Cambridge parking map?

[John Aldridge]

I don't want to start another car parking rant thread, but have a
specific question...

Does anyone (e.g. whichever council is responsible?) maintain an online
map showing where in Cambridge on-street parking is

a) Unrestricted
b) Metered (with hours & charging rates)
c) Residents permits (with restriction hours)
d) Prohibited

?

--
Cheers,
John

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its easy. its all restricted!

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

[Malcolm G]

No sign I can see of a map - I would expect it to be linked from
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/parking/restrictions/
if it existed

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <MPG.2cead2b89...@news.demon.co.uk>,

Not the first but the rest will be in various TROs which are supposedly
accessible online (I don't have any URLs). They are based on maps these
days. Everything not in TROs will be unrestricted, subject to various other
legislation, like against obstruction.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Mike Clark]

In message <l5qjea$jq$1...@news.albasani.net>

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 11/11/13 11:41, John Aldridge wrote:
> > I don't want to start another car parking rant thread, but have a
> > specific question...
> >
> > Does anyone (e.g. whichever council is responsible?) maintain an online
> > map showing where in Cambridge on-street parking is
> >
> > a) Unrestricted
> > b) Metered (with hours & charging rates)
> > c) Residents permits (with restriction hours)
> > d) Prohibited
> >
> > ?
> >
> Its easy. its all restricted!
>

But that statement is false with regard to where I live in Cambridge.
Parking is unrestricted.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Mike Clark wrote:

> But that statement is false with regard to where I live in Cambridge.
> Parking is unrestricted.

Ditto, although we are about due for another attempt by the Council
to convince us that actually we do really want a residents permit
scheme.

[Stuart Moore]

http://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/cambridge_united_kingdom/?ac=1&country=UK&lat=52.205337&lng=0.12181699999996454 only has 2 on street parking sections listed, but more can be added. So it's probably a good place to start if anyone wanted to create such a list.

[Sarah Cooper]

In article <l5qotq$evo$1...@dont-email.me>, f...@invalid.invalid (Fevric J.

same problem here. Unrestricted residential road. No/inadequate parking
for surrounding research/university/union offices so everybody parks in
our (and surrounding) very narrow roads causing blocked entrances and
obscured views to try and manoeuvre in/out - the dustcart has fun. Free to
park, Park and Ride close by helps to alleviate it, but no, they're going
to change all that and make it pay to park, so our problem will get worse
all because not enough parking spaces were provided for the new
development (and a similar even more tightly parking controlled
development is going up in the very near future). The solution? They are
going to make a pleasant, hedge-lined residential road residents parking.

--
SCoop

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2013111...@a.cix.co.uk>, at 14:37:00 on Mon,
11 Nov 2013, Sarah Cooper <coope...@cix.co.uk> remarked:

>> > But that statement is false with regard to where I live in Cambridge.
>> > Parking is unrestricted.
>>
>> Ditto, although we are about due for another attempt by the Council
>> to convince us that actually we do really want a residents permit
>> scheme.
>>
> same problem here. Unrestricted residential road. No/inadequate parking
>for surrounding research/university/union offices so everybody parks in
>our (and surrounding) very narrow roads causing blocked entrances and
>obscured views to try and manoeuvre in/out - the dustcart has fun. Free to
>park, Park and Ride close by helps to alleviate it, but no, they're going
>to change all that and make it pay to park, so our problem will get worse
>all because not enough parking spaces were provided for the new
>development (and a similar even more tightly parking controlled
>development is going up in the very near future).

That's the council policy to reduce car commuting - make sure they have
nowhere to park when they get to work. But unlike an irresistible force
and an immovable object, it's easy for people to move where they park.

>The solution? They are
>going to make a pleasant, hedge-lined residential road residents parking.

Which is perhaps OK, although completely counter-intuitive, if all
residents have adequate off-street parking.

When the council proposed a residents parking scheme for Newnham Croft
(which has very little off-street parking) about twelve years ago there
was almost unanimous disapproval, for many reason but the bigger ones
were:

The RP parking scheme would have been for far fewer spaces than the
unrestricted parking (lots of yellow lines near junctions for example,
plus paid-for parking outside their premises at the behest of the CoOp)
leaving many residents either nowhere to park, or a long walk from
outside someone else's home.

Lots of unsightly street furniture.

No satisfactory scheme for regular daytime visitors, when the streets
were the emptiest and those cars would not have been in the way.
--
Roland Perry

[Mike Clark]

In message <l5qotq$evo$1...@dont-email.me>

ditto. Two streets away from us they introduced residents permits and
now those streets are empty much of the time, particularly during
weekdays and instead many residents and most visitors have changed to
parking nearer to us.

[Roland Perry]

In message <5243f9a853....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, at 15:18:55
on Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

>Two streets away from us they introduced residents permits and
>now those streets are empty much of the time, particularly during
>weekdays and instead many residents and most visitors have changed to
>parking nearer to us.

This happened in West Bridgford about four years ago, when a couple of
extra residential streets were made RP and all it did was move the cars
concerned a block or two further out, and obstructing a different set of
roads. In particular one that was a busy bus route.

Here is that road, with fewer than usual number of cars blocking it:

http://goo.gl/maps/aDfOv

As is normal is that part of Nottinghamshire most people park with two
wheels on the pavement, despite there being no official permission to do
so.

By now they were supposed to have made this side: http://goo.gl/maps/257j9
of the nearby main road no parking at all.

All the houses have more than adequate off-street parking (you could
probably park eight cars in front of that white house); most of these cars
are people working locally who don't want to pay to park in the council
facilities.
--
Roland Perry

[Mike Clark]

In message <7bZHUz2J...@perry.co.uk>

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <5243f9a853....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, at 15:18:55
> on Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
> >Two streets away from us they introduced residents permits and
> >now those streets are empty much of the time, particularly during
> >weekdays and instead many residents and most visitors have changed to
> >parking nearer to us.
>
> This happened in West Bridgford about four years ago, when a couple of
> extra residential streets were made RP and all it did was move the cars
> concerned a block or two further out, and obstructing a different set of
> roads. In particular one that was a busy bus route.
>
> Here is that road, with fewer than usual number of cars blocking it:
>
> http://goo.gl/maps/aDfOv
>
> As is normal is that part of Nottinghamshire most people park with two
> wheels on the pavement, despite there being no official permission to do
> so.

Yes that's happening near to us too. You have a section of empty roads
but with plenty of on street parking available, e.g. Canterbury Steet
and then you come into Halifax Road to find vehicles obstructing the
pavement by parking with two wheels on the pavement.

>
> By now they were supposed to have made this side:
> http://goo.gl/maps/257j9 of the nearby main road no parking at all.
>
> All the houses have more than adequate off-street parking (you could
> probably park eight cars in front of that white house); most of these cars
> are people working locally who don't want to pay to park in the council
> facilities.

I think what's particularly interesting in our area is that many of the
on street parkers during the day are those working at the Council
Offices on Castle Hill!

[Martin]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Roland Perry wrote:

> That's the council policy to reduce car commuting - make sure they have
> nowhere to park when they get to work.

Nothing to stop you spending enormous amounts of money buying up land to
create a car park, of course.

Then again, most businesses would consider that buying land in Cambridge
to store cars is not a very efficient use of space, compared to productive
uses like shops, offices, houses, etc. Nor is having lots of on-street
parking an effective use of space in a growing city.


Martin

[Mike Clark]

In message <alpine.LSU.2.00.1...@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>

Well I suppose you could also argue that a "better use of space" would
be to kock down many houses and put multi story buildings at higher
density in the same space. It's certainly happening in some parts of
Cambridge, but I remain to be convinced it is the best solution,
particularly when it seems to entail a loss of green space, gardens,
trees and shrubberies, with consequent changes in wildlife and also
problems of water drainage in times of high rainfall.

[Roland Perry]

In message <alpine.LSU.2.00.1...@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
at 16:21:05 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk>
remarked:

>> That's the council policy to reduce car commuting - make sure they have
>> nowhere to park when they get to work.
>
>Nothing to stop you spending enormous amounts of money buying up land to
>create a car park, of course.

Would you get planning permission? The employers whose employees you are
seeing to accommodate, failed to get such planning permission, so why
would you?

>Then again, most businesses would consider that buying land in Cambridge
>to store cars is not a very efficient use of space, compared to productive
>uses like shops, offices, houses, etc.

But new developments (and I think we are perhaps discussing the fringe)
would usually reckon that providing 'enough' parking for workers was a
quite acceptable cost of doing business, if the council would let them.

>Nor is having lots of on-street parking an effective use of space in a
>growing city.

What else would have use that roadspace - street cafes, or to hark back
to a conversation I was having a week ago, perhaps communal recycling
bins?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1aeffea853....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, at
16:20:52 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:

>I think what's particularly interesting in our area is that many of the
>on street parkers during the day are those working at the Council
>Offices on Castle Hill!

Harking back a couple of years, I still think it should be made
compulsory that such people take the guided bus to work.

They made that bed, now they should lay in it.
--
Roland Perry

[Alan]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:53:21 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

> In message <1aeffea853....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, at
> 16:20:52 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>> I think what's particularly interesting in our area is that many of the
>> on street parkers during the day are those working at the Council
>> Offices on Castle Hill!
>
> Harking back a couple of years, I still think it should be made
> compulsory that such people take the guided bus to work.
>

Why? The Council employees parking in the streets don't make those
decisions. It's the politicians and higher officers, who will still have
access to parking at Shire Hall.

--
Alan

[Theo Markettos]

Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Ditto, although we are about due for another attempt by the Council
> to convince us that actually we do really want a residents permit
> scheme.

There was a mention in the freesheet a few weeks ago that the County was
considering applying parking restrictions 7 days a week as a revenue raising
method. Has anyone heard any more of this?

Theo

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.w6d9m...@sepura800.sepura.co.uk>, at 17:02:32 on
Mon, 11 Nov 2013, Alan <e-s....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:

>>> I think what's particularly interesting in our area is that many of the
>>> on street parkers during the day are those working at the Council
>>> Offices on Castle Hill!
>>
>> Harking back a couple of years, I still think it should be made
>>compulsory that such people take the guided bus to work.
>
>Why? The Council employees parking in the streets don't make those
>decisions. It's the politicians and higher officers, who will still
>have access to parking at Shire Hall.

Collective responsibility (and yes, all of the above should be forced to
do the same).
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Ward]

On 11/11/2013 15:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> This happened in West Bridgford about four years ago, when a couple of
> extra residential streets were made RP and all it did was move the cars
> concerned a block or two further out, and obstructing a different set of
> roads.

Which is why the county council has tired of this game of whack-a-mole
and is floating the idea of city-wide residents parking.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Tim Ward]

On 11/11/2013 17:02, Alan wrote:
>
> Why? The Council employees parking in the streets don't make those
> decisions. It's the politicians and higher officers, who will still
> have access to parking at Shire Hall.

At least one of the cabinet members with responsibilities in this area
regularly travels to Shire Hall on the MGB.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Lyndsay]

you can try:

http://www.theaa.com/apps/parking-app.html

online App for iphone or Android phones.

I normally use park and ride however.
Lyn
www.lynsblog.co.uk

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <iGLRzL$BuQg...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:

The council's aren't the only offices on Castle Hill.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Roland Perry]

In message <6b-dnZBx2dsQ3hzP...@giganews.com>, at 14:52:29
on Mon, 11 Nov 2013, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>> >I think what's particularly interesting in our area is that many of the
>> >on street parkers during the day are those working at the Council
>> >Offices on Castle Hill!
>>
>> Harking back a couple of years, I still think it should be made
>> compulsory that such people take the guided bus to work.
>>
>> They made that bed, now they should lay in it.
>
>The council's aren't the only offices on Castle Hill.

Perhaps, but we are only discussing the council's offices.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <becsmm...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:23:50 on Mon, 11
Nov 2013, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>> This happened in West Bridgford about four years ago, when a couple of
>> extra residential streets were made RP and all it did was move the cars
>> concerned a block or two further out, and obstructing a different set of
>> roads.
>
>Which is why the county council has tired of this game of whack-a-mole
>and is floating the idea of city-wide residents parking.

If I were a city resident, I wouldn't mind that so much if I was allowed
to park *anywhere* in city RP, rather than only in a small designated
zone. As a non-resident it becomes another reason never to patronise the
city, nor risk visiting anyone there. It becomes a ghetto.
--
Roland Perry

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <becsmm...@mid.individual.net>, t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim

They'll be dancing in the streets of Arbury at that idea! NOT!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <Dit*Go...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

That was outside my house and other city centre pay and display spaces only.
Difficult to argue against when the neighbouring residents' parking bay
operates 7 days a week.

It's not a very useful way of raising revenue and there are strict limits
what it can be spent on.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <VI58Q7XJ...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:

Don't be so bloody stupid, Roland. Residents' spaces near the shops would be
swamped!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <U4m8sgX2...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:

The other people working at Castle Hill also park in the streets to the
North.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Tim Ward]

On 11/11/2013 21:40, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> The other people working at Castle Hill also park in the streets to the
> North.

Or on the Castle Hill car park, very reasonable rates.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Roland Perry]

In message <15KdnVeH_Zsg0xzP...@giganews.com>, at 15:40:13

on Mon, 11 Nov 2013, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> >> >I think what's particularly interesting in our area is that many of
>> >> >the on street parkers during the day are those working at the Council
>> >> >Offices on Castle Hill!
>> >>
>> >> Harking back a couple of years, I still think it should be made
>> >> compulsory that such people take the guided bus to work.
>> >>
>> >> They made that bed, now they should lay in it.
>> >
>> >The council's aren't the only offices on Castle Hill.
>>
>> Perhaps, but we are only discussing the council's offices.
>
>The other people working at Castle Hill also park in the streets to the
>North.

But they aren't collectively responsible for the MGB.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <-LadnXR2BNEg0xzP...@giganews.com>, at 15:40:13
on Mon, 11 Nov 2013, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>> If I were a city resident, I wouldn't mind that so much if I was
>> allowed to park *anywhere* in city RP, rather than only in a small
>> designated zone. As a non-resident it becomes another reason never to
>> patronise the city, nor risk visiting anyone there. It becomes a
>> ghetto.
>
>Don't be so bloody stupid, Roland. Residents' spaces near the shops would be
>swamped!

Which just goes to show it's not really a city-wide residents parking
scheme, but a collection of NIMBY-parking zones.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:40:13 -0600, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
finger to keyboard and typed:

But a city-wide scheme only makes sense if it works like that. Otherwise,
it means imposing RP on areas where it is clearly unnecesary and against
the wishes of those who live there. If you want them to accept it, you have
to give them a reason to.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[paul....@rudin.co.uk]

Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> writes:

> In message <l5qjea$jq$1...@news.albasani.net>
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/13 11:41, John Aldridge wrote:
>> > I don't want to start another car parking rant thread, but have a
>> > specific question...
>> >
>> > Does anyone (e.g. whichever council is responsible?) maintain an online
>> > map showing where in Cambridge on-street parking is
>> >
>> > a) Unrestricted
>> > b) Metered (with hours & charging rates)
>> > c) Residents permits (with restriction hours)
>> > d) Prohibited
>> >
>> > ?
>> >
>> Its easy. its all restricted!

>>
>
> But that statement is false with regard to where I live in Cambridge.
> Parking is unrestricted.
>

... and even where there are restrictions typically they are not 24x7.

[Theo Markettos]

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> That was outside my house and other city centre pay and display spaces
> only. Difficult to argue against when the neighbouring residents' parking
> bay operates 7 days a week.

I can see it makes sense for areas where the residents' bays are already 7
days a week (ie around the Grafton). But would it be imposed on areas where
they aren't? Bit silly to have a P&D bay in operation on one side of the
street and a residents' bay where anyone's free to park on the other.

Plus we ought to be on the lookout for boiling frogs.

> It's not a very useful way of raising revenue and there are strict limits
> what it can be spent on.

Presumably it would have a cost in terms of enforcement anyway?

Theo

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <Eit*fb...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Theo Markettos) wrote:

> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > That was outside my house and other city centre pay and display spaces
> > only. Difficult to argue against when the neighbouring residents'
> > parking bay operates 7 days a week.
>
> I can see it makes sense for areas where the residents' bays are already 7
> days a week (ie around the Grafton). But would it be imposed on areas
> where they aren't? Bit silly to have a P&D bay in operation on one side
> of the street and a residents' bay where anyone's free to park on th

> other.

I understand that's the plan, only where other controls are seven days,
including single yellow lines.

> Plus we ought to be on the lookout for boiling frogs.
>
> > It's not a very useful way of raising revenue and there are strict
> > limits what it can be spent on.
>
> Presumably it would have a cost in terms of enforcement anyway?

Very little extra cost.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Rhodri James]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:49:20 -0000, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:

> On 11/11/2013 21:40, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> The other people working at Castle Hill also park in the streets to the
>> North.
>
> Or on the Castle Hill car park, very reasonable rates.

Or in the car parking spaces allocated to each building. Or cycle or walk
to work.

Needless to say I do the latter :-)

--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest herder to the masses
Disclaimer: it's all my fault.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.w6fqhitl2ltq1d@sto-helit>, at 12:04:20 on Tue, 12 Nov
2013, Rhodri James <rho...@kynesim.invalid> remarked:

>>> The other people working at Castle Hill also park in the streets to the
>>> North.
>>
>> Or on the Castle Hill car park, very reasonable rates.
>
>Or in the car parking spaces allocated to each building. Or cycle or
>walk to work.
>
>Needless to say I do the latter :-)

Alright for some, Ms Antoinette.
--
Roland Perry

[Brian L Johnson]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:00:44 -0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Tue, 12 Nov

>> 2013 07:41:40 +0000 the perfect time to write:

>> But a city-wide scheme only makes sense if it works like that.
>> Otherwise, it means imposing RP on areas where it is clearly unnecesary

> . and against the wishes of those who live there. If you want them to

> accept
>> it, you have to give them a reason to.
>>

> If all the surrounding areas are RP only, they'll be swamped with
> those displaced from those areas, which should be a pretty good
> incentive.

Yes, it's a good way to build community spirit: ask anyone in the Kimberly
Rd area.

--
brianlj

[RobertL]

On Monday, November 11, 2013 11:41:26 AM UTC, John Aldridge wrote:
> I don't want to start another car parking rant thread, but have a
>
> specific question...
>
>
>
> Does anyone (e.g. whichever council is responsible?) maintain an online
>
> map showing where in Cambridge on-street parking is
>
>
>
> a) Unrestricted
>
> b) Metered (with hours & charging rates)
>
> c) Residents permits (with restriction hours)
>
> d) Prohibited

perhaps you should add "unrestricted parking but motor vehicles prohibited except for access"

our street is like that and is on the edge of a RP zone. It fills up with people parking who have no business in our street. Of course it's hard for anyone to do anything about this. Indeed, maybe the people do need to "access the street" in order to park in it.

Robert

[Roland Perry]

In message <6edec6a9-ab3b-434b...@googlegroups.com>, at
08:26:39 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>>Cambridge on-street parking is
>>
>> a) Unrestricted
>>
>> b) Metered (with hours & charging rates)
>>
>> c) Residents permits (with restriction hours)
>>
>> d) Prohibited
>
>perhaps you should add "unrestricted parking but motor vehicles prohibited except for access"

And "I don't give a shit for cycle lanes and no-loading signs, or zones
10 metres from a junction; I'm going to park here anyway":

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/domino_effect.jpg

>our street is like that and is on the edge of a RP zone. It fills up
>with people parking who have no business in our street. Of course it's
>hard for anyone to do anything about this. Indeed, maybe the people do
>need to "access the street" in order to park in it.

That's not a valid reason for requiring access.
--
Roland Perry

[Rhodri James]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:21:10 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

> In message <6edec6a9-ab3b-434b...@googlegroups.com>, at
> 08:26:39 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>> Cambridge on-street parking is
>>>
>>> a) Unrestricted
>>>
>>> b) Metered (with hours & charging rates)
>>>
>>> c) Residents permits (with restriction hours)
>>>
>>> d) Prohibited
>>
>> perhaps you should add "unrestricted parking but motor vehicles
>> prohibited except for access"
>
> And "I don't give a shit for cycle lanes and no-loading signs, or zones
> 10 metres from a junction; I'm going to park here anyway":

When I worked on the Science Park <mumble> years ago, I did seriously
consider painting tyre tracks on all the cars parked in the Milton Road
cycle lane at 5pm.

[tim......]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:bhg489hcav886b3ch...@4ax.com...

> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Tue, 12 Nov
> 2013 07:41:40 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>

> If all the surrounding areas are RP only, they'll be swamped with
> those displaced from those areas, which should be a pretty good
> incentive.

that rather depends upon whether the displaced cars belong to
workers/shoppers parking there to avoid having to pay city centre prices, or
people from just inside the RP area parking there to avoid getting a permit

If it's the former then there's a natural limit how far away people will
park (and walk) to save car park charges.

If it's the latter the that suggests that the permit fees are too high (and
I have no idea what they are)

tim

[Paul Rudin]

Everybody make choices about the trade off between house size etc. and
convenience of location when they choose to buy or rent in a particular
place.

[Roland Perry]

In message <857gcdm...@rudin.co.uk>, at 18:49:20 on Tue, 12 Nov
2013, Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> remarked:

>>>>> The other people working at Castle Hill also park in the streets to the
>>>>> North.
>>>>
>>>> Or on the Castle Hill car park, very reasonable rates.
>>>
>>> Or in the car parking spaces allocated to each building. Or cycle or walk
>>> to work.
>>>
>>>Needless to say I do the latter :-)
>>
>> Alright for some, Ms Antoinette.
>
>Everybody make choices about the trade off between house size etc. and
>convenience of location when they choose to buy or rent in a particular
>place.

Cambridge is such a hot-spot that for many people they can't buy
anything that's big enough for their family, so they have to commute in.
--
Roland Perry

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Tim Ward wrote:

> On 11/11/2013 15:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>

>> This happened in West Bridgford about four years ago, when a couple of
>> extra residential streets were made RP and all it did was move the cars
>> concerned a block or two further out, and obstructing a different set of
>> roads.
>
> Which is why the county council has tired of this game of whack-a-mole
> and is floating the idea of city-wide residents parking.

One of the problems with RP as I see it is that it inconveniences the
blameless car-less. When proposed for this area ISTR that they would
have to buy, in advance, one-day permits to allow visiting friends,
plumbers, etc to park. Perhaps if a small number were to be given
annually FOC to households *without* a permit there would be more
support.

[Tim Ward]

On 12/11/2013 23:44, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>
> One of the problems with RP as I see it is that it inconveniences the
> blameless car-less. When proposed for this area ISTR that they would
> have to buy, in advance, one-day permits to allow visiting friends,
> plumbers, etc to park. Perhaps if a small number were to be given
> annually FOC to households *without* a permit there would be more
> support.

Until the neighbours worked out that they were selling them to commuters.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:53:07 +0000, Tim Ward put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Maybe the solution is to have parking meters along all residential steets.
Residents who care enough about having a parking space can pay for them.
Those that don't can leave them to be paid for by other people.

[Roland Perry]

In message <5ba689959smqhmvmp...@news.markshouse.net>, at
07:26:37 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>> One of the problems with RP as I see it is that it inconveniences the
>>> blameless car-less. When proposed for this area ISTR that they would
>>> have to buy, in advance, one-day permits to allow visiting friends,
>>> plumbers, etc to park. Perhaps if a small number were to be given
>>> annually FOC to households *without* a permit there would be more
>>> support.
>>
>>Until the neighbours worked out that they were selling them to commuters.
>
>Maybe the solution is to have parking meters along all residential steets.
>Residents who care enough about having a parking space can pay for them.
>Those that don't can leave them to be paid for by other people.

Or more likely P&D bays.

But that won't work either, because the cost would be far too high for
residents to park there all day, if the fee was set the same as nearby
off-street parking.

For short visits it's OK as a way to guarantee a space though, my
daughter has a flat in a very busy part of central London and there's
always been space available in the P&D bay across the street. But it's
eye-wateringly expensive: about Ł5 for the maximum of two hours.
--
Roland Perry

[John Aldridge]

In article <MPG.2cead2b89...@news.demon.co.uk>,
jp...@jjdash.demon.co.uk says...

>
> I don't want to start another car parking rant thread, but have a
> specific question...
>
> Does anyone (e.g. whichever council is responsible?) maintain an online

> map showing (on-street parking details)... ?

Thanks for the answers, everyone. And sorry for starting a rant thread
after all!

--
John

[Theo Markettos]

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> I understand that's the plan, only where other controls are seven days,
> including single yellow lines.

So, just to be clear, that excludes areas where there's no extant residents'
scheme to compare with (for example, West Road)?

Which rather brings us back to the original question - how do we know which
areas are going to be changed if there's no map of current seven day
restrictions? Particularly single yellows are much less conspicuous than
marked bays.

Has this actually reached a formal proposal yet, or is someone still
throwing about ideas?

Theo

[Fevric J. Glandules]

As usual on cam.misc I have to kick myself for failing to pre-empt every
single sodding predictable comment.

Let's run through the salient points of the above:
- "one-day permits"
- "a small number"

IOW not enough to come to some sort of deal with a commuter, enough to
cover a reasonable number of visitors & plumbers.

And in any case in RP schemes, can residents not buy and re-sell
one-day permits anyway?

The point is that the car-less should NOT incur any additional
expenditure or inconvenience, because it's not their bloody fault!

[Roland Perry]

In message <l5vvhb$m1l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:40:59 on Wed, 13 Nov
2013, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>>> One of the problems with RP as I see it is that it inconveniences the
>>> blameless car-less. When proposed for this area ISTR that they would
>>> have to buy, in advance, one-day permits to allow visiting friends,
>>> plumbers, etc to park. Perhaps if a small number were to be given
>>> annually FOC to households *without* a permit there would be more
>>> support.
>>
>> Until the neighbours worked out that they were selling them to commuters.
>
>As usual on cam.misc I have to kick myself for failing to pre-empt every
>single sodding predictable comment.
>
>Let's run through the salient points of the above:
>- "one-day permits"
>- "a small number"
>
>IOW not enough to come to some sort of deal with a commuter, enough to
>cover a reasonable number of visitors & plumbers.

The problem is that schemes like that suffer from mission creep. As soon
as they've issued free permits, they'll decide they need to charge for
them otherwise how can they afford to enforce the RP scheme such that
there's some spare roadspace for you to use those permits on.

(or is it "on which you can use those permits").
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:13:24 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In message <5ba689959smqhmvmp...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>07:26:37 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> One of the problems with RP as I see it is that it inconveniences the
>>>> blameless car-less. When proposed for this area ISTR that they would
>>>> have to buy, in advance, one-day permits to allow visiting friends,
>>>> plumbers, etc to park. Perhaps if a small number were to be given
>>>> annually FOC to households *without* a permit there would be more
>>>> support.
>>>
>>>Until the neighbours worked out that they were selling them to commuters.
>>
>>Maybe the solution is to have parking meters along all residential steets.
>>Residents who care enough about having a parking space can pay for them.
>>Those that don't can leave them to be paid for by other people.
>
>Or more likely P&D bays.
>
>But that won't work either, because the cost would be far too high for
>residents to park there all day, if the fee was set the same as nearby
>off-street parking.

Seems fair to me. Owning property adjacent to a road doesn't give you any
more rights over that road than any other user. If people want to use a
space regularly then offering season tickets at a discounted rate seems
reasonable. And if the spaces are metered then you can have demand pricing
which makes it cheaper (or free) to park there in the evenings and
weekends, which is when most residents use it anyway.

[Roland Perry]

In message <vkf789hqdtsil1i2o...@news.markshouse.net>, at
18:05:57 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>>Maybe the solution is to have parking meters along all residential steets.
>>>Residents who care enough about having a parking space can pay for them.
>>>Those that don't can leave them to be paid for by other people.
>>
>>Or more likely P&D bays.
>>
>>But that won't work either, because the cost would be far too high for
>>residents to park there all day, if the fee was set the same as nearby
>>off-street parking.
>
>Seems fair to me. Owning property adjacent to a road doesn't give you any
>more rights over that road than any other user.

That view won't win you many friends parking outside strangers' houses,
however legally correct it might be.

>If people want to use a space regularly then offering season tickets at
>a discounted rate seems reasonable.

The current RP scheme. Although the discount is considerable (a year for
about a fortnight's ad-hoc parking, roughly.

>And if the spaces are metered then you can have demand pricing
>which makes it cheaper (or free) to park there in the evenings and
>weekends, which is when most residents use it anyway.

"can have". Which I'm not sure happens much.

Of course, the irony is that in most places the demand is overnight,
with the streets empty during the day. So your pricing plan is upside
down.
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Ward]

On 13/11/2013 13:40, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>
> And in any case in RP schemes, can residents not buy and re-sell
> one-day permits anyway?

Yes. Whether this is actually a problem in practice or not has not been
determined AFAIK.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:49:59 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In message <vkf789hqdtsil1i2o...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>18:05:57 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>Maybe the solution is to have parking meters along all residential steets.
>>>>Residents who care enough about having a parking space can pay for them.
>>>>Those that don't can leave them to be paid for by other people.
>>>
>>>Or more likely P&D bays.
>>>
>>>But that won't work either, because the cost would be far too high for
>>>residents to park there all day, if the fee was set the same as nearby
>>>off-street parking.
>>
>>Seems fair to me. Owning property adjacent to a road doesn't give you any
>>more rights over that road than any other user.
>
>That view won't win you many friends parking outside strangers' houses,
>however legally correct it might be.

Traffic and parking policy shouldn't be about winning friends.

>>If people want to use a space regularly then offering season tickets at
>>a discounted rate seems reasonable.
>
>The current RP scheme. Although the discount is considerable (a year for
>about a fortnight's ad-hoc parking, roughly.

I wouldn't discount it that much.

>>And if the spaces are metered then you can have demand pricing
>>which makes it cheaper (or free) to park there in the evenings and
>>weekends, which is when most residents use it anyway.
>
>"can have". Which I'm not sure happens much.

It probably doesn't happen much at all, yet. But it seems like a useful way
forward.

>Of course, the irony is that in most places the demand is overnight,
>with the streets empty during the day. So your pricing plan is upside
>down.

If the demand is overnight, then RP isn't going to solve it as in those
cases too many residents are competing for too few places.

As an alternative sugestion, since many people do seem to feel that they
somehow "own" the parking outside their house, how about making that the
reality. Divide the street into marked out parking bays, and then sell a
lease on them to adjacent residents. People who want the one outside their
house can buy it. If they do, then the sole right to use that space becomes
part of their property, which they can in turn sell on or sublet as they
wish. In many areas, having such a space associated with a house will
significantly increase its value. Any spaces that are not purchased by the
adjacent residents become pay-and-display spaces (with no discounts) for
general use by anyone.

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <l5vvhb$m1l$1...@dont-email.me>, f...@invalid.invalid (Fevric J.

Glandules) wrote:

> And in any case in RP schemes, can residents not buy and re-sell
> one-day permits anyway?

Not if they're caught at it. It's fairly easy to spot.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <Dit*iu...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Theo Markettos) wrote:

> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > I understand that's the plan, only where other controls are seven
> > days, including single yellow lines.
>
> So, just to be clear, that excludes areas where there's no extant
> residents' scheme to compare with (for example, West Road)?
>
> Which rather brings us back to the original question - how do we know
> which areas are going to be changed if there's no map of current seven day
> restrictions? Particularly single yellows are much less conspicuous than
> marked bays.

I think the best map to look at is the pay and display zones. It will be the
central zone and possibly the intermediate zone. These arrangements are so
lacking in transparency these days it's hard to be sure, though.

> Has this actually reached a formal proposal yet, or is someone still
> throwing about ideas?

I think the County Cabinet have agreed to look into it, along with the £1
charge at Park and Ride car parks decision.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <JG$bzifTP...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:

Do you know any free schemes? It's never been free anywhere I do know in
Cambridge and (part of) London.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Roland Perry]

In message <b3s789tnd9a7r8cn4...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:43:37 on Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>Traffic and parking policy shouldn't be about winning friends.

But it also shouldn't be about pissing off your neighbours (there's two
places I've lived where if my car was parked overlapping the front of
their property that they'd come round banging on the door demanding I
move it).

>>>If people want to use a space regularly then offering season tickets at
>>>a discounted rate seems reasonable.
>>
>>The current RP scheme. Although the discount is considerable (a year for
>>about a fortnight's ad-hoc parking, roughly.
>
>I wouldn't discount it that much.

Then I think you might have a serious political problem on your hands.

>>Of course, the irony is that in most places the demand is overnight,
>>with the streets empty during the day. So your pricing plan is upside
>>down.
>
>If the demand is overnight, then RP isn't going to solve it as in those
>cases too many residents are competing for too few places.

Why would that be the case? I know some councils (Cambridge included I
think) "oversell" permits so that there might be times when not all the
residents with permits can park; but not every RP scheme ends up like
that.

>As an alternative sugestion, since many people do seem to feel that they
>somehow "own" the parking outside their house, how about making that the
>reality. Divide the street into marked out parking bays, and then sell a
>lease on them to adjacent residents. People who want the one outside their
>house can buy it. If they do, then the sole right to use that space becomes
>part of their property, which they can in turn sell on or sublet as they
>wish. In many areas, having such a space associated with a house will
>significantly increase its value. Any spaces that are not purchased by the
>adjacent residents become pay-and-display spaces (with no discounts) for
>general use by anyone.

There might be a few very inner-city areas where that would work, but as
a scheme for everywhere it's an overkill.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ibednQZSZfiluRnP...@giganews.com>, at 19:15:36
on Wed, 13 Nov 2013, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>I think the County Cabinet have agreed to look into it, along with the £1
>charge at Park and Ride car parks decision.

Is this the conclusion of the park-at-Babraham and walk-to-Addenbrookes
scenario? The frog boilers will be upping that to £2, £3 etc before
long, mark my words.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <9s2dnd_YQpeluRnP...@giganews.com>, at 19:15:36
on Wed, 13 Nov 2013, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>> >>>Perhaps if a small number were to be given
>> >>> annually FOC to households *without* a permit there would be more
>> >>> support.
>> >>
>> >> Until the neighbours worked out that they were selling them to
>> >> commuters.
>> >
>> >As usual on cam.misc I have to kick myself for failing to pre-empt every
>> >single sodding predictable comment.
>> >
>> >Let's run through the salient points of the above:
>> >- "one-day permits"
>> >- "a small number"
>> >
>> >IOW not enough to come to some sort of deal with a commuter, enough to
>> >cover a reasonable number of visitors & plumbers.
>>
>> The problem is that schemes like that suffer from mission creep. As
>> soon as they've issued free permits, they'll decide they need to
>> charge for them otherwise how can they afford to enforce the RP
>> scheme such that there's some spare roadspace for you to use those
>> permits on.
>>
>> (or is it "on which you can use those permits").
>
>Do you know any free schemes? It's never been free anywhere I do know in
>Cambridge and (part of) London.

It was a hypothetical scheme (see first sentence quoted above).

["Given" not "sold"]

But to answer your thread-drifting question, yes I think I have seen
schemes where a certain number of "day passes" came free with the RP
permit, with you having to pay for extra ones.
--
Roland Perry

[Brian L Johnson]

Some years back, Lincoln used to issue books of single-use park-for-free
tickets to all households who'd either bought a RP permit or, if they had
no car, simply asked for the book in the council offices.

There were (I think) 12 in a book and had a scratch-card style of
overprint so that they couldn't be used more than once. If you wanted a
second book, it cost £10

These days, though, a Visitor's Permit is £26 or, if you already have a RP
permit, £52.


--
brianlj

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Roland Perry wrote:

> The problem is that schemes like that suffer from mission creep. As soon
> as they've issued free permits, they'll decide they need to charge for
> them otherwise how can they afford to enforce the RP scheme such that
> there's some spare roadspace for you to use those permits on.

You seem to have caught on later in the thread, but to make this clear:
the idea is that households *without* cars get a small number of free
day-passes, as they are not part of the problem. Households with cars
pay for a normal permit. Whether or not they get a free book of day-
passes is orthogonal.

[Roland Perry]

In message <l62krr$hhn$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:57:15 on Thu, 14 Nov

2013, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>> The problem is that schemes like that suffer from mission creep. As soon
>> as they've issued free permits, they'll decide they need to charge for
>> them otherwise how can they afford to enforce the RP scheme such that
>> there's some spare roadspace for you to use those permits on.
>
>You seem to have caught on later in the thread, but to make this clear:
>the idea is that households *without* cars get a small number of free
>day-passes, as they are not part of the problem.

That's far too simplistic an approach. We used to have a nanny who drove
to work, and a comprehensive RP scheme would mean they would need a
paid-for permit if we had a car (that was elsewhere all day), but not if
we were car-less. But the road usage during the day would have been
identical. Of course, you could fix that by having permits linked to
premises rather than vehicles.

>Households with cars pay for a normal permit.

For the two sets of 20 minutes that both we and the nanny need a parking
space.
--
Roland Perry

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <mFFgTUR8...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:

Right. But the RP permits were paid for?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Roland Perry]

In message <4tudnWAKH8JYRxnP...@giganews.com>, at 08:14:29
on Thu, 14 Nov 2013, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>> >Do you know any free schemes? It's never been free anywhere I do know in
>> >Cambridge and (part of) London.
>>
>> It was a hypothetical scheme (see first sentence quoted above).
>>
>> ["Given" not "sold"]
>>
>> But to answer your thread-drifting question, yes I think I have seen
>> schemes where a certain number of "day passes" came free with the RP
>> permit, with you having to pay for extra ones.
>
>Right. But the RP permits were paid for?

Yes, because I always have a car. I don't have any information if they
were free for non-car households (although an example of Lincoln has
been quoted here).

It's the frog boilers again. Introducing a RP scheme with the promise
that people without a car won't have to pay for the occasional visitor;
just like those P&R schemes that are either "free to park" or "free to
catch the bus" [with various arguments as to why the diametrically
different approaches make most sense], ending up "paying for both".
--
Roland Perry

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <sdtiVOmdxNhSFA$f...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:

> In message <4tudnWAKH8JYRxnP...@giganews.com>, at
> 08:14:29 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>
> >> >Do you know any free schemes? It's never been free anywhere I do know
> >> >in Cambridge and (part of) London.
> >>
> >> It was a hypothetical scheme (see first sentence quoted above).
> >>
> >> ["Given" not "sold"]
> >>
> >> But to answer your thread-drifting question, yes I think I have seen
> >> schemes where a certain number of "day passes" came free with the RP
> >> permit, with you having to pay for extra ones.
> >
> >Right. But the RP permits were paid for?
>
> Yes, because I always have a car. I don't have any information if
> they were free for non-car households (although an example of Lincoln
> has been quoted here).

I always have a car but have almost never had a residents' parking permit. I
rent a garage.

> It's the frog boilers again. Introducing a RP scheme with the promise
> that people without a car won't have to pay for the occasional
> visitor; just like those P&R schemes that are either "free to park"
> or "free to catch the bus" [with various arguments as to why the
> diametrically different approaches make most sense], ending up
> "paying for both".

Not exactly. There are some free visitors' tickets in Cambridge, for nurses
and other domiciliary visitors needed for the old and infirm.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Roland Perry]

In message <kdidnZ57q4CKhRjP...@giganews.com>, at 12:36:07

on Thu, 14 Nov 2013, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>There are some free visitors' tickets in Cambridge, for nurses
>and other domiciliary visitors needed for the old and infirm.

That's getting into "ambulances can ignore red traffic lights"
territory.
--
Roland Perry

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

That's never true. No-one is allowed to ignore red traffic lights

[Duncan Wood]

Pilots?

[Roland Perry]

In message <bekt4d...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:20:13 on Thu, 14
Nov 2013, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <r.moss-...@computer.org> remarked:

>> That's getting into "ambulances can ignore red traffic lights" territory.
>
>That's never true. No-one is allowed to ignore red traffic lights

Nonsense, the emergency services do it all the time.
--
Roland Perry

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <l62krr$hhn$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:57:15 on Thu, 14 Nov
> 2013, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>

>>You seem to have caught on later in the thread, but to make this clear:
>>the idea is that households *without* cars get a small number of free
>>day-passes, as they are not part of the problem.
>
> That's far too simplistic an approach. We used to have a nanny who drove
> to work, and a comprehensive RP scheme would mean they would need a
> paid-for permit if we had a car (that was elsewhere all day), but not if
> we were car-less.

What part of "small number" is confusing? Do I need to spell it out
in mind-numbing detail?

> For the two sets of 20 minutes that both we and the nanny need a parking
> space.

If that was during the day, yes, tough, you pay for a permit and a
day-pass. Widdums. You can afford a nanny.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Not ignore, but go through:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/36/made
Section 36 (1) (b).

Which Wikipedia summarises as

In the UK, vehicles used for certain purposes may have exemptions from
some road traffic regulations whilst responding to an emergency.
Merely being authorised to use blue lights and sirens does not of
itself grant exemptions from road traffic law.[2] These exemptions
apply whether or not blue lights and/or sirens are being used,
although it is mainly desirable:[3]

treating a red traffic light as a give way sign [4]

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Correct

[Paul Rudin]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:

> Traffic and parking policy shouldn't be about winning friends.

Residents' parking schemes are very much about winning votes.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:41:14 +0000, Paul Rudin put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Traffic and parking policy shouldn't be about winning friends.
>
>Residents' parking schemes are very much about winning votes.

I know. That's what's wrong with them.

One of the problems with local democracy is that people who live in an area
have more power than those who work or shop in the same area, because the
right to vote is based on residence alone. So councillors pander to
residents, at the expense of commuters and shoppers, because only the
former have the power to eject them from office.

For a lot of things that isn't necessarily a problem, because most of the
things that councils are responsible for are used solely or predominantly
by residents. Commuters don't use domestic waste collection, for example,
and tend not to use libraries. But roads are the exception to that general
rule: they are used as much by "outsiders" as residents. And, legally,
roads are equally available to any lawful user; there's nothing in statute
or common law which gives residents any greater rights over a road than any
other user.

Residents' Parking distorts that, by giving greater rights over certain
roads to a certain sector of the user base than others - and the one that
gets greater rights happens to be the sector that votes for the authority
granting those rights.

There's a clear potential there for pork-barrel politics, and, in reality,
that's precisely what most RP schemes amount to. If it were not for the
fact that we've got so used to them, any attempt to introduce such
localised privileges over public highways in anything other than genuinely
exceptional circumstances would be met with howls of protest. But precisely
because they can be justified in certain, exceptional circumstances, the
mission has creept and they are now the de-facto solution to any parking
shortage even where that shortage is itself a result of other, poor
decisions by the local authority. The frog has been well and truly boiled,
and hardly anyone has noticed.

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:41:14 +0000, Paul Rudin put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Traffic and parking policy shouldn't be about winning friends.
>>
>> Residents' parking schemes are very much about winning votes.
>
> I know. That's what's wrong with them.
>
> One of the problems with local democracy is that people who live in an area
> have more power than those who work or shop in the same area, because the
> right to vote is based on residence alone. So councillors pander to
> residents, at the expense of commuters and shoppers, because only the
> former have the power to eject them from office.

You should come to Ely. Most of the local council's objectives are for
people outside the City.

So we are paying Ł1m towards the A14 upgrade, even though it is far away.

We are spending Ł30m on a bypass so one of the richest hauliers in the
country can avoid the toll section of the A14.

We haven't adopted civil parking enforcement.

We are moving the leisure centre out of the City to the other side of
the by-pass

We are putting a new cinema on a field beyond the by pass

[Roland Perry]

In message <3fkb89li3kq11s54h...@news.markshouse.net>, at
08:01:41 on Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>legally, roads are equally available to any lawful user; there's
>nothing in statute or common law which gives residents any greater
>rights over a road than any other user.

There is however a very strong perception that residents get "first
dibs" on any available on-street parking, even in the absence of a RP
scheme.

There's common sense involved here - when there was a match on at Tent
Bridge or one of the adjacent football clubs, all the roads in West
Bridgford would fill up with parked cars belonging to spectators. But
they could park anywhere within a fifteen minute walk of the grounds
with equal utility to them. But if every householder in the town is
forced to park fifteen minutes walk from their houses that day as a
result of the influx, are you at all surprised that it might breed
resentment?

Rinse and repeat for commuters parking near the station, and where I
used to live people using the bus route as an informal P&R to get to the
City Centre (where on-street parking really was impossible, even for
residents).
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <bem4fk...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:31:47 on Fri, 15
Nov 2013, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <r.moss-...@computer.org> remarked:

>You should come to Ely. Most of the local council's objectives are for
>people outside the City.

I disagree when it comes to parking. The current schemes (plenty of free
parking) attracts visitors to the town, but that enables it to thrive
for the benefit of local people who have places to shop that wouldn't
otherwise be economically viable, and of course providing jobs.

Luckily, the turnover of vehicles within the car parks doesn't create
too much of a traffic problem, possibly because the roads have been
relieved of people driving around looking for somewhere to park.

>So we are paying Ł1m towards the A14 upgrade, even though it is far
>away.

Ely is, or the District? Of course, if it is upgraded than maybe some of
the cross-country traffic will us it and spare our local roads.

>We are spending Ł30m on a bypass so one of the richest hauliers in the
>country can avoid the toll section of the A14.

I think I've changed my mind about the bypass, and perhaps it should not
go ahead, then maybe all those trucks will find a different route. But
I'm not one of the Ely residents stuck in vast jam from Soham to the
level crossing every evening.

If they move Tesco to the edge of the bypass I'll stop shopping there,
as it will be too far to walk, yet driving there would be absurd.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l63h2v$634$1...@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:55 on Thu, 14 Nov

2013, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>>> That's getting into "ambulances can ignore red traffic lights" territory.
>>
>> That's never true. No-one is allowed to ignore red traffic lights
>
>Not ignore, but go through

Which is ignoring the command to STOP.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l63ge0$2ab$1...@dont-email.me>, at 21:47:44 on Thu, 14 Nov

2013, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>> For the two sets of 20 minutes that both we and the nanny need a parking
>> space.
>
>If that was during the day, yes, tough, you pay for a permit and a
>day-pass. Widdums. You can afford a nanny.

But that's simply a money-making exercise for the council, and
absolutely nothing to do with keeping the street clear of cars.

My turn to spell out the mind-numbing detail: during those two 20 minute
periods there is no shortage of parking.
--
Roland Perry

[Rhodri James]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:53:45 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

But not ignoring the light itself. Changing the meaning is not the same
as ignoring it.

--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest herder to the masses
Disclaimer: it's all my fault.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <l63ge0$2ab$1...@dont-email.me>, at 21:47:44 on Thu, 14 Nov
> 2013, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>> For the two sets of 20 minutes that both we and the nanny need a parking
>>> space.
>>
>>If that was during the day, yes, tough, you pay for a permit and a
>>day-pass. Widdums. You can afford a nanny.
>
> But that's simply a money-making exercise for the council, and
> absolutely nothing to do with keeping the street clear of cars.

WTF? Only *residents* can obtain permits and day-passes. The
commuters cannot (legitimately).

> My turn to spell out the mind-numbing detail: during those two 20 minute
> periods there is no shortage of parking.

And? As things stand, that's how it works. Stop the commuters
parking and hey presto, there's masses of space during the day
as all the residents bugger off elsewhere.

Perhaps we (as a society) could apply some late 20th-century
thinking (aka 'yield management') to the problem - e.g. auction
off a number of restricted hours passes to commuters, e.g. they
can park during the day but must vacate the space by 4 o'clock,
so as to allow residents returning from work to park. OSLT -
implementation details are unimportant. The point is not allowing
valuable parking space to go unused. We have the technology to
set this sort of thing up. Parking wardens (or whatever it is
this week) could scoot around on bicycles with cameras mounted
on them scanning number plates and checking them against the
allowed list.

It's a bit like Boris Bikes. The idea of community bike schemes
has been around for ages, it just never worked until a certain
level of technology became affordable.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Really? Round here it feels like "they" keep trying to foist
it on us and "we" keep telling them to go forth and multiply.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.w6k5k0dc2ltq1d@sto-helit>, at 10:18:26 on Fri, 15 Nov
2013, Rhodri James <rho...@kynesim.invalid> remarked:

>>>>> That's getting into "ambulances can ignore red traffic lights"
>>>>>territory.
>>>>
>>>> That's never true. No-one is allowed to ignore red traffic lights
>>>
>>> Not ignore, but go through
>>
>> Which is ignoring the command to STOP.
>
>But not ignoring the light itself. Changing the meaning is not the
>same as ignoring it.

That's beyond any reasonable pedantry, even for cam.misc :)
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l64u76$ues$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:49:10 on Fri, 15 Nov

2013, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>>> For the two sets of 20 minutes that both we and the nanny need a parking
>>>> space.
>>>
>>>If that was during the day, yes, tough, you pay for a permit and a
>>>day-pass. Widdums. You can afford a nanny.
>>
>> But that's simply a money-making exercise for the council, and
>> absolutely nothing to do with keeping the street clear of cars.
>
>WTF? Only *residents* can obtain permits and day-passes. The
>commuters cannot (legitimately).

Indeed, so we the residents have to get a day-pass for our nanny.
Commuters were fighting for parking spaces several miles to the east.

Of course, nannies are a bit out of date now, both the name and the
function. Ours was more of a non-live-in au pair, and these days there's
much more (even to the extent of being state subsidised) day care
available.

>> My turn to spell out the mind-numbing detail: during those two 20 minute
>> periods there is no shortage of parking.
>
>And? As things stand, that's how it works. Stop the commuters
>parking and hey presto, there's masses of space during the day
>as all the residents bugger off elsewhere.

Exactly, so why penalise the residents' daytime visitors (however
regular or irregular they are) by forcing the purchase of permits.

Hand the things out free! You could even link them to the vehicle, if
enforcement is an issue.

> The idea of community bike schemes has been around for ages, it just
>never worked until a certain level of technology became affordable.

It's not even affordable, it needs a huge subsidy.
--
Roland Perry

[rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <87zjp66...@rudin.co.uk>, paul....@rudin.co.uk (Paul

The cynical view. Making Victorian residential areas viable in the age of
the motor car would be a more positive view.

People forget that before policies like residents parking came in the
default plan was demolish all terraced housing. It was thought only to be a
matter of time.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

[Roland Perry]

In message <-OmdnaDWHtb4lBvP...@giganews.com>, at 05:45:41
on Fri, 15 Nov 2013, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:

>People forget that before policies like residents parking came in the
>default plan was demolish all terraced housing. It was thought only to be a
>matter of time.

Even the terraces in Eltisley Avenue?
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Bird]

Hardly. I'll wager Colin's talking about Romsey.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 15/11/13 12:00, Roland Perry wrote:

Frankly it still should be policy to demolish most terraces..

They were built to a time and a standard and for a lifestyle that no
longer exists.

They don't have anywhere to put cars. They don't have anywhere even to
put flipping bicycles. They are badly built, mostly uninsulated and
semi uninsulatable, cramped, have poor sanitary facilities despite
thousands being spent on pretending they are bijoux residences suitable
for aspiring middle class families.

Most of them wouldn't pass modern building regulations by a country
(town?) mile.

the actual cost benefit of preserving the layout and shell and bringing
them up to standards is approximately or positively negative.

There are far better arrangements for modern urban living - even at the
'affrdabale/social' level.

One development that impressed me was Shelley gardens. an enclosed
courtyard with some parking and flats and maisonettes around it.

If you wanted kids, you chose a ground floor flat with a small garden,
if not take the upper floor and get a view :-)

Far rather live there than any Romsey Town terrace..


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

[Paul Bird]

I agree with most of that except the word cramped. By now the majority
will have had inside bathrooms and toilets added/installed. While
ceiling height doesn't contribute to the GIA it does make a difference
to the quality of life, for example our ceiling height upstairs is 8' 6"
which you would struggle to find a in modern dwelling (with few
exceptions though Cavendish Terrace by DudleyDevelopments wasn't bad
when I saw it).

I wouldn't describe the room sizes as cramped by any measure, the one
discussion point that has arisen in previous exchanges on this subject
has been the benefit of demolishing the three bed terraces and building
to three or four storeys in replacement so as to further increase the
population density and make better use of the land. The problem there is
that the already narrow (FSVO narrow) streets would then appear more so
and I would prefer to see this done on the wider streets rather than the
already narrow ones.

PB

[Roland Perry]

In message <l65499$vbd$1...@news.albasani.net>, at 12:32:41 on Fri, 15 Nov
2013, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>>> People forget that before policies like residents parking came in
>>>the default plan was demolish all terraced housing. It was thought
>>>only to be a matter of time.
>>
>> Even the terraces in Eltisley Avenue?
>
>Frankly it still should be policy to demolish most terraces..
>
>They were built to a time and a standard and for a lifestyle that no
>longer exists.
>
>They don't have anywhere to put cars.

Although in Eltisley Avenue there's plenty of space to park one car in
the street outside...

>They don't have anywhere even to put flipping bicycles.

.. and at least half a dozen cycles in the front garden. Or perhaps a
hundred in the back garden which is accessed by an alleyway.

I used to keep my cycle in the hallway.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l655c6$43v$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:51:20 on Fri, 15 Nov
2013, Paul Bird <pa...@nospamcamtutor.co.uk> remarked:

>I wouldn't describe the room sizes as cramped by any measure

Agreed, I think the master bedroom in my Eltisley Avenue terraced house
was one of the biggest we ever had [in the UK]. It's across the whole of
the front of the house - ironically a slightly larger house would
probably fall for the temptation of sticking a very small third bedroom
over the downstairs hall, thus reducing the size of the master.
--
Roland Perry

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Roland Perry wrote:

> Agreed, I think the master bedroom in my Eltisley Avenue terraced house
> was one of the biggest we ever had [in the UK]. It's across the whole of
> the front of the house - ironically a slightly larger house would
> probably fall for the temptation of sticking a very small third bedroom
> over the downstairs hall, thus reducing the size of the master.

In fact what happens in those circs is that the back bedroom is now the
largest.

[Fevric J. Glandules]

Roland Perry wrote:

> Exactly, so why penalise the residents' daytime visitors (however
> regular or irregular they are) by forcing the purchase of permits.
>
> Hand the things out free!

<sigh>

That was my point, at least as regards occasional visitors.

>> The idea of community bike schemes has been around for ages, it just
>>never worked until a certain level of technology became affordable.
>
> It's not even affordable, it needs a huge subsidy.

<sigh>

I didn't say the scheme was affordable, I said the technology was
affordable. Without the cheap technology you can't even *start*.

[Roland Perry]

In message <l659ul$ukv$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:09:25 on Fri, 15 Nov

2013, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Exactly, so why penalise the residents' daytime visitors (however
>> regular or irregular they are) by forcing the purchase of permits.
>>
>> Hand the things out free!
>
><sigh>
>
>That was my point, at least as regards occasional visitors.

But I'm talking about more regular visitors.

>>> The idea of community bike schemes has been around for ages, it just
>>>never worked until a certain level of technology became affordable.
>>
>> It's not even affordable, it needs a huge subsidy.
>
><sigh>
>
>I didn't say the scheme was affordable, I said the technology was
>affordable. Without the cheap technology you can't even *start*.

The technology[1] clearly isn't (affordable) without the subsidy. Bikes
themselves are cheap enough.

[1] For fee-charging, clamping unused bikes, and moving them around to
cope with unequal flows.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <l659mh$t2s$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:05:05 on Fri, 15 Nov

2013, Fevric J. Glandules <f...@invalid.invalid> remarked:

Not in a classic L-shaped terrace, because the back bedroom has the
corridor/landing to the rear portion alongside it, and of course the
rear section is much narrower. In my rectangular footprint house, the
rear bedroom is the same size as the front one because it's next to the
family bathroom which abstracts the same amount of space as the third
bedroom at the front.
--
Roland Perry