Letters to residents were sent out yesterday marking the next stage of the consultation on Residents Parking Zones. This is the third part of the process.To remind readers: two Zones have been chosen as likely pilots based on strong majority resident support in the (albeit deeply flawed) first stage. These are in Clifton Wood and Kingsdown. Stage two of the consultation collected street level information from these areas about parking requirements and existing problems.
The letters that have gone out yesterday have a link through to the detailed street-by-street plans of where different types of line would go - e.g. where there would be pay-and-display (free for short stays) and where there will be yellow lines for safety reasons. There is also a very short response sheet asking people if they support the plans or not and giving them the chance to explain why and what they might change. This will be used to assess whether to proceed with the pilots.
From the Cotham perspective, a very small part of the ward is included in the core part Kingsdown zone - around Clare Road and Victoria Walk. A larger area north of Cotham Road is also being consulted on a possible opt-in basis. This area was ambivalent during the first consultation (which was for a very silly and draconian approach) and I have lobbied heavily that residents in this area should have a second bite of the cherry. The outline boundaries are shown in the image to the right - click to enlarge.
My personal position on the plans remains as previously - I think that local residents need to choose for themselves whether this is something that they want to pursue. I am not against residents parking zones in principle as I have seen them work well in other cities, but I am also not in favour of imposing them against the will of the majority. They have the potential to improve the area by reducing the unsustainable weight of cars and improving road safety, but there are downsides, like the extra street clutter. What I did have a hand in was ensuring that the scheme that is put before residents was a more sensible than originally proposed :
- Bizarre 24/7 scheme reduced to 9am to 5pm on weekdays only
- Acceptance that different areas could have different systems
- Improved parking enforcement in neighbouring areas
- First permit cost cut from £40 to £30, fixed for at least the first 3 years of the scheme
- Each household is eligible for 100 visitor permits per year - first 50 visitors’ permits will be free of charge, the second 50 will cost £1 each
- Residents to be given the choice of whether to have double yellow lines across their driveways or an indicative keep clear marking
- A commitment to increasing car club facilities in the area
- Clarity about the pilot nature of the scheme
9 comments:
I'm very much against having a residents' parking scheme. Surely we have to try to reduce the ownership and use of the private car. I know it is going to be very difficult indeed. But this residents' parking scheme is saying: it's alright for some people to have privilege about cars. It just isn't alright.
I guess I would disagree with you on a number of points, but probably in the context of having some similar views about life in general.
I agree that we need to see a reduction in fossil fuel car use and ownership. I've cut my own annual mileage by half in the last three years and I'm still working on cutting it further.
However, I don't think we'll ever send the end of all car use - people have just too used to it and to easy travel. What I think we'll see is a switch in energy sources - whether it's sustainable biofuels, electricity (from renewable sources) or hydrogen. I believe the car is here to stay in some form and that we have to plan for that.
In any case, I see residents parking as more of an opportunity for road safety and quality of life than climate change. It would have some positive impact by dissuading some people from commuting into Bristol by car and making public transport more attractive. But the bigger gain to my mind would be about limiting the concentration of cars on narrow streets and improving the visibility and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. This would go a long way to persuade people to get out of their cars for short trips - knowing that the experience would be safe and pleasant.
All that said, my view remains agnostic - it has to be a decision for local people.
Hi Neil
a couple of questions to ask about the proposed residents parking scheme. Does a permit allow you to park anywhere within the scheme,or only in your own road?As a long suffering resident of Cotham Road(trees felled and endless building work at the school)i see from the proposals that a third of the availible spaces on this road would be for pay and display parking.In other roads e.g Kingsdown Parade all spaces are for residents parking.Does this mean that the displaced resident parkers of this road,while still having to pay for a permit have to park elsewhere?Also,when would this scheme come into effect?I cant find any indication of timescale.I am not a resident of Kingsdown,as i live in Cotham,and while this scheme has obvious benefits to some parts of Kingsdown it has none for this area of Cotham and i am completely opposed to it(comments already sent to council)Lastly,as my husband works in Clevedon and his car is away Mon. to Fri 8.30-5.30 does this mean he does not need a permit as he wont be parked in this area,or do households have to buy permits for number of cars owned,regardless of where they may be in designated times?
Alison - answers, as I understand them only, so not necessarily guaranteed 100% accurate.
You would be able to park anywhere in the scheme. Your husband would not need a permit if he was away every day, but there would be the issue of days off and that sort of thing. He could cover this with visitors' permits, the first fifty of which would be free. There would be no way of charging for all cars owned!
The spread of pay-and-display spaces is broadly proportionate to the number of houses on the street, so Cotham Road has more than heavily-residential areas - one side is mainly the school. Also, the church lobbied strongly for spaces that could be used by their parishoners.
Timescale is not fixed as it is dependent on the outcome of the consultation. I would guess that towards the end of the year would be possible.
P.S. I am still making a fuss about the trees, especially as the same things keep happening. I think the message is slowly getting through, but some people clearly just see them as obstructions that need moving.
Neil,thanks for your info. about parking scheme.
Going back to issue of trees (August update)residents never did receive an apology and no consultation on the ongoing building works at school has happened.
I suppose they thought that with time we would forget the loss of these beautiful trees.From appearances,the only thing that has been put in their place are double decker porta-cabins for the site works.
Alison - a letter certainly was sent (after lots of fuss-making) and I've seen it! I asked for it to be sent to everyone who contacted me, so surprised to hear that you didn't get one. I'll get one to you asap.
Have to protest about your apparent fatalism concerning the private car.
We don't need to manufacture another car on the face of this planet. Making car manufacture the economic basis of our societies is both insane and unworthy of the human ability to adapt. Possibly the car is here to stay, but not in its present form and certainly not in the numbers we have at present.
As to how we do adapt so that we don't degrade our environment and ourselves; well, for the last 30 years in this country we've had the same old gang in power, a slight difference in 'colour' but essentially, people who will not listen to what the electorate are saying and act on it. So some sort of mechanism ( Proportional Representation? Alternative Vote?) is needed. At present all that happens are these time-wasting 'consultations' which mean nothing. Those in power do exactly what they want anyway and disregard what we are saying: vide: nationally, the 2nd Iraq war, and locally, over the issue of cutting down trees without any sort of reference to what local people want for their area. They think they can weather our storms of protest. So far they've been able to.
Alright, rant over! But please take on board those two points: please don't be fatalistic or complacent about the economic basis of our society - we can and must change it. And about the mechanisms for chucking out power cliques who do not respect the wishes of the electorate.
Actually, I am one of the older residents in your ward of Cotham
Virginia - I think you've misunderstood me a little and I don't think our views are that far apart.
I don't think I am being fatalistic about cars, but realistic. Car ownership is still growing in the UK, especially second car ownership. I think it is perfectly possible (and desirable) to halt this growth and to reverse it to some extent. However, over 75% of households have cars, which would suggest a very limited appetite for halting production as you suggest.
I think it is far more important to look at finding environmentally acceptable ways of making cars and other vehicles move. There are lots of options out there for this and we need to be pushing them. This doesn't mean we stop persuading people to use other forms of transport too; I have travelled on a bus today and I will be on a train tomorrow. It is difficult for local politicians to directly change public transport since it was (unwisely) privatised, but we can keep pushing for improvements.
If a politician like myself was to call for a ban on cars, I would very quickly be out of power. So, my view is to try to work with car users to persaude them to reduce their ownership and use.
I couldn't agree with you more about the electoral system. I've been a member of the Electoral Reform Society for quite a while and this is one of the reasons why I joined the Lib Dems. From my perspective, we've basically had the same gang in power for the last 88 years! There is a serious disconnect between people and democracy that needs fixing urgently. At the coming General Election, voters in two-thirds of constituencies will be irrelevant - no wonder fewer and fewer bother.
On the Iraq War, you have no disagreement from me! I campaigned against it then and I take no pleasure finding out that my worst fears were realised.
On trees, I have been working hard to try to ensure that this doesn't happen. Sadly there are still plenty of people who see trees as a nusiance that get in the way of their building projects. I work closely with the Redland & Cotham Amenities Society and Bristol Street Trees to try to protect what we have and to add new ones back in. It doesn't always work and it's two steps forward and one step back. However, the new Local Development Framework for the city, which I have been heavily involved in, makes a firm commitment to increasing tree coverage.
There are pro's and cons to a resident's car parking scheme - but it will do nothing to reduce car use.
We are lucky enough to be able to walk to work and other places a lot of the time, and run an economical small car. We spend an average of £50 on diesel each month.
This does include driving my son to school - he is getting close to the age where he might be able to get the bus, although it is to far for him to walk for another year or two. So I looked up the bus fares.. a child's monthly ticket would cost £49! So continuing to use the car is the most economical option - if not the most ecological.
Until pubic transport improves in quality, and drops in price, we will, unfortunately, all keep driving our cars.
FirstBus get huge subsidies and make a good profit, but somehow this doesn't translate into cheaper fares or better service.
Jenny (Redland resident)
Post a Comment