Post in Residents Parking

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

All posts in Residents Parking

Residents Parking From: Lloyd Fletcher Date: Jul 14 10:15 UTC Short link

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that only Southville residents should be
targeted if the objective is to reduce car usage.

 > Loyd Fletchers point about residents being penalised for
'environmental' reasons seems somewhat flawed.  Are only those people
in live in affordable terraced housing to be charged for this?  <<<

Certainly, if the goal is to reduce traffic for environmental reasons,
then a solution would presumably focus on those with a high usage --
regardless of where they live.

Of course, if one is only focused on environmental benefits in
Southville, then one would look at the main contributors to traffic in
that area. And since I imagine that parking/ownership is only a rough
proxy for car usage, that may or may not implicate Southville
residents. It may well be that commuters (car-for-car) burn more gas
than residents; I don't know.


--Lloyd



On 13 Jul 2008, at 20:09, Richard Johns wrote:

Loyd Fletchers point about residents being penalised for
'environmental' reasons seems somewhat flawed.  Are only those people
in live in affordable terraced housing to be charged for this?  Does
this mean that those individuals who live in terraced housing and
therefore only have off street parking have a greater responsibility
to the environment that those in more suburban areas who happen to
have a garage and/or off street parking?  I agree there is a bigger
issue of pollution and car use here but using it as an argument for or
against RPS is not quite straightforward.



 > To: <email obscured>
 > From: <email obscured>
 > Subject: Re: [GB-Forum] Residents Parking
 > Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:15:03 +1200
 >
 > Marvin D makes the pertinent point that if commuters are the
problem, then the obvious option is to levy a fee on them (i.e., set a
price for the scarce resource that is commuter parking), and let
residents park for free. Of course, you'd have to cost it out to make
sure the fees and fines would pay for the "policing" and admin.
 >
 > However, the DVLA data do not suggest that commuters ARE the
problem: residents appear to account for by far the largest demand for
parking. Commuter demand, although I've seen no data, looks like a
smaller "perturbation" on top of an already over-subscribed/under
capacity system: if there were no commuters, the problem would still
exist, although maybe slightly smaller.
 >
 > And to the extent the problem exists, it seems to be centered
around the evening rush hour, with residents returning and wanting
their spaces back. In which case, the solution might most effectively
and efficiently be designed around that, e.g., non resident parking is
free only up until 4pm (not a thought-out proposal that, just off the
top of the head; no doubt there would be unintended consequences).
 >
 > But there is the wider question, suggested by Charlie, of whether
total traffic/parking in itself should be reduced; and to make any
real impact there requires reducing residential demand. And levying a
fee for that would, in theory, be a way to reduce cars in the area; on
the other hand, it may be that residents would just pay the fees and
keep the cars, bringing no change at all. The fee to park would have
to be much more than £40/year to put anyone off owning a car, I would
have thought.
 >
 > The more fundamental question is what benefits are sought (and how
will their achievement be measured: I don't think the Council's
proposals address that -- how will we tell if the scheme is
successful?):
 >
 > If it's to reduce car traffic for environmental reasons, then
residents must surely be the prime target; but only harsh deterrent
measures are likely to have much effect (or provision of a great
public transport system -- without it, residents and commuters still
need to commute by car!).
 >
 > If it's to reduce non-resident parking to make residents' lives
easier, then commuters could be the target, but that would have very
little, if not negligible, effect. There is also the potential
downside, the economic disbenefit, of deterring commuters: in the
absence of a palatable public transport alternative, they will still
drive (so no environmental benefits), or will find free parking
elsewhere nearby (shifting the problem next door), or will be forced
to pay a similar but slightly lower fee for parking elsewhere in the
city. (The last, of course, can be looked on either as an economic
penalty to commuters/their employers, with the risks that entails; or
as a bonus to the coffers of whoever receives the parking fees -- if
the Council, then it could be ploughed into public transport or other
incentives not to drive).
 >
 > As an alternative line of thinking, I wonder how the parking
demand, both residents and commuters, would be reduced if there were
an attractive public transport system as a positive incentive to
change habits? The RPZ proposals seem to be very much about wielding
the "stick" with no sign of any "carrot".
 >
 > It's a tricky one.
 >
 >
 > --Lloyd
 >
 >
 > Lloyd Fletcher
 > Redcliffe, Bristol
 > Info about Lloyd Fletcher: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/lloydfletcher
 >
 > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5SvRX6l4Pujf11ebv503BK
 > -----------------------------------------
 > To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
 > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
 > in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
 >
 > More info about Greater Bedminster Neighbourhood Forum:
 > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/bemmy-forum
 >
 > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
 > -----------------------------------------
 > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

Get fish-slapping on Messenger! Play Now

Need help? Please contact technical support. To support your forum, please donate.