cpz

Kingsdown Residents Parking Scheme

Submitted by JMB on Sat 24/Jul/2010

It even has its own logo:

1323

After the recent rubber-stamp, by the Bristol Council Cabinet, here are the grim details of the new Residents Parking Scheme. Notably absent from all the documention: the word “Pilot”.

KingsdownResidentsParkingScheme

The first permit for each household will cost £30 per annum; the second permit will cost £80 per annum. In exceptional cases where a third permit is issued, it will cost £200 per annum.

That’s equivalent to a 7% rise in council tax for a Band D property with two cars, or 4% for a single-mum in a Band A property with one old banger. But if she spends £14,000 on a brand new “low carbon, high smug” Polo, she’s quids in.

  • Each household (as defined in 1.1) can apply for up to 100 visitors’ permits per annum.
  • Each visitors’ permit will be valid for one day.
  • The first 50 permits will be issued free of charge; subsequent permits will cost £1 each.

The mickey-mouse financial analysis (see Appendix 5) from the council suggests that two-thirds of the running costs will be derived from income other than selling permits. And all of the first 5 years surplus will be used to cover the up-front capital costs (although inflation and the time-value of money don’t rate a mention).

Now I can’t work out how the Parking Services team have arrived at a break-even figure over 5 years, so my official view is that this scheme is “unsustainable” as the bureaucrats say, and exists only as a means to an end; to expand parking control over the rest of Cotham, Redland and Clifton in vainglorious pursuit of the mythical car-free city, so beloved of middle-class policy wonks (apart from me).

Business Permits

Bristol City Council continues to build on its reputation as a great place to do business by placing the following constraints on businesses operating in the zone:

  • 1.1.Businesses located in the defined Residents’ Parking Scheme area can apply for a business permit.
  • 1.2.These permits will only be issued for a vehicle essential to the operation of a business during the course of the working day. Permits will not be issued to vehicles used for commuting to or from work.
  • 1.3.Each business can apply for one business permit at a cost of £100 per annum.
  • 1.4.A business permit will not be issued if the business has access to off-street parking of any kind.
  • 1.5.The applicant will need to provide proof of their business address and a declaration of the use of the vehicle for and in the course of business. A copy of insurance documentation showing that the vehicle is insured for business purposes will also be required.
  • 1.6.The applicant must supply the vehicle registration document (V5). If the document is not in the applicant’s name then the applicant must also supply a signed letter from the registered keeper confirming that they are authorised to use the vehicle. If the vehicle is a leased vehicle, then an official letter from the leasing company stating that the vehicle is leased to the applicant’s employer must also be supplied.
  • 1.7 Credit will only be given if the applicant is aged over 75 and accompanied by both parents.

One of those is a joke. See if you can guess which one.

20’s plenty, I suppose

Submitted by JMB on Mon 18/May/2009

One of the more alliterative consonant campaigns floating about Bristol at the moment is the “20’s plenty” proposal to change the default speed limit for residential roads to twenty miles per hour (a curse upon thee, metric system!).

20Zone

The arguments for this cover quite a lot of territory; it potentially improves safety for pedestrians and non-motorised traffic, changes driver psychology and perhaps even improves traffic flow. I imagine the Greens see it as a useful assault on the wickedness of personal mobility, and that the Lib Dems & Labour are probably in favour if you’re in favour, and against it if you’re against it.

I’ve been reading up on the subject, and there are many aspects of the “20’s plenty” approach that are questionable. I don’t think it is a panacea for all transport problems nor am I convinced that any tinkering with speed limits achieves much without human patrols to enforce those limits; and you could induce the same change in driver behaviour by repealing laws that compel the use of seat belts. (see John Adams’ blog about risk transfer).

But…

Politics is about the art of the possible, and compromise, so if I were sitting on the Council I would definitely support a “20’s plenty” proposal, as long as it was packaged up with a few other changes to local transport policy.

So what’s in the package?

Operating Principles for an Urban Transport policy

First of all, let’s define some operating principles. I propose that the Council’s approach to regulating transport in Bristol should:

  1. Support the personal transportation choices of the populace.
  2. Offer a reasonable trade-off between throughput and safety for all road users.
  3. Support the aspirations of entrepreneurs to offer new transportation services to the city.
  4. Support the business of local traders by providing low-cost or free parking close to retail hubs and commercial streets.
  5. Reduce the amount of taxpayers’ money spent on road infrastructure and associated services.

I imagine some readers may already be spitting blood at my failure to include “carbon footprints” or “modal shifts” or any of that nonsense, but very little of that is particularly relevant to local policy'; it’s mostly about gestures. And different people have different appetites for risk, so the acceptable trade-offs between throughput and safety is probably a point of contention.

That’s the strategy bit done. So what are the tactical interventions? I’ll offer the list today, with a bit of extra commentary if anyone thinks this is interesting.

To-Do list for Bristol:

  1. Adopt a 20mph speed limit on all residential roads.
  2. Increase uniformed single-person foot and bicycle patrols by sworn officers of the Police to encourage speed limit compliance.
  3. Identify the (major) urban trunks, and minimise the use of traffic signals and controls on these routes.
  4. Adopt green-wave sequencing for traffic signals on urban trunks where it can be proven to increase throughput for motorised traffic, and incentivise “time-shifting” of journeys by only operating traffic signals on urban trunks at peak hours. At all other times, set the lights to flashing amber (i.e. take care).
  5. Create flat or low-gradient cycle routes that are physically separated from major urban trunks.
  6. Scrap pay-and-display parking charges in commercial districts (but retain short-term status), and where possible adopt diagonal parking bays to increase capacity and support local shop keepers.
  7. Remove all bus-lanes, cycle boxes and other regulatory paraphernalia on urban trunks, along with all complex curbs, chicanes, traffic islands and faux art installations in residential areas (i.e. dismantle Micklewright’s folly)
  8. Scrap all plans for Controlled Parking Zones in residential areas.
  9. Redesign curb frontage at primary and secondary schools to allow fast vehicular drop-off for parents delivering pupils, and allow bus stops to be used as “pick-up” zones at designated times.
  10. Scrap Watchman cameras, Gatsos and other passive speed controls, and limit further investment in electronic population surveillance.

The general theme of these interventions is to move fast (motorised) traffic to the big roads and provide non-motorised traffic with peaceful routes that only touch fast traffic at controlled points. This might also promote walking to school, particularly with visible Police patrols on the streets, and further reduce motorised traffic around schools. An important point is that these measures do not punish car users. Recreational cyclists would have access to efficient routes commensurate with their level of fitness, and lycra-clad road warriors could zoom along with fast traffic and benefit from the same high throughput.

A further discussion has to take place about mass transit, in particular creating real competition for First Bus. They do operate a de facto monopoly in the city. The company does operate more passenger miles in the area than their public-sector ancestor, but they are not well-liked by customers. And they cost taxpayers £10 million a year in direct subsidy. I would create competition for First Bus by introducing a regulatory environment for Jitney carriage licensing – share taxis - by which local Hackney carriages (taxis) could sign up to operate semi-fixed routes. A few saloon cars mopping up passengers on popular bus routes would focus the First team on low prices and timekeeping. And specialist Yellow Buses for the school run would also help.

Importantly, going back to the operating principles, this set of interventions is cutting spending on infrastructure without cutting service levels. It would involve reduced manning in the parking services department, which is a major selling point or a problem depending on your point of view.

Another stump speech

If you vote for me on June 4th, this is the approach that I would wish to promote. Now maybe you’re not looking for a councillor who has ideas and offers them up for debate. If you’d prefer someone who sends you leaflets full of pictures of them 'standing pointing at potholes with a deeply wounded expression on [their] face' , then I suppose you should vote for someone else.

(kudos to Bristol East MP Kerry McCarthy for that phrase)

Hit & Run 18.11.08

Submitted by JMB on Tue 18/Nov/2008

Intentions vs. Outcomes

Local Member of Parliament (Bristol East) Kerry McCarthy has an awakening and realises that not every problem can be solved through the introduction of a bureaucratic, centrally defined political policy.

There seem to be discussions going on ahead of the Pre-Budget Report next Monday about cutting VAT to boost consumer spending and thus reflate the economy. Seems to me that the ideal solution would be to cut VAT on 'goods' but not on 'bads' - ie. on environmentally-friendly or healthy products, and also on essential items, but not on what could be termed 'useless tat'. So we'd encourage spending, but not mass consumption on a hugely wasteful scale, and achieve certain social objectives too (e.g. on obesity, fuel efficiency, etc).

But I suppose this would just end up being hugely bureaucratic, with companies falling over themselves to prove in court that cheesestrings, Poptarts and Sunny Delight are in the fact the cornerstone of a nutritious diet, and that the average household really cannot exist without Teasmades and electric carving knives and George Foreman grills.

Now as to whether you think this is really a problem that demands the attention of £217,000 per annum worth of MP, or indeed that politicians should stop poking about in people's private affairs, that's another matter entirely.

See here for more discussion of political intervention in personal food choices.

British National Party loses membership list. Internet finds it.

Oops.

Notwithstanding that the BNP peddle some rather unpleasant policies, let's not have any nonsense from the rest of the left wingers about this. Britain is still sort of, kind of, vaguely, mostly, (almost) a free country; we don't hound political opponents out of their houses and jobs and beat them with sticks; we just make tutting noises when we see them and don't invite them round for tea & biscuits.

Je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire

(And yes, first and foremost the BNP is a party of the left i.e. authoritarian National Socialists)

Residents Parking Zones

Cllr Neil Harrison makes the Lib Dem position on RPZs clear as mud:

My position (and that of the Lib Dems in general) is that we support communities that want Residents Parking Zones to improve their quality of life, but that we oppose the implementation of Zones where people don't want them.

But what if a local community wants an RPZ if everyone else has one, but would prefer that no one had one ?

Building Bridges

Green Bristol discusses whether a proposed Bus Rapid Transit route will go over the Princes St. bridge, as per recently released simulations, or whether it will go over a planned new bridge. Given the absence of any prior discussion of money in the budget for a new bridge, one wonders whether the builders have agreed to be paid in magic beans. [New annotations added to Simulation Video)

In other news, apparently we're at war with Eastasia, and we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Syndicate content