At the recent Cabinet meeting of the City of Bristol, long-time campaigner Bernard Cooke of KeepParkingFree.org made a public forum statement opposing Bristol's Residents Parking Scheme (blogged here). Here's a video of his statement: (Supporting documents here Pgs 17-19)
A very concise lists of the twelve key arguments against the CPZ is available from the campaign website. The key one:
1. There would be absolutely no guarantee of finding a space. Your street may lose a few ‘commuters’ during the day but, if there are not enough spaces for residents now, there wouldn’t be enough with a residents’ parking scheme either.
Mr Cooke and his compatriats are veterans of numerous battles against the council on this subject, but I hadn't realised quite how many until I started looking through the archives.
Controlled Parking Zone Attempt #1 (1999-2000)
Back in September 1999, the CPZ Action Group hosted a streetside meeting to highlight the impact of a Controlled Parking Zone of traders Whiteladies Road. The guests of honour at that event were Bristol City Council's transport committee chief Helen Holland and then Member of Parliament Valerie Davey (Lab). Interestingly, the proposed charges for the CPZ back then were between £60 and £100 a year for residents' permits and 350 for businesses, as opposed to £40 a pop on the current plan.
Later that same year, the Evening Post reported that a local councillor had ruled out holding a referendum to gauge the public's views on the proposed controlled parking zone. See if you can guess who?
Councillor Helen Holland chair of the planning, transport and development committee, was asked whether she would agree to a local referendum to see whether the scheme would be welcomed by the affected communities of Hotwells, Cotham, Clifton and Kingsdown.
But she replied that a referendum would be a blunt instrument. She said: "A referendum is a useful tool when the issue involved is straightforward and lends itself to a simple 'yes/no' answer. However, a CPZ is not a straightforward matter."
An opinion poll did take place, however, and the overwhelming majority of Bristol wards voted against the proposals. Apart from one:
Planning leader Councillor Helen Holland said: "The results of the first consultation showed a clear majority of residents in the High Kingsdown and Lower Kingsdown areas want a CPZ.
"In these areas that were so positive about the tangible benefits this will bring to their lives, the next stage is to work with people to refine the scheme so it is sensitive to local circumstances.
"Where there was a clear majority against - as we promised - we have listened and acted. [T] hose proposals have been dropped."
Son of CPZ - The Kingsdown Controlled Parking Zone (2001-02)
Early in 2001, another CPZ consultation was organised. The Evening Post reported:
Cabinet Councillor Helen Holland decided to go ahead with consultations yesterday - despite controversy surrounding the scheme.
Once the draft proposals are published, people will have six weeks to put forward their comments.
A final decision will not be taken until the results of the consultation are brought back before Councillor Holland, the executive member in charge of the council's Environment, Transport and Leisure Department.
She said: "I don't think there is anyone that doesn't accept that something needs to be done about the parking problems in Kingsdown.
"If we were to carry on until we had 100 per cent support, we would have to wait a very long time - in the meantime, the parking problems would continue.
"If we were to stop at this stage, it would just lead to a great deal more uncertainty."
Around this time, I first recall hearing the name "Bernard Cooke", when I read a letter he sent to the Evening Post (July 19th, 2002). I managed to find the text via LexisNexis:
FORMER council leader George Micklewright hit the nail on the head when he complained (Insight, July 3) about Bristol City Council's consultation failings.
Two years ago the council consulted on its plan for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in an enlarged Kingsdown area, stretching from Whiteladies Road across to Stokes Croft.
Forty-five per cent of respondents said "No", 10 per cent said "Yes", and the remainder made other comments.
The result? The council said that 55 per cent of people had either supported the plan, or not objected to it, so it should proceed to the next stage.
They certainly deserve a prize for something!
For six weeks from September 2 this year the council is to carry out "statutory consultation" on the scheme, with a view to it starting on April 1, 2003.
Now, there are a lot of students and other university people in Kingsdown, and the council says it wants to include them in its consultation. But the university year only starts on September 30 and there will be few students and staff who have time in the first two weeks of term to think about paying to park in six months' time.
Despite this, Executive Member Helen Holland has categorically refused to alter the timetable. Could it be she thinks students and other university folk might not wish to pay to park outside their homes?
In addition, if a CPZ were introduced in Kingsdown the knock-on effect would be felt in Clifton, Cotham, Redland, Montpelier and St Pauls. Yet people here are not being consulted about the plans.
Again, could it be that Councillor Holland is worried they might say "No"?
Councillor Holland has even refused to publish the results of the forthcoming consultation, in direct contravention of the council's own consultation strategy, presumably just in case the result doesn't go her way.
Consultation failure, George? You bet!
B Cooke, Kensington Place, Clifton.
CPZ REDUX (2006)
Around 2006, the Liberal Democrats decided that a CPZ was worth a punt. From the Feb 17th Evening Post:
A CITY councillor is calling for a controversial parking scheme to be resurrected in Kingsdown - more than three years after it was abandoned following a residents' revolt.
Mark Wright, whose Cabot ward includes Kingsdown, says he believes the parking problem in the area has become so bad that lives are at risk.
The Liberal Democrat councillor has renewed his campaign to bring in a controlled parking zone (CPZ) for the area - in which parking is restricted to permit-holding residents only - after the Evening Post highlighted problems that firefighters had tackling a blaze in Somerset Street on Tuesday.
[...] The most recent attempt by the city council to introduce a CPZ in Kingsdown was dropped in 2002 after consultations showed most residents opposed the idea.
But last October the city council's ruling Lib Dem cabinet said the idea was one of several options being considered as part of a city-wide overhaul of parking policy.
[...] Bernard Cooke, a transport campaigner who opposed a previous scheme to create residents parking in Kingsdown, said the council only wanted to introduce CPZs to raise money and believes it is wrong to suggest it is an issue of saving lives.
Mr Cooke, of Clifton, said: "If people are parking and causing an obstruction, that is an offence and they do not need any more rules to deal with that. I see the introduction of a CPZ as an entirely separate issue. It is not the right way to deal with the problem."
CPZ - The Next Generation (2007-08)
Which brings us up to the present day. I first noticed Cabinet proposals relating to Controlled Parking Zones, specifically this document: EXPANSION OF THE CENTRAL CONTROLLED PARKING ZONES AND INTRODUCTION OF RESIDENTS PARKING ZONES, at the November 15th 2007 Cabinet meeting.
Here's Councillor Mark Bradshaw introducing the proposals:
The decision made at that Cabinet meeting was as follows:
Declarations of Interest :
Cllr Judith Price declared a personal interest relating to the fact that a member of her family is employed by the City Council as a parking attendant.
(e) Decision :
1. That approval be given to introduce an inner and outer ring of residents parking zones in accordance with figure 1 and appendix 6 of the report (subject to the consultation below).
2. That a strategic project management approach (the Bristol Residents Parking Project) be adopted to the comprehensive implementation of residents parking zones within the inner and outer rings over the next 4 years, subject to the necessary forward funding being approved.
3. That an informal consultation exercise be undertaken, involving the Citizens Panel and the areas potentially affected, upon the operational principles set out in appendix 6 of the report, and to establish those areas where the greatest support for residents parking zones exists for possible early adoption, bearing in mind the Council's overall responsibilities as traffic authority for its area.
4. That consultation on the intention to extend the existing central controlled parking zones, as shown coloured dark yellow in figure 1 of the report, should proceed, and that the operational hours of the existing central controlled parking zones be extended to cover 24 hours per day and 7 days per week to reflect the growth of the 24 hour economy.
Several Public Forum responses were made, including Cllr Dennis Brown (LD), Joshua Hart of the "Car Free" Blog, and Richard Eddy, Leader of the Conservative Group.
What next?
Based on past form, the CPZ will keep getting pushed by Helen Holland and company, despite headlines in the newspaper like "Hundreds sign up to oppose Bristol parking zone plan". But they're not going to get an easy fight.
6 August, 2008 - 09:05
Bernard Cooke was also prominent in objecting to the proposed Zebra crossing at the junction of Queen's Road and Victoria Square, mainly because it involved the loss of some parking places. Although the Council's original design for the crossing was typically inept, through constructive engagement we managed to get a half-decent scheme implemented. It wasn't easy or very gratifying, but it's the only way forward. The Zebra crossing has since proved very popular and works well for all road users. There would be public outrage if anyone suggested removing it now, so Mr Cooke was clearly out of touch with the public mood on that one.
So it is, in my opinion, on Residents Parking Schemes. "Keeping parking free" is a ridiculous anachronism in the 21st century when demand for parking space so manifestly exceeds supply in much of the inner city. What is the point of "free" parking when you simply can't find a space? What purpose is served by having people driving round and round residential streets searching for those elusive spaces? £40 a year is nothing, less that £1 a week, and represents a huge subsidy of parking when compared to the market value of those spaces. Even if it doesn't entirely resolve the problems it will at least deal with some of the worst abuses of the current situation.
6 August, 2008 - 19:34
So in essence you're saying that constructive opposition to proposed local authority actions leads to positive change? Sounds good to me.
Let's go with your contention that £40 pounds a year extra for for parking is "nothing". But £120 for policing is also nothing (not even £3 a week!). £7.50 for a new Museum? That's nothing. £10 for press officers and shiny leaflets is nothing. £10 for Police Community Support Officers and CCTV is barely anything. And who could argue with a bit of cash for drugs policy and youth offending? It's only £15. That's half of nothing. £1 on clever signage for bus stops is barely anything at all. £30 for free bus fares. Come on, they're free: clearly nothing!
And suddenly when you add up all the "nothing" you end up with something. Specifically a sodding great council tax bill, which has to be paid alongside your VAT bill, Fuel Duty, Road Duty, Stamp Duty, Excise Duty, Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax and of course your TV License.
And when you're done paying your bills, you still won't have any guarantee of a space to park your car.
(Figures are approximations of minimum per-capita annual council tax burden, 2007-08. See here for some raw figures)
JMB
6 August, 2008 - 21:47
There's a difference between the charges or taxes that we pretty much all have to pay whether we like it or not, like Council Tax and Income Tax, and those that arise as a consequence of choices made, like deciding to own a car and then deciding how much to use it. The latter can be reduced by lifestyle choices.
On-street parking now needs to be administered and policed to a much greater degree than in the past. The cost of doing so should be born by those who park cars on the street (particularly those who park illegally), so inevitably car ownership will become more expensive for many. That is both unavoidable and in some respects desirable.
6 August, 2008 - 22:31
Fine, you want to change society. And despite your hard work at the vanguard of the revolution seeking to enlighten the unwashed masses (i.e. people like me), they have in general told you that they're not interested. I understand why the compulsion is there to compel people to do what you think is best for them, but that doesn't mean it is desirable.
So what about your choices, Chris? To live in a brick-built structure with glass windows instead of a wattle and daub hut; to work in an office rather than live off the land; to peddle about on a bicycle made of composite materials and precision engineered metal components rather than use your two perfectly good legs; to reproduce; to grow; to learn; to aspire; to live. What of your selfish choices?
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?[w]
JMB
7 August, 2008 - 00:13
I'm not arguing for compulsion, merely that people should by-and-large face up to the consequences of their actions. Owning and using a car requires infrastructure including arrangements for parking it. The cost of that infrastructure should be born by those who require it. I'm surprised you don't appear to go along with that.
As for my own choices, I'm not setting myself up as an example of anything other than of someone who made some fundamental mistakes which others would be advised not to repeat. One doesn't have to be perfect to have the right to comment on current affairs, otherwise the blogosphere would be very quiet indeed.
7 August, 2008 - 20:14
As we've previously established, in the comments at your blog, the contributions of motorists to the public purse in various forms of taxation are much greater than the "outturn" public expenditure on the required infrastructure. So motorists are already facing up to the consequences of their actions every time they fill up at the pump (60% tax) or pay their Road Fund.
I wasn't making a personal dig, by the way; it's was just rhetoric about the huts, etc.
JMB
8 August, 2008 - 14:59
Joshing apart, I would say Chris is being more rational here. If you accept, James, that it is your resposibility as a motorist to pay for your own petrol and maintenance, as well as the initial capital outlay on purchase of the car, why can't you see it is also your responsibility to arrange and pay for the storage of the thing? I could not leave a pram in the gutter, though it would take up far less space, so why do motorists assume this anomalous perk which causes them so much grief in congestion etc? It used to be illegal anyway.
10 August, 2008 - 15:38
I think we've established that motorists are paying their way; it's just that the money is being spent elsewhere by government (local and national).
I wouldn't wish to make the case for banning on-street parking, as the structural adjustments necessary to support it would be enormous. I'm not certain at what point the law was changed to render on-street parking legal, but I would imagine that it pre-dates mass car ownership. Potentially such a policy would serve only to summarily evict those on relatively low incomes from the centre of British cities.
(But I'd take a punt at mutualising non-trunk roads, as discussed previously).
JMB
11 August, 2008 - 12:08
As with so many laws, the police just stopped enforcing it.
Re-introducing the application of the law is best done in one small area at a time, probably the centres of our cities, and then working outwards.
In this case that would allow time for the entrepreneurs to come up with all sorts of imaginative arrangements for people to park their cars out of everyone's way. As long as it is the responsibility of local government it isn't going to happen.
12 August, 2008 - 08:45
James, you say "I think we've established that motorists are paying their way". I disagree. Motorists pay various taxes as a consequence of owning or using cars, but these taxes are not hypothecated to pay for "their way". That is a myth perpetrated by the roads lobby over many decades to create an expectation among motorists of higher levels of expenditure on roads.
Nobody argues that drinkers and smokers pay for the health service through the extra taxes they pay. Nobody argues that people earning higher incomes pay for education because they pay more in Income Tax. Why then should those who pay taxes associated with motoring argue that they pay for the roads?
Of the so-called motoring taxes, Fuel Duty (and VAT) is the only one where the amount paid bears a close relationship to the amount of use made of roads. Yet it takes little account of the much higher costs of using congested urban road space (hence the case for Congestion Charging) or remote rural roads for that matter.
Vehicle Excise Duty, being a fixed charge irrespective of mileage, could only be considered to relate to the value of road space used for parking, but it does not discriminate between vehicles generally parked on-street and those parked off-street, not to mention the highly variable value of on-street parking.
Overall existing motoring taxes bear little relationship to the value of road space used, so even if they were hypothecated to pay for road related costs they would be a very crude and imperfect way of doing so - unless you support the introduction of road pricing.