Thursday, 13 November 2008

Time to Pay to Park

The first nail in the coffin of "free" (i.e. subsidised) parking has been driven in with the publication of this summary of the results of the survey of support for Resident's Parking Schemes (RPS) carried out this summer. The map below (click on it to show full width) appeared on Bristol Dave's blog last Sunday morning but has only just been picked up by more, er, mainstream bloggers like Bristol Traffic (later edit - the post on Bristol Dave's blog has disappeared). It looks like it might be a leak since I've not noticed it appearing on any official sites. It's obviously hot stuff so I thought I'd better get in on the act too.

The survey results are amalgamated on the basis of Lower Layer Super Output Areas, or LSOAs. These are small subdivisions of Wards with equal populations designed to give a more area specific presentation of data (e.g. census results). Some of these LSOAs are rather odd shapes (e.g. the LSOA that embraces the Floating harbour which shows up as two red blobs at opposite ends joined by an umbilical chord along Cumberland road). Of course the data could be presented based on differently defined areas, including areas contrived to maximise support for RPSs, which would be the logical thing to do.

So how to interpret the figures. The basic pattern is that support for RPS is strongest on the margins of the existing CPZ and weakens as you move out, which is what everyone expected. But there are anomalies. Why for example is support so weak (less than 30%) in Southville, even just to the west of Goal Ferry Bridge? Why that pocket of quite high support (50%) in Redland? And is there really so little support in Barton Hill to justify a 0.0% score?

It looks like Kingsdown might be a candidate for a pilot project and the area of St Paul's nearest Carboot Circus, and perhaps the area of St Jude's to the east. St Jude's is interesting in that the overall figure for the LSOA is 50% but the LSOA extends right down through St Philips so the north western corner is where support for RPS will be strongest. Also the areas around Jacobs Wells Road and south of Redcliffe Parade show strong support, but some of these will be covered by the proposed extension of the CPZ..

But of course it's not that simple, since the creation of RPSs will tend to shift parking into adjacent areas, exacerbating their parking problems. So should areas adjacent to the chosen pilot project areas be asked again if they want to be included? And if they do, what about the areas adjacent to them? In this way RPS will spread, especially as people realise what incredibly good value it is to pay just £40 a year for spaces worth near £1,000!


elizabeth said...

The most striking thing about this map is that it does not include the residents who live in the existing CPZ. If they have a view on whether they should be living in an RPZ rather than a CPZ, then that should have been be shown. Why wasn't it? Or didn't they take part in the consultation?

SP said...

Southville had a pretty strong 'No' campaign that people sat up and listened to.

These results are meaningless, as the consultation was a shambles. I know plenty of people like myself who voted 'No' but are actually in favour of some kind of RPS. If the council hadn't proposed a 24/7 system in the way that they did the results would be far far different.

Weekdays only, 2 hours in the morning, commuter parking problem solved.

SP said...

Having said that the 'consultation' did have different degrees of 'no', or rather 'yes'.

I wonder what stats we're looking at?

Chris Hutt said...

As I understand it the object of the first round of consultations was to determine where support was strongest on the basis of what some might think quite a draconian regime.

That gives them some idea of how much they need to moderate the proposals in any particular area in order to secure a clear majority in favour in subsequent consultations.

Clearly they'd have their work cut out in Southville so I expect they'll leave that area and focus on Clifton, Kingsdown and St Pauls. Is that the result you wanted?

The recession may ease the pressure for a year or two, but ultimately the pressure on areas like Southville is going to grow, especially as other RPSs come on stream. Then Southvillians may regret not being in the first wave of RPS.

Anonymous said...

I did wonder about a 10-12 rps. It struck me that regular commuters ie people not there between 10 and 12 wouldn't actually need a permit.

SSO, obscurely - it might discriminate against those who own cars, but leave them at home during th week

Whether or not they would take the chance is quite another thing.

Chris Hutt said...

A rather cryptic message, that. First, what's SSO? And by 10-12 I presume you mean parking restraint applies 10 am to noon, but that would stop commuters, wouldn't it?

Anonymouser said...

Anonymous said...

what are these percentages of? Total population in the area or respondents to the consultation?

If the latter, then response rates were about 30%, which means about 15-20% of people in the areas labeled "in favour" actually are.

Chris Hutt said...

They must be percentages of respondents, not population. It's like voting in elections - if you don't vote you don't get counted.

The point is that they've just about got enough support in a few areas to go ahead with a pilot project or two.

Anonymous said...

Can't believe Barmy Britain?
Land of Car-nage!


Chris Hutt said...

The map was originally posted by Bristol Dave but has since been pulled. However other bloggers had the foresight to copy it and have hosted the image elsewhere.

Here's Dave's post to explain what happened -

"Avid" readers of the blog may notice a few posts missing. Don't worry, there's no major conspiracy, it's just one of the chain of 2 or 3 people that passed on the information got "cold feet", wasn't sure if the information should be published, and asked for it to be removed. Concience? Who knows."

"Anyway, out of respect to her, I have done so - though I'm not sure the information is really very sensitive and I'm confident Bristol City Council would of course have told us eventually. Fear not readers, I will be replacing the content with quality bile ASAP."

So does he say "her" without thinking, so narrowing the field of suspicion, or is it a deliberate ruse to throw suspicion elsewhere (because it was a 'he') or is it a double bluff?

Anonymous said...

it's just one of the chain of 2 or 3 people that passed on the information got "cold feet", wasn't sure if the information should be published, and asked for it to be removed. Concience?(sic) Who knows."

What - like you and the information about the Squarepeg tree survey which you fed 'green lung', then retracted, telling him to check his facts ?

Hypocrite twat