CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting

Council plans more day time parking

(11 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    Text in italics from latest Spokesworker

    http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/spwkr10.04.19.pdf

    "Edinburgh Council will soon debate Traffic Regulation Order TRO/09/76 which converts many single-yellow lines into official parking bays – this means literally hundreds of new peak-period parking spaces, detrimental to peak-period cycling conditions – and to several existing or potential bike facilities. More positively, the TRO also brings in emissions-based parking charges.

    Spokes emailed members in the controlled parking zone (CPZ) about this TRO some weeks ago, and several objected about specific cycling problems – the council will be considering these.

    However the general point remains of hundreds of new peak- period parking spaces (500?) This runs counter to the Council's 2030 Transport Vision which aims to “stabilise or decrease private car traffic year on year.” It makes it harder to reach the Council's Charter of Brussels target for 15% of all trips to be by bike by 2020, and surely it is incompatible with the LibDems council manifesto promise (they now rule the council, with the SNP) to create a “model cycle-friendly walking-friendly city.”

    Formal consultation is over, but the issue will be decided probably in early May (maybe June) by the council – i.e. by vote of councillors. If this concerns you, contact your councillors as soon as possible. Tell them what concerns you and ask if they will support you when this comes up at the Transport Committee and then at the Full Council meeting."

    Details are no longer on the Council's web site as the consultation process is over! So much for open government.

    The "STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL’S REASONS" is still (currently) visible, and explicitly states -

    "This Order has been proposed to make various changes to the parking arrangements in the city centre in response to ever increasing demands for parking"

    Looking forward to similar responses to increasing demands for cycle facilities...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    Comments to the council from Spokes

    "
    I am emailing on behalf of Spokes, the Lothian Cycle Campaign, to object to the above draft TRO.

    First, we fully endorse all the specific points made by the CTC in their email below, and would be grateful if you would consider Spokes as also supporting those points.

    Second, we strongly support many other aspects of the draft Order, such as the principle of emissions-based charging, various tightening up of loopholes, the creation of a schedule allowing for onstreet bike parking places, etc, and as such it is very disappointing to have to object to the Order.

    Clearly a great deal of thought and work has gone into preparing the Order.   As such, and in the light of the Council's formal commitment to the Charter of Brussels, it seems quite remarkable and very disappointing that the document does not appear to have been audited for its impact on cycling.  This should always be done with traffic proposals, both to seek opportunities to make cycling in the city safer and more welcoming, and also to avoid making conditions worse.

    In terms of seeking opportunities for improving conditions, an Order looking in such detail at parking rules could also have looked at the approaches to advanced stop areas in the CPZ area, which in some cases are often blocked by just one or two parking spaces.   Similarly the opportunity for introducing potentially important cycle lanes - such as an uphill lane in Market Street (even if only in peak hours) - is being lost if the Order is approved in its present state.

    In terms of not making conditions for cycling worse, the detailed examples below are all cases where conditions will be made worse for cyclists by this Order.

    Yours Sincerely
    Dave du Feu
    for Spokes
    "

    Posted 14 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    Comments to the council from CTC Lothians

    "
    Among the changes listed, we object to the following on a number of grounds:

    1 Market St (Zone 3), westbound currently double yellow, to become pay & display parking: this is a steep uphill for cyclists; the carriageway will be inappropriately narrowed, causing hazard to cyclists, and preventing possible addition of a future cycle lane.

    2 New St (Zone 3) a similar situation, again uphill for cyclists, and an undue narrowing of the carriageway.

    3 Rutland Sq (Zone 4); here, a parking bay is proposed at the very point where there emerges a pedestrian/cycle route from the EICC/Standard Life area, which crosses the West Approach Rd by a dedicated footbridge. This access point should in fact be protected for pedestrians and cyclists by a double yellow line.

    4 Manor Place (Zone 1); conversion of current double yellow to parking bays between Melville St and William St reduces road width and leaves no possibility for cycle lanes.

    5 Lauriston Place (Zone 4);  conversion of single yellow to parking bays reduces road width  on this very busy road which is also a bus route and well used by cyclists and normally quite congested. Parking on this street should be reduced, not augmented. Among the changes listed, we object to the following on a number of grounds:

    1 Market St (Zone 3), westbound currently double yellow, to become pay & display parking: this is a steep uphill for cyclists; the carriageway will be inappropriately narrowed, causing hazard to cyclists, and preventing possible addition of a future cycle lane.

    2 New St (Zone 3) a similar situation, again uphill for cyclists, and an undue narrowing of the carriageway.

    3 Rutland Sq (Zone 4); here, a parking bay is proposed at the very point where there emerges a pedestrian/cycle route from the EICC/Standard Life area, which crosses the West Approach Rd by a dedicated footbridge. This access point should in fact be protected for pedestrians and cyclists by a double yellow line.

    4 Manor Place (Zone 1); conversion of current double yellow to parking bays between Melville St and William St reduces road width and leaves no possibility for cycle lanes.

    5 Lauriston Place (Zone 4);  conversion of single yellow to parking bays reduces road width  on this very busy road which is also a bus route and well used by cyclists and normally quite congested. Parking on this street should be reduced, not augmented.

    6 Lady Lawson St, south side (Z.4); conversion of single yellow to parking bays narrows the road width (this is also a bus route, and well used by cyclists) and hinders the possibility of a future cycle contraflow, much needed for access to the Art College as well as generally.

    7 Circus Place (Z.5a); conversion of single yellow to parking bays reduces road width and creates more hazards for cyclists on a street which is uphill and cobbled.

    In general we are disappointed that the proposals do not take better account of the needs of cyclists.

    While we understand the pressures on the Council to create more parking, this is a retrograde step since it will encourage more use of the private car as against public transport or walking and cycling.

    The proposals also do not look at the possibilities for improving cycle facilities by restricting parking at key places, such as the approaches to advanced stop lines.

    In future we would like proposals such as these to be referred to the Council's cycling team at any early stage, so that problems can be sorted out, and opportunities not overlooked.

    Thank you for your attention.
    Yours etc,
    Peter Hawkins
    CTC Right-to-Ride Lothians

    "

    Posted 14 years ago #

  4. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "This Order has been proposed to make various changes to the parking arrangements in the city centre in response to ever increasing demands for parking"

    That really is an absolutely classic line. Ask and ye shall receive. As long as you're in a car.

    Anti-motorist council my foot.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  5. miggy_magic
    Member

    This has already been done on at least two stretches of Gilmore Place, one of which previously contained a marked cycle lane. It now houses 10 or more car parking spaces I'd say.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  6. LaidBack
    Member

    Proven to be a very popular parking lane...

    I always make a point of going out in middle here as I'm usually turning right at King's with one or two odd bikes in tow.

    In fact.... they should just paint the cycle lane around middle of road as it would be better there.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  7. Kim
    Member

    @Chdot 'The "STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL’S REASONS" is still (currently) visible, ...'

    Strangely it has disappeared, has anyone downloaded a copy they could make available?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  8. chdot
    Admin

    "Strangely it has disappeared, has anyone downloaded a copy they could make available?"

    WELL...

    "
    STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL’S REASONS FOR PROPOSING TO MAKE THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL (TRAFFIC REGULATION; RESTRICTIONS ON WAITING, LOADING AND UNLOADING, AND PARKING PLACES) (VARIATION NO ) ORDER 201_ - TRO/09/76

    This Order has been proposed to make various changes to the parking arrangements in the city centre in response to ever increasing demands for parking, and to simplify the Traffic Regulation Orders by which these are controlled.

    The general reasons for undertaking these changes were reported to, and approved by, the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment (TIE) Committee on 19 February 2008 (Minute and Report attached).

    Several measures which were introduced in new zones N1 to S4 when the area of parking controls was extended in 2006, and which are believed to have worked well, are to be extended to zones 1 to 8 so that the same measures apply throughout.

    1.It is considered that there is scope within parking zones 1 to 8 to replace some lengths of yellow line waiting restrictions with additional parking spaces.

    2.The conversion of a proportion of public and permit parking bays in zones 1 to 8 to shared use parking will increase flexibility, and enhance the utilisation of bays throughout the whole day, as they have done in the outer areas. The exact proposals for each street are shown on the set of plans which form part of this proposal. There are no plans for zones N1 to S4 since no on-street changes are proposed for these.

    3.The extension throughout zones 1 to 8 the central area of the facility allowing residents to buy permits which enable their visitors to park for limited periods without further payment will extend the benefits of the successful scheme which operates in zones N1 to S4.

    4.It is proposed to limit the issue of residents’ permits to a maximum of two per household in zones 1 to 8, because of the increasing pressure on permit parking bays in these zones. This limit already applies in zones N1 to S4.

    5.The reasons for proposing that charges for residents’ permits should depend on vehicle CO2emission levels (or engine size for those registered before 1 March 2001) are set out in reports which were approved by the TIE Committee on 29 July 2008 and 10 February 2009 (Minutes and Reports attached).

    6.The 1973 Traffic Order which introduced the controlled parking scheme in Edinburgh has been varied over 340 times since it was first made. Most of these changes affect only the inclusion of further locations in the Schedules, but many change the Articles, which are now overly cumbersome and repetitive. Moreover the nine outer zones are governed by a further nine Traffic Orders which are written in similar, but not identical terms. The opportunity is therefore being taken to amalgamate these ten Orders and to simplify and unify the wording.

    7.Several other Traffic Orders also have an impact on streets within the city centre. These are not to be varied at the present time, but the new structure of the re-written 1973 Order will allow these to be amalgamated also in the future.

    8.A progress report to the TIE Committee meeting on 24 November 2009 (attached) gave more details of minor changes to be incorporated in the revision.
    05/02/1009/76: Statement of ReasonsPage 1 of 1
    "

    Posted 14 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Thank you for your enquiry in relation to the report for TRO/09/76 regarding our proposals to change the regulation across the Controlled Parking Zones.

    I can confirm that it is our intention to report to the 27 July 2010 meeting of the Transport, Infrastructure & Environment Committee. Therefore, the report should be available online a week before the date of the meeting, when the agenda is released. Please visit the following website: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/cpol/ where you will be able to access the report.
    "

    Posted 14 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    In response to further questions -

    "
    Unfortunately, the process of releasing reports one week prior to the Committee meeting is a procedure followed across the Council and to ensure consistency I am unable to publish the report sooner.

    Turning to your second point, whilst I understand that it may be useful for people to refer back to the documents, the consultation was only open for a limited period of time and this was specified on our website.

    Furthermore, if the documents remained accessible this may give people the impression that they could still object which is not the case. Therefore, once the period for objections to a TRO has elapsed the documents are removed.
    "

    Not the answers I wanted (but no surprise) - service good though.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    ".. various tightening up of loopholes.."

    Indeed -

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Drivers-caught-by-different-parking.6261553.jp

    Posted 14 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin