----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Bolton" <<email obscured>>
To: <<email obscured>>; <<email obscured>>
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" <<email obscured>> 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: <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
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> '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: <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
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: <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
______________________________________________________________________
'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