Residents parking

[irc]

Roads are a public resource.

Quite right - so why should some people have an exclusive right to use this public resource to park their cars?

As TM said. They rarely do. Usually non residents can park and pay at meters. I really can't see the problem. The choice being a free for all encouraging commuters to clog up arterial roads to park free close to the city centre - or meters plus residents parking scheme where many drivers now choose to commute by public transport while city centre residential street parking is still there for anyone that needs it for a moderate fee. Short term parking is cheap - all day parking expensive.

[pete75]

Roads are a public resource.

Quite right - so why should some people have an exclusive right to use this public resource to park their cars?

As TM said. They rarely do. Usually non residents can park and pay at meters. I really can't see the problem. The choice being a free for all encouraging commuters to clog up arterial roads to park free close to the city centre - or meters plus residents parking scheme where many drivers now choose to commute by public transport while city centre residential street parking is still there for anyone that needs it for a moderate fee. Short term parking is cheap - all day parking expensive.

The problem is streets clogged up with residents cars. No parking at all would be better than residents parking.

Failing that there should be some relationship between the amount of street parking available and the number of vehicles per property. A friend lives in a pleasant three story Edwardian house in Muswell Hill. There is enough road space outside their property for them to park their single car. DItto for all the other properties on the street. However many of these pleasant family homes have been divided up into flats , one on each floor.Some even have the basement converted into a fourth flat. The residents of each flat usually have a car, often two. See the problem - a street long enough to park one and half cars in front of each property now has a requirement for up to eight vehicles to park for each dwelling house. Something needs to be done to address this sort of thing and the most effective way would be to restrict ownership to one vehicle for each house.

[Threevok]

I concur with Pete

I live in a terraced street of over 60 houses and we are one of the few houses that only own one car. Most houses have at least two cars, plus some have work vans parked outside too.

[Username]

I find it strange that planners approve development with no off-street parking as it means the public purse then effectively has to provide the parking (on-road). And the cost of making road parking is much higher (on the public purse) than it would be for the developer (lost profit) as the build cost/quality of road surface is much higher than that of a private driveway.

If a 2-way road is required and built then that is what was wanted. Why establish the need for, design and build a 2-way road and then get a single track road.

Strikes me that on-road parking is effectively just the public providing and paying for parking where the developer decides to squeeze more houses in.

(I can appreciate there are historical situations as pointed out by Vorpal above, but there must often be other solutions e.g. off-road parking area nearby - might not suit the residents but then why should the public purse provide their parking and suffer the consequences of restricted roads).

Ian

Never thought of it like that before, excellent point. However by the time anything is done about it, the sun will have burned out, incinerating Earth and all of its motorists with it. Its a slow process.

[Tangled Metal]

I wonder how many of the posters complaining about resident's parking have the money or live in areas where private, off street parking is even possible. If you have the property with space to park off street great just do it, but quit complaining about resident's parking. Some people have no choice but are trying to do what they can.

Our choice is to live where we are near family (help with childcare) and near work. We still need a car but will be keeping just one car. Public transport and cycles are used as much as possible. There is no parking anywhere nearby, terraced streets like many other northern towns.

So, what is the solution? No car allowed? Take it from me we cannot get by without it but we did look into using hire cars and give it up. If you stop me from having a car because there's no off street parking available to me then round here i think you will introduce a financial prejudice. Only those with the money for above average priced houses can have cars. A large proportion of houses in Lancaster, for example, are terraced with only street parking. As i recall from when i looked at houses in Lancaster i saw the houses with driveways were above our pay grade. We're not low income more towards middle round our way i think. Still no driveways possible anywhere suitable for our work/life balance.

If you really believe car parking is a problem on streets then come up with a fair solution. Politicians would need a fair solution for most of their electorate to go with it. Until then mtfu on your commute through those problem streets or move to avoid these streets, perhaps like us move closer to work, family or places you most need to travel to thus avoiding car use as much as possible.

[irc]

Quite right - so why should some people have an exclusive right to use this public resource to park their cars?

As TM said. They rarely do. Usually non residents can park and pay at meters. I really can't see the problem. The choice being a free for all encouraging commuters to clog up arterial roads to park free close to the city centre - or meters plus residents parking scheme where many drivers now choose to commute by public transport while city centre residential street parking is still there for anyone that needs it for a moderate fee. Short term parking is cheap - all day parking expensive.

The problem is streets clogged up with residents cars. No parking at all would be better than residents parking.

Failing that there should be some relationship between the amount of street parking available and the number of vehicles per property. A friend lives in a pleasant three story Edwardian house in Muswell Hill. There is enough road space outside their property for them to park their single car. DItto for all the other properties on the street. However many of these pleasant family homes have been divided up into flats , one on each floor.Some even have the basement converted into a fourth flat. The residents of each flat usually have a car, often two. See the problem - a street long enough to park one and half cars in front of each property now has a requirement for up to eight vehicles to park for each dwelling house. Something needs to be done to address this sort of thing and the most effective way would be to restrict ownership to one vehicle for each house.

A residents parking scheme is what you need. Usually restricted to one car per household. Not perfect but would reduce the number of cars. But then the parking situation is a major consideration buying a house. No point buying a house in a street with 40 households and parking for 20 cars then complaining you can't get parked.

The problem is streets clogged up with residents cars. No parking at all would be better than residents parking.

In your opinion. You are entitled to your view but in democracy you'll never get all cars banned. A parking scheme is the best option for the most people. We'll have to differ on this one. Cheerio.

[thirdcrank]

There's going to be no political solution in the foreseeable future, just as there hasn't been one up to now: the authorities merely respond to the situation and fiddle at the edges. I've often quoted my dear old Dad saying what would happen if everybody did it? Although he was predicting the Leeds Liverpool Canal being filled with thrown stones, it applies in spades to owning motor cars. Great till everybody has one. In many places there's not enough room to make reasonable progress and, bearing in mind that even high-mileage cars tend to spend more time parked than being driven, needing parking space at both ends of every journey, it can only get worse. For many people working in city centres, especially London, the car is already an unavailable commuting option, but our infrastructure is still becoming increasingly dependent on car ownership. In short, the benefits of car ownership will eventually be killed by the popularity of car ownership, a victim of its own success.

It's wrong, of course, to say that everybody has a car or will ever do so, but increasingly, some people have more than one and so make up the numbers for those who don't.

To declare an interest I have a garage (too full of junk ever to take a car again) and three parking spaces from paving over our front garden. I am the registered keeper of two cars, (but I only ever drive one at once ) And it's almost twenty years since I gave up commuting.

[Bmblbzzz]

Just as an aside, the idea that terraced streets are particularly northern or even essentially working class is not correct. But then the idea that residential parking problems are characteristic of either working class or middle class would be equally false.

[mjr]

I think I've lived in homes with most parking types except on-street resident permits: numbered private parking spaces, unallocated communal car park, off-street parking in front of houses (herringbone), narrow terraced street, own driveway, flat with no parking (we bought a permit for the municipal car park for a bit over £30/month). All except the last two would probably be improved by resident permits IMO. I don't understand the argument against them: isn't it that opponent-visitors are simply too lazy to walk from free car parks and too tight to pay for central car parks?

Ironically, we now have more parking spaces than car but no one will ever want to rent a space out here in a village and there's free 8-hour parking within 20m.

[Bmblbzzz]

Is it exclusive? Depends on the local regulations i guess.

Some roads have no exclusivity. My road anyone can and often do park in it. Like people visiting the library round the corner despite the library having its own carpark. Instead some library users think it's ok to park right at the entrance to the road on the double yellow lines. On demand lights but you really can't see past cars parked like that.

Others are residents parking restrictions where anyone with a resident's permit can park there but visitors only for a set length of time with a no return period (usually within peak times).

Others you need a resident's permit to park there at all. I've seen a few streets (IIRC Bristol and Harrogate) where each house has a single car parking space which has been numbered on the road with appropriate signage.

Out of those only the last option can really be called exclusive.

IMHO some street parking is as open to use for road users as Sheffield stands in towns for bikes. You can't blame people for using what is available. The issue is we've never really had plans to manage increases in use of certain modes of transport until too late. Roads get overwhelmed before authorities start to look at the issue. Not the users but the Authorities that are at fault IMHO.

Not Bristol. Various areas of Bristol have residents parking zones, but the system is up to three permits per household (and up to two vehicles per permit, though it can only be used in one vehicle at a time) and there are no numbered spaces, it's just a permit to park in a specified district. Within that district, some streets or parts of streets also have meter parking available to all; usually up to 3 hours, I think, but in most zones the permit system only applies Monday-Friday 9am-5pm. Outside the hours of operation, street parking is available to all. There are also visitors permits, which each household gets free.

Having said that, I realise it could be in the very centre of Bristol. The absolute central zone operates in a different way, and though I've not noticed numbered spaces, there is a ban on new residents parking cars on the street. Which is in itself interesting. Someone was fined last year for moving in then buying a car and parking it on the next street.

[Vorpal]

Mr. V lived for a while where there was a permit scheme for on-street parking.

IMO, it was mainly there to get football fans to use public transport or the more expensive car parks around the stadium, and not because residents need the scheme.

[pete75]

The problem is streets clogged up with residents cars. No parking at all would be better than residents parking.

In your opinion. You are entitled to your view but in democracy you'll never get all cars banned. A parking scheme is the best option for the most people. We'll have to differ on this one. Cheerio.

Who said anything about getting all cars banned? The idea is to reduce car ownership particularly near the centres of towns and cities. Most think a reduction in car ownership a desirable aim.

[tykeboy2003]

Most think a reduction in car ownership a desirable aim.

Except motor manufacturers.... and former Top Gear presenters etc....

[Psamathe]

I wonder how many of the posters complaining about resident's parking have the money or live in areas where private, off street parking is even possible. If you have the property with space to park off street great just do it, but quit complaining about resident's parking. Some people have no choice but are trying to do what they can.

Our choice is to live where we are near family (help with childcare) and near work. We still need a car but will be keeping just one car. Public transport and cycles are used as much as possible. There is no parking anywhere nearby, terraced streets like many other northern towns.

So, what is the solution? No car allowed? Take it from me we cannot get by without it but we did look into using hire cars and give it up. If you stop me from having a car because there's no off street parking available to me then round here i think you will introduce a financial prejudice. Only those with the money for above average priced houses can have cars. A large proportion of houses in Lancaster, for example, are terraced with only street parking. As i recall from when i looked at houses in Lancaster i saw the houses with driveways were above our pay grade. We're not low income more towards middle round our way i think. Still no driveways possible anywhere suitable for our work/life balance.

If you really believe car parking is a problem on streets then come up with a fair solution. Politicians would need a fair solution for most of their electorate to go with it. Until then mtfu on your commute through those problem streets or move to avoid these streets, perhaps like us move closer to work, family or places you most need to travel to thus avoiding car use as much as possible.

But I can't see anything in what you say that justifies why the pubic purse should then provide and pay for your parking space. Worse situation given that the cost per sq ft of road is somewhat higher than the cost per sq ft of driveway (given the road surface has to be up to ongoing traffic ...).

You list a lot of circumstances that mean you require a car and cannot live somewhere where you have parking provided with the property - but all of those circumstances are of your making; as you say "Our choice is to live where ..." and the implication is Our choice is to live where ... everybody else pays for and provides the parking that goes with our choices.

"Fairness" is different to different people, but I'd consider the public purse providing and paying for your parking space is not fair (or those who are paying).

Ian

[blackbike]

The councils in my area spend lots of taxpayers money trying to encourage use of public transport.

So why do they encourage car ownership and therefore car use by running residents parking schemes for people who don't make arrangements for keeping their cars on their own private land?

Councils should discourage on-road parking by residents or maintain a neutral stance. Active encouragement is irresponsible from an environmental point of view, especially in urban areas where emissions from vehicles cause health problems. It also means that our money they spend on promoting public transport use is wasted.