CAR PARKING: A REVIEW OF THE CONSULTANTS’ PROPOSALS

Introduced by Denis Lovelace on 8 September 1998

The consultants’ report was originally scheduled for publication in April (and this meeting for May), but has still not been published; it is now to be presented at the Planning, Transportation and Environment Committee (PTE) meeting on 1 October. The speaker explained this and pointed out that the PTE Committee were, according to the consultants, going to decide which of the recommendations in the report to accept before any public discussion of the report was possible, which he considered an unsatisfactory form of public consultation.
He then explained that he would speak provocatively about various aspects of car parking which were of concern. Although disappointed, the audience of twenty people responded to his lively presentation with an informative discussion.
He vigorously supported Park & Ride schemes pointing out that there were environmental and transport problems in towns as well as in the countryside and that P&R was necessary to deal with them. He considered that it was essential when a P&R site was opened to prevent the equivalent number of cars from parking in the city, especially those used by commuters. He wanted signs directing drivers to P&R sites and displaying the financial, space and pollution penalties drivers would incur by trying to park in the centre.
He also supported the installation of parking meters in Victoria Park and Royal Avenue, since about 50 % of the cars parked there remain for over 4 hours, indicating that they belong to commuters. He felt the Council were justified in using this method of raising additional income. During a vigorous discussion on this subject with some residents who live close to the Park, who particularly objected to roads being narrowed by parked cars to a width which prevented emergency vehicles using them, it was agreed that planning to prevent this should have preceded the installation of meters in the Park.
Referring to the recent ‘Reclaim the Streets’ demonstration, the speaker described the scheme put forward two years ago by Bath Environment and Traffic Network for diverting heavy goods vehicles away from Bath; he would be attending a meeting on the subject in a few days time. He considered that the A46 - A36 link from Bathampton to Dry Arch ought to have been built.
The on-going discussion in the Bath Chronicle letters column about cyclists riding on pavements led him to suggest that cyclists should be licensed and number-plated like cars; required to have third-party insurance and subject to a fixed penalty on-the-spot fine. He did not blame cyclists, he blamed the Crown Prosecution Service for their policy of not prosecuting law-breaking cyclists.
During the general discussion it was agreed that an integrated policy was essential as piece-meal solutions merely moved the problems without solving them. Consultation was necessary but then the Council had to take a decision and carry it out in spite of subsequent objections; a ‘second thoughts’ policy just postponed action - and frequently resulted in another consultants’ report.
Don Lovell