Fw: 106 shopping list
From:
Ben barker
Date:
Jul 16 15:51 UTC
Short link
Hi,
Thanks to those who responded to my earlier enquiries about 106 investments.
Some of you will have had it already, but if not I can send a preliminary list
covering Southville and Bedminster. Just e-mail me, ask and I'll send an
attachment.
What next?
1. we can continue to add to the list and we will check it for eligibility.
2. the 4 councillors are trying to unearth the forward plans of various
departments. We have a fairly good idea of Parks' plans and that will become
clearer once the Area Green Space discussions are underway. But does the
Library Service have any aspirations? What changes in street structure
(crossings, buildouts, signage etc) are being proposed by Highways for, say,
the next 3 years? What of other departments? It may be that some of these
proposals fit well with the Greater Bedminster Peoples' List. Without
disclosure, who can tell?
3. other agencies (police, fire service, primary care trust) may also have
ideas. We'll ask.
Once we have a fairly comprehensive list, we can start prioritising and
lobbying. Of course, 106 isn't the only source of funding although you will
recall that the already committed 106 funds available are around 1.5million for
the 3 BS3 wards.
Two words of caution:
a) a major development may take several years to complete. 106
contributions agreed at the beginning are not payable (if at all) until towards
the end of the development. Organizations that have already been promised 106
money know how frustrating this can be.
b) with the change in economic climate, new 106 agreements are running at
about 50% of recent years. But, they still amount to substantial potential
sums.
Cheers, Ben.
Fw: Better Bedminster Community Chest
From:
Gilbert Webster
Date:
Jul 15 19:52 UTC
Short link
hello ben
as a member of a number of groups including council accommodation t/a's and
action groups in the bedminster.i would like to join the assessment group.
thanks
gilbert
>>> "Ben Barker" <> 07/14/08 12:46 PM >>>
Hi,
A bit of a change from residents' parking......
As you know, we have 12K to distribute to useful things within Southville and
Bedminster wards. The closing date for applications is the end of July.
The next stage will be to consider the applications and make a recommendation
to the 4 councillors who are responsible for the final allocation. We intend
to do this in August. Ideally we will complete the process early enough to
announce results in the September Pigeon. This probably means completing the
process by, say, August 8. Otherwise, it's the October Pigeon.
I am trying to set up an assessment group. It would be good to have at least
6 people (I already have 2, plus me as clerk) that could meet to look through
the applications. I don't know, at this stage, if we will get 3 or 30
applications, but I guess that the group will need to meet for two or three
hours maximum.
Please contact me if you would like to be part of the group or can persuade
someone else to do this little chore.
It would probably be best if panel members were not too obviously connected
with applications from particular groups!
Cheers, Ben.
Ben barker
Info about Ben barker: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/benbarker
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3eEwGF5PvBrRlBEOa2LpDf
Fw: Better Bedminster Community Chest
From:
Ben barker
Date:
Jul 14 11:46 UTC
Short link
Hi,
A bit of a change from residents' parking......
As you know, we have 12K to distribute to useful things within Southville and
Bedminster wards. The closing date for applications is the end of July.
The next stage will be to consider the applications and make a recommendation
to the 4 councillors who are responsible for the final allocation. We intend
to do this in August. Ideally we will complete the process early enough to
announce results in the September Pigeon. This probably means completing the
process by, say, August 8. Otherwise, it's the October Pigeon.
I am trying to set up an assessment group. It would be good to have at least
6 people (I already have 2, plus me as clerk) that could meet to look through
the applications. I don't know, at this stage, if we will get 3 or 30
applications, but I guess that the group will need to meet for two or three
hours maximum.
Please contact me if you would like to be part of the group or can persuade
someone else to do this little chore.
It would probably be best if panel members were not too obviously connected
with applications from particular groups!
Cheers, Ben.
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:
> From:
> 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:
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to:
>
> 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
Bedminster PACT
From:
Cecilia Weightman
Date:
Jul 14 08:25 UTC
Short link
I have been asked by the Bedminster NPT to post the details of the latest
meeting of Bedminster PACT which was held on 25 June 2008 at 19.00 at Luckwell
School. The priorities set for the next three months are:
1 - Antisocial behaviour around Luckwell School Park and the South Street Park
Area
2 - Speeding and traffic problems (non-specific areas)
3 - Parking in the bus stop outside Carphone Warehouse, Winterstoke Road
Details of the next Bedminster PACT will be advertised on the forum closer to
the date.
Residents Parking
From:
Richard Johns
Date:
Jul 13 19:09 UTC
Short link
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: > From: >
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>
Residents Parking
From:
Marvin D
Date:
Jul 11 15:48 UTC
Short link
Charlie - I don't know what you are sighing about? I thought this was meant to
be a forum for debating things, and this was meant to be a consultation where
you hear people's opinions and take them back to the council as part of the
consultation? I think you did say that in an earlier post...
Sheer volume of vehicles is a significant contributor to parking problems -
agreed
Trying to manage it is good - agreed. Charging people additional fees for
something that has always been paid for via other taxes etc without that charge
being for a coherent solution backed up by any reliable evidence is not good,
in my opinion.
I didn't say you said commuters should not come into the area. However, a
driver in this discussion until recent comments has been the idea that commuter
parking is a problem for local residents. I was addressing that issue, and
saying if that is the problem, then that is the problem that any scheme should
target, and by charging them, not preventing them from coming in. Taking
forward what Lloyd Fletcher brought to light, if that is not the main problem,
then what is the real focus and aim of the scheme? That you want to restrict
households to having a single vehicle? If that is the main idea, then lets make
it clear that this is the main objective and discuss the impact of that and
what alternatives the council are going to offer to those people who rely on
their cars to go to their jobs, and who will be priced/forced off the road if
the RPS scheme serves that purpose.
So as I started out by asking - if, as the consultation form states, a
household may only be able to have one vehicle permit, what do the people who
have more cars than that, and who probably continue to 'need' their cars for a
variety of reasons, do with them? I'm not advocating multi-car ownership or car
culture, as I have said before, but where is the ALTERNATIVE in the scheme that
the council proposes?
And if the answer falls back along the lines that 'you have to hope you can buy
a second permit for £80', well if you can, then this means the scheme would
probably have little impact on the overall vehicle numbers on the streets, and
so what then is anyone actually getting for their £140 a year charge?
Basically zip, right?
But the council, they will be getting a lot of money.
Residents Parking
From:
charlie bolton
Date:
Jul 11 11:56 UTC
Short link
-sighs heavily-
I was agreeing with Lloyd Fletcher that the sheer volume of vehicles owned by
residents here is a significant contributor to parking problems - as well as
commuters (and you could add to that in areas around North St - the tension
between shoppers/revellers and residents, and throughout the ward, City fans on
match days)
I was suggesting it is maybe better to try and manage this rather than hope it
is all right.
I was suggesting it is going to get worse, not better.
I am not aware that I have ever said we should stop those from outside the area
(other than commuters) coming in - I was impressed at a meeting of small
businesses that they play a vital role in providing a local economy for the
area, and with it services for the whole community and therefore their needs
must be catered for. (The last thing I want to do is lose my local dentist)
Can a scheme be free? Err, no. You can argue the toss over how much it costs
(and I happen to disagree that issuing 50,000 permits on bits of cardboard once
works), but you will pay for whatever the cost is - either through council tax
(ie getting the poorer areas of the city to subsidise you) or paying directly
You can argue over whether there is a problem at all. Well, that will be down
to perception and is probably a lot more complex than anyone has described.
You can argue that, given the economic climate, this is a very bad time to
introduce such a scheme, and I might well agree with you.
I posted figures on this list which showed an increase in car ownership here of
500 in 5-6 years. Do you think we have space for another 500 vehicles?
I fully intend to respect the outcome of the consultation. If the area is
against it, then so be it. I just happen to think you are ignoring the
possibilities and avoiding the problem.
Charlie Bolton
Green Party Councillor
Southville
>>> <> 07/10/08 4:58 PM >>>
Charlie
If your aim is to stop commuters or those from outside of the community area
parking in the community area, then those people are the people you should
be charging! There's no way to justify charging people who live in the area
for parking in their own area, while the people who are supposedly causing
the problem just go a bit further away and park for free. If you support RPS
as a mechanism to prevent that specific issue, then any permits to local
residents should be free and unlimited - the people who live here are doing
nothing wrong in that respect. As a government body you can ask for DVLA
data and you will know which cars are registered to local residents. You
don't need to issue paper permits or anything else that costs money to the
residents (but even if you did its just a bit of cardboard and you only need
to do it once - I could get a quote for 50,000 printed permits that wont
cost 40 quid each!). Then people who want to drive in and park from outside
the area can buy a permit to stick in their window from a local newsagent or
supermarket and this will fund itself directly. That way the people coming
in from outside the area pay to park or be deterred from driving in. And if
you want to put wardens on the street to catch non-payers then the fines
will pay for the wardens, and if they don't cover it, then you'll know it's
not really that much of a problem.
But I still think it's just scratching the surface of a much more important
issue about how we want our communities to be.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Bolton" <>
To: <>; <>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [GB-Forum] Residents Parking
> Well, you may be right.
>
> When this all started, I was a strong supporter of RPS, partly for
> environmental reasons, but partly because I thought we have to accept that
> there is a limit to the amount of space available locally, and it is
> without doubt filling up, be it by residents, businesses or by commuters.
>
> The two basic solutions are to cross your fingers and hope it will be all
> right, or manage it. I have no confidence in the 'crossing your fingers'
> approach - I see no likelihood of and end to the growth in car ownership.
>
> Managing it to me means recognising there is a limit to the amount of
> space available, and then trying best to meet the needs of those who
> want/need it. It also means controlling it and that comes at a cost.
>
> I had thought (following a meeting with an officer pre-Christmas) that
> there was no intention of setting a limit to the total number of permits
> issued. Conversely, another officer said yesterday (at a meeting with
> local small business) that you would have to set a limit. I guess it is
> undecided as yet.
>
> But to me you need a limit to the number of permits in a zone - because
> that is the guarantee that you get a space in the zone. (This would of
> course have to take into account numbers of visitors). This also means new
> developments have to become car-free (after any parking spaces provided).
>
> My personal preference would be to manage all this while there is some
> scope for maneouvre - I would like to see the street be something more
> than just a legitimised car park.
>
> Within that, I think it perfectly sensible to debate the details, be it
> hours of operation, numbers of visitors, the needs of small business or
> whatever.
>
> But, it has to have popular support. At the moment, it appears to me there
> is no great popular support, so the scheme for a time, at least , looks
> like it will be booted into touch.
>
> Well, ok, what you don't want, you don't get.
>
> But I can think of streets which are probably too narrow for emergency
> vehicles to get down. I am aware of numerous instances of dangerous
> parking on street junctions. The council could address these in isolation
> (with the will and the resources), but surely it makes sense to deal with
> them as part of a wider discussion of parking in the area? People raise a
> variety of concerns over different junctions and how good it would be to
> have this, that or the other - again - this could be the opportunity to
> address them. People ask about redundant double yellow lines, old disabled
> parking bays, 20mph zones - all opportunities which could be addressed.
>
> This may well be the wrong time to attempt RPS - with a recession looming.
> But I simply cannot see the problems getting any better.
>
> There you go, I didn't mention climate change once.
>
>
>
> Charlie Bolton
> Green Party Councillor
> Southville
>
>>>> "Lloyd Fletcher" <> 09/07/08 17:51 >>>
> Thanks for pointing out the data, Charlie. Very interesting!
>
> Unless I’m misreading it, the data do not support the conclusions drawn by
> the Council’s report (see the Pilot Study Summary table on page 25):
> http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=25920095
>
> In fact, I don’t see how the data gathered in the two counts can be used
> as evidence that there is a parking problem in Southville at all: there
> may well be one, as plenty of personal anecdotal suggests, but these data
> do not show that.
>
> The lack of evidence may be in part due to a big missing piece of the
> puzzle: the two counts of parking were done at midday; this does not
> produce a complete picture. What does it look like when there is no
> commuter parking, only residents (e.g., late at night)? And what does it
> look like when the two collide, e.g., during evening rush hour? The report
> says that the four areas in the study:
>
> “were largely used by commuters who took places vacated by residents and
> remained there all day so that residents/visitors struggled to find a
> parking space at certain times of day.”
>
> But none of the data substantiate this. One could only draw that
> conclusion if the amount of commuter traffic were known, including how
> many resident cars are absent from their area during the day, and how many
> are non-commuter visitors (shoppers, care workers, etc.). (A back of the
> envelope calculation suggests that the number of commuting residents would
> have to be equivalent to at least 18% of on-street parking capacity, for
> the above claim to be true. I have no idea how close that is to reality.)
>
> The data from the two counts do show this, though: the available on-street
> parking was between 64% and 82% occupied on those days. We can conclude
> from this that, during the day, there does not appear to be a problem:
> there is spare capacity at those times.
>
> But what of the evening, when residents return home by car, with commuters
> still parked? No data is given for this time of day.
>
> Interestingly, though, residents’ cars equate to 91% of all parking space
> available (including estimated off-street); it equates to 98% of on-street
> parking. So if all residents stay home, there is no more than 9% available
> for non-residents. (I’m combining the numbers from the four study areas
> here; some are worse of than others.)
>
> So, residents’ cars do account for a large proportion of the parking
> demand. We’re not told what demand commuters place, even though this is
> key.
>
> Actually, the situation is much worse than this: the figures above are
> based on 2001 car ownership numbers for the area. In Southville as a
> whole, car ownership grew by 14% between 2001 and 2006. Extrapolating that
> for the study areas, residents’ cars would equate to 103% of the total
> capacity in 2006, and 111% of the on-street capacity. In other words, even
> with no commuters or other visitors, there is not enough parking to
> accommodate residents. This would obviously explain why some people cannot
> park in their immediate neighbourhood. And no doubt many of you will tell
> me that it wasn’t necessary to look at the data to conclude this! :)
>
> You don’t need to add too many commuters or visitors to this equation to
> create a real problem: demand from residents already exceeds capacity.
>
> So, how would the deterrent effect of the RPZ on commuters help with this
> problem? It doesn’t look like it would have much impact, as the bulk of
> the problem is caused by residents’ car parking demand exceeding capacity.
> To improve matters, residents would need to own fewer cars.
>
> Another interesting fact from the pilot study, which seems be a bit
> worrying: the proposed parking capacity after the RPZ is more than 100 car
> spaces less than currently *reducing on-street capacity to 87% of its
> current level. That would surely just make the problem much worse?
>
> Again, I may have misinterpreted the data, or may not be privy to missing
> pieces of information. I’d be happy to hear from anyone who sees the
> evidence differently. But based on this cursory analysis, the facts seem
> neither to substantiate the problem as described by the Council, nor are
> they compatible with the solution proposed.
>
> Finally, let me declare my interests here: I have no axe to grind, no
> agenda to push, not personal stake in the outcome of the RPZ in Southville
> (I live in Spike Island, and am lucky enough to have off-street parking *
> I only encounter parking issues south of the river when visiting friends
> or school; and my personal experience is that evenings, weekends and City
> home games make for the worst problems). I’m simply interested in this as
> an objective observer who hopes that a rational, evidence-based decision
> is made, whatever the outcome.
>
>
> --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/4aftBtX43By68s3kwgWVqw
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to:
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to:
>
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 'Do it online' with our growing range of online services -
> http://www.bristol.gov.uk/services
>
> Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event
> information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect
>
> View webcasts of Council meetings at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/webcast
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 'Do it online' with our growing range of online services -
> http://www.bristol.gov.uk/services
>
> Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event
> information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect
>
> View webcasts of Council meetings at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/webcast
>
> charles bolton
> Southville, Bristol
> Info about charlie bolton: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/charliebolton
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1PVX93Nxd9nAFjJVAYA9qf
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to:
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to:
>
> 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
Marvin D
Victoria Park
Info about Marvin D: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/marvindenning
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4NbBgk13NR7pevQwfKOlTu
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to:
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
in subject line and send to:
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
______________________________________________________________________
'Do it online' with our growing range of online services -
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/services
Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event information
at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect
View webcasts of Council meetings at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/webcast
______________________________________________________________________
'Do it online' with our growing range of online services -
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/services
Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event information
at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect
View webcasts of Council meetings at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/webcast
Residents Parking
From:
Stephanie Wardle
Date:
Jul 11 11:34 UTC
Short link
Whoops, no. Failed. Thanks for that, Adam.
I'm a bit concerned that you appear think I am just mindlessly following the
'most popular/longest standing' perspective of this withouthavinglooked at the
impartial evidence;apologies if I gave that impression. I have read a great
many scientific articles and papers, and plenty of books, including materials
arguing that global warming is a myth. Unfortunately it's pretty clear to me
that the 'we're all fine and the Earth is just hunky-doryif a bit
rubbish-strewn' theory is spurious. I don't know quite why this makes me
'naive' but if I am being so, then please enlighten me. I am open to new ideas
and prepared to embrace the right idea, if it's right! Though I quite like to
think for myself too. And can't help being a bit annoyed that we're crapping in
our own nest.
I'm not sure why it follows that ' the most popular opinion makes so much money
for the media, governments, private businesses and energy companies'.
Environmentally sustainable thinking still seems pretty bloody unpopular to me,
judging by societal mores and media obsessions ... the private energy companies
certainly won't be making much money when we've all run out of fossil fuels and
starved to death because food crops will have been superseded by oil-palms and
their like the world over, so that we can get to that betting shop all the
quicker.
the trouble is, the media/govt et all are all squawking away, but the only way
anything will really get changed is if individuals change their behaviour and
we reach a tipping point. Grand ideas will only remain so. We still live like
kings, even the low-waged (that'd be me.)
We can live perfectly well with a bit of consideration for the planet too. But
we won't. We like to 'upgrade' our posessions too much for that.
Bring back the barter economy. (g)
All the best,
Steph
--- On Fri, 11/7/08, Adam Foster-Fahy <> wrote:
From: Adam Foster-Fahy <>
Subject: Re: [GB-Forum] Residents Parking
To:
Date: Friday, 11 July, 2008, 12:11 PM
Hey Steph,
Just checking -- did you intend to send that to me as a private email? It won't
be shared on the forum.
As you say, the science is out there. For both sides of the argument. Picking
which side to support based purely on whether it's the most popular or has been
around longer without giving equal consideration to opposing viewpoints is very
unscientific and maybe a little naive.
Especially when the most popular opinion makes so much money for the media,
governments, private businesses and energy companies. There might be a reason
other than overwhelming scientific consensus that you only ever hear the same
story day after day . . .
Nice to hear from you,
Adam
2008/7/11 stephanie wardle <>:
Adam.
I have been aware of the scientific evidence since I was a teenager in the
1980s, well before even 'enlightened' policicians got on the greenwashing
bandwagon. (not that there are any enlightened politicians.)
Just because politicians- slippery beasts indeed- got on the case of late(not
that they have, they've just made bleating noises and done nothing concrete,
they're even likely now to renege on the one enlightened policy they might have
installed- that of high taxes for ultra-toxic cars) does not mean somehow
global warming is not happening and it's all a big lie. As I said before, it
would be brilliant if it was a massive hoax. We could have children
qualm-free.Unfortunately the scientific evidence is overwhelming, and the
politicians- the few that could actually DO something, are wringing their hands
and wittering on about 'eco-towns' and 'possible reductions in CO2 by 2050-
ooh, that'll sort us out!
They can't even be bothered to tax placcy bags, for crying out loud. The
majority of the public don't give a monkeys/believe in climate change anyway.
We seem to be too interested in consumingever morethrowaway crapand inbuilding
shiny new roads/carsso we cancut our journey timesto the carphone
warehouse/toys r us by 30 seconds . And then moaning about having to have to
separate our rubbish (oh, the suffering and hardship!) Our society patently
does not have any intention of voluntarily giving up any of the plasticshort
term 'privileges' it curently holds. We live like Kings. How will our
grandchildren live? if we get that far.
Please do not for a moment think I am some sort of polician's dupe.The science
is out there.
Steph
(who Votes Nobody)
--- On Thu, 10/7/08, Adam Foster-Fahy <> wrote:
From: Adam Foster-Fahy <>
Subject: Re: [GB-Forum] Residents Parking
To: "Greater Bedminster Neighbourhood Forum"
<>
Date: Thursday, 10 July, 2008, 1:45 PM
"I really, really wish that global warming is a myth. Wouldn't it be
brilliant!
We wouldn't be facing the imminent extinction of our species, which
willhave
been acheivedin thename of convenient consumerism.alas, it's All Too
Evident.
Even the Cretin Bush has faced up to it- to a certain extent."
You shouldnt judge a scientific matter on whether or not a politician endorses
it. These slippery devils are motivated by public opinion and self
preservation. They will not be following the scientific veracity of any issues,
but the public opinion and opinion poll ratings of an issue with their sole
interest in keeping themselves in power. And just because the majority of the
public believes something doesnt make it true. An argumentum ad populum is
still a logical fallacy whether it gets you re-elected or not.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4328210425755723540&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle&ei=Tf91SK7lC5CUjgKRje2CCw&hl=en
Adam Foster-Fahy
Info about Adam Foster-Fahy:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/7bkIe0wFx3YPqUH5kN0dcv
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5OUxOVYUl3GxqviDnbrcxa
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to:
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest
on,"
in subject line and send to:
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
Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at
Yahoo!
__________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at
Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
LABGI Funding - any ideas?
From:
Emma Winfield
Date:
Jul 10 20:19 UTC
Short link
Does anyone know anything about LABGI (Local Authority Business Growth
Initiative) funding? Seems Bristol just got over £4.6m in phase 3 but the
only information on the Local Government site I can find simply says:
"The purpose of the grant is to provide support towards expenditure lawfully
incurred or to be incurred by a local authority."
Does anyone know if, as a new local business, there is anything about LABGI
that is relevant to us?
Residents Parking
From:
Lloyd Fletcher
Date:
Jul 10 20:13 UTC
Short link
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.
Residents Parking
From:
Marvin D
Date:
Jul 10 15:58 UTC
Short link
Charlie
If your aim is to stop commuters or those from outside of the community area
parking in the community area, then those people are the people you should
be charging! There's no way to justify charging people who live in the area
for parking in their own area, while the people who are supposedly causing
the problem just go a bit further away and park for free. If you support RPS
as a mechanism to prevent that specific issue, then any permits to local
residents should be free and unlimited - the people who live here are doing
nothing wrong in that respect. As a government body you can ask for DVLA
data and you will know which cars are registered to local residents. You
don't need to issue paper permits or anything else that costs money to the
residents (but even if you did its just a bit of cardboard and you only need
to do it once - I could get a quote for 50,000 printed permits that wont
cost 40 quid each!). Then people who want to drive in and park from outside
the area can buy a permit to stick in their window from a local newsagent or
supermarket and this will fund itself directly. That way the people coming
in from outside the area pay to park or be deterred from driving in. And if
you want to put wardens on the street to catch non-payers then the fines
will pay for the wardens, and if they don't cover it, then you'll know it's
not really that much of a problem.
But I still think it's just scratching the surface of a much more important
issue about how we want our communities to be.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Bolton" <>
To: <>; <>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [GB-Forum] Residents Parking
> Well, you may be right.
>
> When this all started, I was a strong supporter of RPS, partly for
> environmental reasons, but partly because I thought we have to accept that
> there is a limit to the amount of space available locally, and it is
> without doubt filling up, be it by residents, businesses or by commuters.
>
> The two basic solutions are to cross your fingers and hope it will be all
> right, or manage it. I have no confidence in the 'crossing your fingers'
> approach - I see no likelihood of and end to the growth in car ownership.
>
> Managing it to me means recognising there is a limit to the amount of
> space available, and then trying best to meet the needs of those who
> want/need it. It also means controlling it and that comes at a cost.
>
> I had thought (following a meeting with an officer pre-Christmas) that
> there was no intention of setting a limit to the total number of permits
> issued. Conversely, another officer said yesterday (at a meeting with
> local small business) that you would have to set a limit. I guess it is
> undecided as yet.
>
> But to me you need a limit to the number of permits in a zone - because
> that is the guarantee that you get a space in the zone. (This would of
> course have to take into account numbers of visitors). This also means new
> developments have to become car-free (after any parking spaces provided).
>
> My personal preference would be to manage all this while there is some
> scope for maneouvre - I would like to see the street be something more
> than just a legitimised car park.
>
> Within that, I think it perfectly sensible to debate the details, be it
> hours of operation, numbers of visitors, the needs of small business or
> whatever.
>
> But, it has to have popular support. At the moment, it appears to me there
> is no great popular support, so the scheme for a time, at least , looks
> like it will be booted into touch.
>
> Well, ok, what you don't want, you don't get.
>
> But I can think of streets which are probably too narrow for emergency
> vehicles to get down. I am aware of numerous instances of dangerous
> parking on street junctions. The council could address these in isolation
> (with the will and the resources), but surely it makes sense to deal with
> them as part of a wider discussion of parking in the area? People raise a
> variety of concerns over different junctions and how good it would be to
> have this, that or the other - again - this could be the opportunity to
> address them. People ask about redundant double yellow lines, old disabled
> parking bays, 20mph zones - all opportunities which could be addressed.
>
> This may well be the wrong time to attempt RPS - with a recession looming.
> But I simply cannot see the problems getting any better.
>
> There you go, I didn't mention climate change once.
>
>
>
> Charlie Bolton
> Green Party Councillor
> Southville
>
>>>> "Lloyd Fletcher" <> 09/07/08 17:51 >>>
> Thanks for pointing out the data, Charlie. Very interesting!
>
> Unless I’m misreading it, the data do not support the conclusions drawn by
> the Council’s report (see the Pilot Study Summary table on page 25):
> http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=25920095
>
> In fact, I don’t see how the data gathered in the two counts can be used
> as evidence that there is a parking problem in Southville at all: there
> may well be one, as plenty of personal anecdotal suggests, but these data
> do not show that.
>
> The lack of evidence may be in part due to a big missing piece of the
> puzzle: the two counts of parking were done at midday; this does not
> produce a complete picture. What does it look like when there is no
> commuter parking, only residents (e.g., late at night)? And what does it
> look like when the two collide, e.g., during evening rush hour? The report
> says that the four areas in the study:
>
> “were largely used by commuters who took places vacated by residents and
> remained there all day so that residents/visitors struggled to find a
> parking space at certain times of day.”
>
> But none of the data substantiate this. One could only draw that
> conclusion if the amount of commuter traffic were known, including how
> many resident cars are absent from their area during the day, and how many
> are non-commuter visitors (shoppers, care workers, etc.). (A back of the
> envelope calculation suggests that the number of commuting residents would
> have to be equivalent to at least 18% of on-street parking capacity, for
> the above claim to be true. I have no idea how close that is to reality.)
>
> The data from the two counts do show this, though: the available on-street
> parking was between 64% and 82% occupied on those days. We can conclude
> from this that, during the day, there does not appear to be a problem:
> there is spare capacity at those times.
>
> But what of the evening, when residents return home by car, with commuters
> still parked? No data is given for this time of day.
>
> Interestingly, though, residents’ cars equate to 91% of all parking space
> available (including estimated off-street); it equates to 98% of on-street
> parking. So if all residents stay home, there is no more than 9% available
> for non-residents. (I’m combining the numbers from the four study areas
> here; some are worse of than others.)
>
> So, residents’ cars do account for a large proportion of the parking
> demand. We’re not told what demand commuters place, even though this is
> key.
>
> Actually, the situation is much worse than this: the figures above are
> based on 2001 car ownership numbers for the area. In Southville as a
> whole, car ownership grew by 14% between 2001 and 2006. Extrapolating that
> for the study areas, residents’ cars would equate to 103% of the total
> capacity in 2006, and 111% of the on-street capacity. In other words, even
> with no commuters or other visitors, there is not enough parking to
> accommodate residents. This would obviously explain why some people cannot
> park in their immediate neighbourhood. And no doubt many of you will tell
> me that it wasn’t necessary to look at the data to conclude this! :)
>
> You don’t need to add too many commuters or visitors to this equation to
> create a real problem: demand from residents already exceeds capacity.
>
> So, how would the deterrent effect of the RPZ on commuters help with this
> problem? It doesn’t look like it would have much impact, as the bulk of
> the problem is caused by residents’ car parking demand exceeding capacity.
> To improve matters, residents would need to own fewer cars.
>
> Another interesting fact from the pilot study, which seems be a bit
> worrying: the proposed parking capacity after the RPZ is more than 100 car
> spaces less than currently –reducing on-street capacity to 87% of its
> current level. That would surely just make the problem much worse?
>
> Again, I may have misinterpreted the data, or may not be privy to missing
> pieces of information. I’d be happy to hear from anyone who sees the
> evidence differently. But based on this cursory analysis, the facts seem
> neither to substantiate the problem as described by the Council, nor are
> they compatible with the solution proposed.
>
> Finally, let me declare my interests here: I have no axe to grind, no
> agenda to push, not personal stake in the outcome of the RPZ in Southville
> (I live in Spike Island, and am lucky enough to have off-street parking –
> I only encounter parking issues south of the river when visiting friends
> or school; and my personal experience is that evenings, weekends and City
> home games make for the worst problems). I’m simply interested in this as
> an objective observer who hopes that a rational, evidence-based decision
> is made, whatever the outcome.
>
>
> --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/4aftBtX43By68s3kwgWVqw
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to:
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to:
>
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 'Do it online' with our growing range of online services -
> http://www.bristol.gov.uk/services
>
> Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event
> information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect
>
> View webcasts of Council meetings at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/webcast
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 'Do it online' with our growing range of online services -
> http://www.bristol.gov.uk/services
>
> Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event
> information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect
>
> View webcasts of Council meetings at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/webcast
>
> charles bolton
> Southville, Bristol
> Info about charlie bolton: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/charliebolton
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1PVX93Nxd9nAFjJVAYA9qf
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to:
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to:
>
> 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
Residents Parking
From:
Marvin D
Date:
Jul 10 15:40 UTC
Short link
It's true of course that you should always be sceptical of anything that
comes to you through politicians, the news, TV shows, or mates down the pub.
If you don't know something by your own direct experience, then you don't
really know it, and you should research it as thoroughly as you can. The
'state' has always and will always try to control the populace and what it
'thinks' through the media, and when things get too disagreeable, then with
guns and tanks. It's all for your own good of course...
Then again, ignoring what thousands of scientists have been going against
the grain to say over the last few decades seems rather, well, ignorant.
Predicting how our global climate and ecosystem will react to the enormous
changes we have undeniably introduced since the industrial revolution is an
incredibly complex task even for those who study it for a living. In light
of that, and the message coming through, and your own experience, it's wise
to adopt the precuationary principle. Science also tells us we are in a
brief interglacial period and that soon (geologically speaking) we will be
back into a deep freeze. It also tells us we are statistically due for a
giant meteor impact, a killer virus pandemic, an enormous volcanic eruption
in Yellowstone national park and that oil will run out within the next 20-30
years tops. They may or may not be right on all these points...
Personally, even if burning billions of barrels of fossil fuels in vehicles
and power stations wasn't causing global warming, I still think I'd prefer
fresh air and streets not choked with traffic. The unimpeded growth of car
culture is no longer doing much to improve general happiness and community
cohesion, if it ever did. However you cut it, the oil-fired internal
combustion engine's days are numbered. So instead of assuming car ownership
will just keep increasing and doing the normal predict and provide routine,
surely its time for some new ideas in forming longer-term policy? You can't
fix the car problem without fixing the reasons why people need (or think
they need) their cars so much.
At least not until the oil runs out anyway...
Residents Parking
From:
charlie bolton
Date:
Jul 10 14:55 UTC
Short link
Well, you may be right.
When this all started, I was a strong supporter of RPS, partly for
environmental reasons, but partly because I thought we have to accept that
there is a limit to the amount of space available locally, and it is without
doubt filling up, be it by residents, businesses or by commuters.
The two basic solutions are to cross your fingers and hope it will be all
right, or manage it. I have no confidence in the 'crossing your fingers'
approach - I see no likelihood of and end to the growth in car ownership.
Managing it to me means recognising there is a limit to the amount of space
available, and then trying best to meet the needs of those who want/need it. It
also means controlling it and that comes at a cost.
I had thought (following a meeting with an officer pre-Christmas) that there
was no intention of setting a limit to the total number of permits issued.
Conversely, another officer said yesterday (at a meeting with local small
business) that you would have to set a limit. I guess it is undecided as yet.
But to me you need a limit to the number of permits in a zone - because that is
the guarantee that you get a space in the zone. (This would of course have to
take into account numbers of visitors). This also means new developments have
to become car-free (after any parking spaces provided).
My personal preference would be to manage all this while there is some scope
for maneouvre - I would like to see the street be something more than just a
legitimised car park.
Within that, I think it perfectly sensible to debate the details, be it hours
of operation, numbers of visitors, the needs of small business or whatever.
But, it has to have popular support. At the moment, it appears to me there is
no great popular support, so the scheme for a time, at least , looks like it
will be booted into touch.
Well, ok, what you don't want, you don't get.
But I can think of streets which are probably too narrow for emergency vehicles
to get down. I am aware of numerous instances of dangerous parking on street
junctions. The council could address these in isolation (with the will and the
resources), but surely it makes sense to deal with them as part of a wider
discussion of parking in the area? People raise a variety of concerns over
different junctions and how good it would be to have this, that or the other -
again - this could be the opportunity to address them. People ask about
redundant double yellow lines, old disabled parking bays, 20mph zones - all
opportunities which could be addressed.
This may well be the wrong time to attempt RPS - with a recession looming. But
I simply cannot see the problems getting any better.
There you go, I didn't mention climate change once.
Charlie Bolton
Green Party Councillor
Southville
>>> "Lloyd Fletcher" <> 09/07/08 17:51 >>>
Thanks for pointing out the data, Charlie. Very interesting!
Unless I’m misreading it, the data do not support the conclusions drawn by
the Council’s report (see the Pilot Study Summary table on page 25):
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=25920095
In fact, I don’t see how the data gathered in the two counts can be used as
evidence that there is a parking problem in Southville at all: there may well
be one, as plenty of personal anecdotal suggests, but these data do not show
that.
The lack of evidence may be in part due to a big missing piece of the puzzle:
the two counts of parking were done at midday; this does not produce a complete
picture. What does it look like when there is no commuter parking, only
residents (e.g., late at night)? And what does it look like when the two
collide, e.g., during evening rush hour? The report says that the four areas in
the study:
“were largely used by commuters who took places vacated by residents and
remained there all day so that residents/visitors struggled to find a parking
space at certain times of day.”
But none of the data substantiate this. One could only draw that conclusion if
the amount of commuter traffic were known, including how many resident cars are
absent from their area during the day, and how many are non-commuter visitors
(shoppers, care workers, etc.). (A back of the envelope calculation suggests
that the number of commuting residents would have to be equivalent to at least
18% of on-street parking capacity, for the above claim to be true. I have no
idea how close that is to reality.)
The data from the two counts do show this, though: the available on-street
parking was between 64% and 82% occupied on those days. We can conclude from
this that, during the day, there does not appear to be a problem: there is
spare capacity at those times.
But what of the evening, when residents return home by car, with commuters
still parked? No data is given for this time of day.
Interestingly, though, residents’ cars equate to 91% of all parking space
available (including estimated off-street); it equates to 98% of on-street
parking. So if all residents stay home, there is no more than 9% available for
non-residents. (I’m combining the numbers from the four study areas here;
some are worse of than others.)
So, residents’ cars do account for a large proportion of the parking demand.
We’re not told what demand commuters place, even though this is key.
Actually, the situation is much worse than this: the figures above are based on
2001 car ownership numbers for the area. In Southville as a whole, car
ownership grew by 14% between 2001 and 2006. Extrapolating that for the study
areas, residents’ cars would equate to 103% of the total capacity in 2006,
and 111% of the on-street capacity. In other words, even with no commuters or
other visitors, there is not enough parking to accommodate residents. This
would obviously explain why some people cannot park in their immediate
neighbourhood. And no doubt many of you will tell me that it wasn’t necessary
to look at the data to conclude this! :)
You don’t need to add too many commuters or visitors to this equation to
create a real problem: demand from residents already exceeds capacity.
So, how would the deterrent effect of the RPZ on commuters help with this
problem? It doesn’t look like it would have much impact, as the bulk of the
problem is caused by residents’ car parking demand exceeding capacity. To
improve matters, residents would need to own fewer cars.
Another interesting fact from the pilot study, which seems be a bit worrying:
the proposed parking capacity after the RPZ is more than 100 car spaces less
than currently –reducing on-street capacity to 87% of its current level. That
would surely just make the problem much worse?
Again, I may have misinterpreted the data, or may not be privy to missing
pieces of information. I’d be happy to hear from anyone who sees the evidence
differently. But based on this cursory analysis, the facts seem neither to
substantiate the problem as described by the Council, nor are they compatible
with the solution proposed.
Finally, let me declare my interests here: I have no axe to grind, no agenda to
push, not personal stake in the outcome of the RPZ in Southville (I live in
Spike Island, and am lucky enough to have off-street parking – I only
encounter parking issues south of the river when visiting friends or school;
and my personal experience is that evenings, weekends and City home games make
for the worst problems). I’m simply interested in this as an objective
observer who hopes that a rational, evidence-based decision is made, whatever
the outcome.
Residents Parking
From:
Adam Foster-Fahy
Date:
Jul 10 12:43 UTC
Short link
"I really, really wish that global warming is a myth. Wouldn't it be brilliant!
We wouldn't be facing the imminent extinction of our species, which willhave
been acheivedin thename of convenient consumerism.alas, it's All Too Evident.
Even the Cretin Bush has faced up to it- to a certain extent."
You shouldnt judge a scientific matter on whether or not a politician endorses
it. These slippery devils are motivated by public opinion and self
preservation. They will not be following the scientific veracity of any issues,
but the public opinion and opinion poll ratings of an issue with their sole
interest in keeping themselves in power. And just because the majority of the
public believes something doesnt make it true. An argumentum ad populum is
still a logical fallacy whether it gets you re-elected or not.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4328210425755723540&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle&ei=Tf91SK7lC5CUjgKRje2CCw&hl=en
Residents Parking
From:
Stephanie Wardle
Date:
Jul 10 10:20 UTC
Short link
I really, really wish that global warming is a myth. Wouldn't it be brilliant!
We wouldn't be facing the imminent extinction of our species, which willhave
been acheivedin thename of convenient consumerism.alas, it's All Too Evident.
Even the Cretin Bush has faced up to it- to a certain extent.
If ever another species evolves with 'high' intelligence (super-roaches?)
they'll be absolutely stunned by our wretched archaeological remains. Doubt
there's evolutionary scope though, as the Sun is more than halfway through its
life cycle by now. Only 4 billion years left! we'll be leaving the planet to
the stewardship of the few insects that will survive us then. They'll be
breathing a great sigh of relief when the last of our advertising billboards
crumbles away into toxic dust, I suspect. If there is enough air left for them
to get a decent breath, that is.
Happy driving.
Steph
--- On Mon, 7/7/08, Ian Jones <> wrote:
From: Ian Jones <>
Subject: Re: [GB-Forum] Residents Parking
To: "Greater Bedminster Neighbourhood Forum"
<>
Date: Monday, 7 July, 2008, 4:36 PM
Answering one or two of Bob's 'myths':
Beauley Road may be a green and pleasant street, but have a look at the
difference in the number of cars in, for instance, Islington Road or Allington
Road during weekdays or during the evenings/weekends. Trade vans cannot now get
to Woodside Press where they could five or six years ago. And there are cars
regularly parked over the corners of Osborne Road and Allington Road, a hazard
to both pedestrians and traffic. I guess commuters don't want to walk the
extra hudred yards or so to Beauley Road. But they probably will have to when
the 500 or so cars are displaced from the NCP behind the Museum of Bristol. At
least they may get a little fitter.
And that there will not be an increase in car ownership? I think you may be a
lone voice there. People will carrying on buying cars - smaller and more fuel
efficient, but the love affair has gone on too long to give them up. And they
still need parking.
There may be better ways of managing the commuter influx, but please don't
say an assumption is wrong and then put forward an opinion as 'fact'.
Finally, on the 'man-made global warming' myth, I won't go there. I
think even George W accepts there is a link.
Try Occam's razor...
Ian Jones
Info about Ian Jones: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/ianjones
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5QGS5f9vBDLOeHErnkfk5B
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to:
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest
on,"
in subject line and send to:
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
__________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at
Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
Residents Parking
From:
Lloyd Fletcher
Date:
Jul 09 16:50 UTC
Short link
Thanks for pointing out the data, Charlie. Very interesting!
Unless I’m misreading it, the data do not support the conclusions drawn by
the Council’s report (see the Pilot Study Summary table on page 25):
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=25920095
In fact, I don’t see how the data gathered in the two counts can be used as
evidence that there is a parking problem in Southville at all: there may well
be one, as plenty of personal anecdotal suggests, but these data do not show
that.
The lack of evidence may be in part due to a big missing piece of the puzzle:
the two counts of parking were done at midday; this does not produce a complete
picture. What does it look like when there is no commuter parking, only
residents (e.g., late at night)? And what does it look like when the two
collide, e.g., during evening rush hour? The report says that the four areas in
the study:
“were largely used by commuters who took places vacated by residents and
remained there all day so that residents/visitors struggled to find a parking
space at certain times of day.”
But none of the data substantiate this. One could only draw that conclusion if
the amount of commuter traffic were known, including how many resident cars are
absent from their area during the day, and how many are non-commuter visitors
(shoppers, care workers, etc.). (A back of the envelope calculation suggests
that the number of commuting residents would have to be equivalent to at least
18% of on-street parking capacity, for the above claim to be true. I have no
idea how close that is to reality.)
The data from the two counts do show this, though: the available on-street
parking was between 64% and 82% occupied on those days. We can conclude from
this that, during the day, there does not appear to be a problem: there is
spare capacity at those times.
But what of the evening, when residents return home by car, with commuters
still parked? No data is given for this time of day.
Interestingly, though, residents’ cars equate to 91% of all parking space
available (including estimated off-street); it equates to 98% of on-street
parking. So if all residents stay home, there is no more than 9% available for
non-residents. (I’m combining the numbers from the four study areas here;
some are worse of than others.)
So, residents’ cars do account for a large proportion of the parking demand.
We’re not told what demand commuters place, even though this is key.
Actually, the situation is much worse than this: the figures above are based on
2001 car ownership numbers for the area. In Southville as a whole, car
ownership grew by 14% between 2001 and 2006. Extrapolating that for the study
areas, residents’ cars would equate to 103% of the total capacity in 2006,
and 111% of the on-street capacity. In other words, even with no commuters or
other visitors, there is not enough parking to accommodate residents. This
would obviously explain why some people cannot park in their immediate
neighbourhood. And no doubt many of you will tell me that it wasn’t necessary
to look at the data to conclude this! :)
You don’t need to add too many commuters or visitors to this equation to
create a real problem: demand from residents already exceeds capacity.
So, how would the deterrent effect of the RPZ on commuters help with this
problem? It doesn’t look like it would have much impact, as the bulk of the
problem is caused by residents’ car parking demand exceeding capacity. To
improve matters, residents would need to own fewer cars.
Another interesting fact from the pilot study, which seems be a bit worrying:
the proposed parking capacity after the RPZ is more than 100 car spaces less
than currently –reducing on-street capacity to 87% of its current level. That
would surely just make the problem much worse?
Again, I may have misinterpreted the data, or may not be privy to missing
pieces of information. I’d be happy to hear from anyone who sees the evidence
differently. But based on this cursory analysis, the facts seem neither to
substantiate the problem as described by the Council, nor are they compatible
with the solution proposed.
Finally, let me declare my interests here: I have no axe to grind, no agenda to
push, not personal stake in the outcome of the RPZ in Southville (I live in
Spike Island, and am lucky enough to have off-street parking – I only
encounter parking issues south of the river when visiting friends or school;
and my personal experience is that evenings, weekends and City home games make
for the worst problems). I’m simply interested in this as an objective
observer who hopes that a rational, evidence-based decision is made, whatever
the outcome.
Global Xchange
From:
Jess Wright
Date:
Jul 09 15:53 UTC
Short link
Hi all,
I have been asked if there are any community members/groups who may be
interested in taking part in this years Global Xchange with the Philippines,
below is a brief outline of the project, for more info please contact David
Whittaker.
Best wishes, Jess
Global Xchange is coming back to Bristol
Do you want to be part of a unique cultural & educational experience? Could
your organisation use two volunteers? Do you have a spare room in your house
that two volunteers could share?
After two previously successful community development exchanges in 2005 & 6,
this winter Bristol will host a team of young volunteers (18-25) from around
the UK and the Philippines. The theme of the exchange is ‘peace and
development,’ so in Iligan in the Philippines the team will address its
history of Christian-Muslim conflict through rebuilding peace and peoples’
livelihoods. In Bristol, we’ll work with all our religious and cultural
communities on such as education, social justice and health, from December to
February – and live with ordinary local people in their homes, so everyone
has a richer experience. We’re especially keen for volunteers to work with
organisations and live with families in South and East Bristol. A weekly
allowance is paid to homes, and support provided throughout. Contact David
Whittaker, Programme Supervisor: (07968 691664).
www.globalxchange.org.uk
Residents Parking
From:
charlie bolton
Date:
Jul 08 15:56 UTC
Short link
The original council report is here - it gives details of charges in other
schemes
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=25920095
Page 25 of the report gives some information on space/no's of vehicles on
Stackpool Road, Coronation Road and Hamilton Road. The report also gives info
re other council schemes
Local car ownership
I asked the council if they had figures on car ownership locally, and this is
the response:
'Dear Cllr Bolton,
In response to your request, we hold the following information provided by the
Department for Transport.
Private car registrations at addresses in Southville Ward (number of vehicles
registered):
2001 - 3,800
2002 - 3,835
2003 - 3,949
2004 - 4,039
2005 - 4,219
2006 - 4,313
2007 data is currently being sought. When last investigated we were told it
would be available in June or July.
Hope that is what you were seeking. Please contact me again if you have any
further queries.'
I don't think they can break figures down further than this.
National statistics from
http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/190425/220778/trends2007a.pdf
UK vehicle registrations
The number of licensed vehicles increased by 74 per cent between 1980 and
2006, from 19.2 to 33.4 million. The rise has been steady throughout this time,
apart from a brief period of stability between 1989 and 1991.
Changes in the vehicle taxation system make precise comparisons over the last
twenty years difficult. However, almost all of the overall increase is
accounted for by the 82 per cent increase in vehicles in the 'private and light
goods' tax class between 1980 and 2006. The number of motorcycles fell by 20
per cent and buses by 3 per cent. The number of goods vehicles fell by 12 per
cent.
Growth in car ownership by household, 1961-1998
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/xsdataset.asp?More=Y&vlnk=1459&All=Y&B2.x=52&B2.y=14
shows a rise from 31% to 72% use of one or more cars from 1961 to 1998.
Interestingly enough, households with one car have remained fairly static at
44-45% since 1974. In the same time period, houses with 2 or more cars have
risen from 6% to 28%
Obviously this is a national statistic
Charlie Bolton
Green Party Councillor
Southville
>>> "Lloyd Fletcher" <> 08/07/08 13:30 >>>
There is plenty of opinion and anecdotal evidence knocking about here, and no
doubt some of it is valid. But unless the Council can do better than this --
i.e., present some objective evidence based on statistically significant data,
gathered systematically, it looks like no one has a firm grasp of what the
"problem" really is, let alone how it varies throughout the area.
Unless there's a consensus on the nature of the problem and its causes (e.g.,
commuters vs. residents), there is little chance of an effective solution being
designed. I'm not sure how anyone could be in a position to decide whether a
parking fee is a good idea as an area-wide solution or not, other than based on
their own, very local and personal experiences and assumptions.
For me, in the absence of a coherent, scientific description of the situation,
my response will be: don't do anything until you've figured out what the
problems actually is!
--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/3kBaGcYozN3wTbzPCd6PMO
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to:
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
in subject line and send to:
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
______________________________________________________________________
'Do it online' with our growing range of online services -
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/services
Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event information
at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect
View webcasts of Council meetings at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/webcast
______________________________________________________________________
'Do it online' with our growing range of online services -
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/services
Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event information
at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect
View webcasts of Council meetings at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/webcast
Residents Parking
From:
Marvin D
Date:
Jul 08 15:54 UTC
Short link
Every street has a different scenario in terms of whether there is commuter
pressure, school run pressure, trade vehicle pressure, lots of flats and
single car owners, public transport provision, etc. So there is no single
problem common to the 'doughnut around the centre' when you look at it
street by street. Charlie Bolton asks: "would you pay to have a better
chance of parking near your home? If so, how much?" So the first question
then, with reference to comments about statistical evidence, is how much of
a better chance are you offering? 0.5%? 2%? 10%? To which residents, and
based on what evidence?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lloyd Fletcher" <>
To: "Greater Bedminster Neighbourhood Forum"
<>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [GB-Forum] Residents Parking
> There is plenty of opinion and anecdotal evidence knocking about here, and
> no doubt some of it is valid. But unless the Council can do better than
> this -- i.e., present some objective evidence based on statistically
> significant data, gathered systematically, it looks like no one has a firm
> grasp of what the "problem" really is, let alone how it varies throughout
> the area.
>
> Unless there's a consensus on the nature of the problem and its causes
> (e.g., commuters vs. residents), there is little chance of an effective
> solution being designed. I'm not sure how anyone could be in a position to
> decide whether a parking fee is a good idea as an area-wide solution or
> not, other than based on their own, very local and personal experiences
> and assumptions.
>
> For me, in the absence of a coherent, scientific description of the
> situation, my response will be: don't do anything until you've figured out
> what the problems actually is!
>
>
> --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/3kBaGcYozN3wTbzPCd6PMO
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to:
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to:
>
> 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