Residents' Parking - A Way Forward?

Bristol City Council's proposals to introduce Residents Parking Schemes in Kingsdown and Cliftonwood have suffered a setback with a largely negative public response,  based on an admittedly  poor response rate, to the latest round of consultations. In Cliftonwood 57% of those responding were opposed and in Kingsdown 47% were opposed compared to 45% in favour. Only the area of Kingsdown south of Cotham Road showed a tiny majority (46.1% to 45.5%) in favour of the RPS.


Typical footway blocking in the area south of Queen's Road, Clifton - P120NRL.

It's hard to see how the Council can continue with the schemes in the face of such a response. Even the majority in the smaller Kingsdown Zone is wafer thin and hardly a solid base for proceeding. The council will decide how to proceed at its Cabinet meeting on March 25th, but is expected to delegate the decision on the Kingsdown scheme to David Bishop, the Strategic Director of City Development, which sounds to me like an attempt by the politicians to distance themselves from what will inevitably be a controversial decision whichever way it goes.

It seems clear that the Cliftonwood and north-of-Cotham Road areas will not now proceed which will leave the very obvious problems (pictured) largely unresolved. So is there perhaps a way forward that somehow reconciles the opposing factions? Back in January of last year I floated an idea which could do that, so it is perhaps time to resurrect it. The essence of my approach is to let people decide whether to be part of a Residents' Parking Scheme (RPS) on an individual basis. What could be more democratic than that?



To give a practical example supposing in a particular street there were 50% of households who wanted to opt in to an RPS, why not allocate 50% of the available parking spaces to the scheme and allow the remainder to remain uncontrolled?  Nobody need be forced in to an RPS they don't agree with. Those households who choose to remain out of the RPS will continue to compete for the remaining uncontrolled spaces as at present. The costs of setting up and managing the schemes would be borne solely by those opting in.

Such an approach could develop incrementally with people opting in or out whenever they like, subject to changes to the street markings. It need not be limited to narrowly defined areas either. In theory anyone, anywhere in Bristol could apply for an RPS in their street, even if they were the only one interested. One space could be allocated to the one member of the scheme who would pay the costs. Simple enough? Well not quite so simple in practice of course but no more complicated than the present scheme.

Parking - the Burning Issue

Last Sunday I described the current Residents' Parking Scheme as divisive in that opposing views within communities were becoming polarised with competing websites and leafleting, but I hadn't realised quite how far things have already deteriorated. At last night's Council 'call-in' meeting one of the pro-RPS campaigners reported that serious threats have been made via email, specifically to set fire to her car and house.

The email said "hope you have a fire proof letterbox" and warned her she also faced having excrement posted through her door. The recipient, criminal lawyer Suzanne Gardner, said "I had an e-mail from what turned out to be a fake name, saying our car might be burned, and that this person and several others wanted to come to set fire to our house, so they hope we have a fireproof letter box".



All this in relatively well-heeled Cliftonwood. What will happen when RPS is rolled out into less middle class areas where people are less inclined to vent their anger through such literary media as emails? I think this underlines the point I made in my previous post - that we urgently need to develop a less confrontational way of progressing the Controlled Parking Zones that are essential to cope the excess of demand over supply when it comes to inner city parking spaces.

My suggestion remains that people should have the choice of opting in or out on an individual household basis. This would do much to reduce, although not entirely eliminate, the sense of RPS being imposed on unwilling residents. Anyone who didn't like it would simply remain out of the RPS scheme and continue to compete for those parking spaces that remained uncontrolled, which would be whatever was left over after enough spaces had been brought within the RPS to meet the basic (one car per household?) needs of those who have opted in.



Of course in practice everyone would realise, sooner or later, that opting in to RPS is hugely advantageous and the cost, at least the £30 for the first car, purely nominal. Even a household with 2 cars will only pay £55 per car which is a tiny fraction of the value of such parking spaces. So the net effect will be that RPS will be accepted more readily in the first place and spread more rapidly, but on an entirely voluntary basis.

One critic of my proposal said that it would result in more motorists cruising around looking for the remaining uncontrolled spaces, which is true if there were significant numbers of uncontrolled spaces remaining . But I believe that in practice virtually everyone would opt in once they saw the disastrous consequences of remaining out of RPS, so there would be few if any uncontrolled spaces. The more rapid spread of RPS beyond the pilot areas would result in less 'cruising' for parking spaces overall.

Pics - Pavement parking courtesy of Ambra Vale residents.