Alan Roden from the Evening News has just told me that we have some success! He's forwarded a quotation to me from Ricky Henderson, the Executive Member for Transport. Here it is:
'After a productive meeting with a group of Marchmont residents, we are reviewing the streets in Zones 7 and 8 which are under the most parking pressures. We then plan to allow permit holders in these streets to park in certain S1 streets temporarily. In the long term, the boundaries of the three zones will be reviewed and are likely to be redrawn.
'As we do routinely, we will also review the parking bays and yellow lines to ensure safety as well as balance competing parking demands.
'We look forward to continue working with residents to come up with innovative solutions like this.'
Alan says there'll be a new article in the Evening News tomorrow.
Congratulations everyone, it looks like we've made it (just have to wait for the letters to come through, now).
I'd like to thank everyone who's helped with this campaign. Lots of you have put in an enormous amount of work. Thank you very much :-)
Monday, December 11, 2006
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Concerns from elsewhere
I had invited Anonymous, who wrote the second email in Concerns from S1, to have coffee and discuss the situation. Cameron Rose agreed to come along, too, to referee :-) We all met up yesterday and I think we had a fruitful and civilised meeting. It was really good to meet you, Anonymous, and get a different point of view.
I must apologise to everyone because I had assumed and then misled you all to believe that Anonymous lives in S1. This isn't the case. Anonymous lives in the Grange just outside of S1. I hope you will forgive me.
Of course, this is where all of the commuters and people from S1 (and maybe 7 and 8, too) who don't want to buy permits are hanging out.
Anonymous has promised me a follow up email which I will add to the bottom of this post when it arrives.
I hope I put our case reasonably well. I think the main point from my side was some kind of proof that we aren't going to overrun the quiet side of S1, the bit that Sciennes sits in and is now empty. Here's a sketch of my proof that doesn't require any statistics.
Two or three years ago, when my wife and I came back from the States, we didn't buy a permit immediately. We parked in what is now the empty, eastern bit of S1.
Now, during the day, it was impossible to find a space, I would drive around endlessly, hoping that someone would leave in front of me, letting me in. I would also notice that some people had their drives covered by the inconsiderate and other such unpleasantness.
At night, however, it was a different story altogether. Parking was trivial and immediate. I always ended up right on the edge of S1, within view of the Argyle pub, as close as possible to my own house. There were very few cars in that area at night.
The overflow from 7 and 8 (and possibly elsewhere) would have gone up there at night, just as I did. That overflow must have been bigger before than it would be now because back then the streets of 7 and 8 were only half full at night - everyone now would need a permit and having paid will prefer their own streets to having to use overflow.
So, this, I think, goes to show that if zones 7 and 8 were merged with S1, then the situation for S1 Sciennes would be better, night and day, than it used to be at night before S1.
Here's Anonymous' email:
Hugh,
Thank you for the time that you and Cameron Rose took yesterday to meet me and to explain your position. That has helped me to understand much better what it is that you are seeking. I have therefore set down in this e-mail what I understand to be the position and I hope that you will find it helpful to post this on your blog to see if it does accord with the wishes of the residents of Marchmont. I am sure that you will be the first to add your own comments after the posting below, to correct me if I have misunderstood and to put your proposals in your own perspective. I truly appreciate the open spirit in which you have invited me to contribute to your debate and I trust the discussion here will continue in a constructive manner that allows us all to see issues from each other’s perspective.
What does ‘good’ look like for residents’ parking in Marchmont and Zone S1?
I hope that the above is consistent with your current proposals – albeit expressed in my words from the perspective of an outsider. I will be interested to see the degree of unanimity among contributors to your blog about whether this is indeed what you all seek.
An outsider’s perspective on these proposals
A) Setting the zone boundaries
It seems logical to set the boundaries of parking zones to align with natural boundaries, such as major roads or lines where the style of housing changes. By putting together groups of properties – say, tenemented flats and terraced housing – which have similar demands for parking, there will be a broad consensus between all residents in that zone about what is desirable. There will also be a stronger sense of a common purpose, in that one street’s gain is not another street’s loss. The current boundary between Z8 and S1 does appear arbitrary and I can see why residents of Warrender Park Road would feel a strong affinity with residents of, say, Arden Street. To the outsider, the streets have a similar look and feel of grand terraces. It is hard to understand why Arden Street should be in Zone S1 when Warrender Park Road is in Zone 8. In both cases I think it a crying shame that the roads look like car parks, diminishing the grand architecture of the area, but that is clearly what the residents of both roads want and their wishes should take precedence over mine.
I can therefore see why it seems logical to merge the Marchmont section of Zone S1 with the Marchmont sections of Zones 7 and 8, creating an area where residents share a common purpose of seeking to maximise the number of cars they can park on their streets. You told me that the number of spaces available in the Marchmont section of S1 is many more than the number needed to accommodate all the demand from Marchmont Zone 8 at present (if shared use is introduced to the pay-and-display bays) and therefore, after the proposed boundary changes, there should be no problem of anyone being unable to park near their home. I have not seen any data to support this assertion, in particular any data about the number of cars owned by residents of Marchmont (rather than the number of residents permits held by them) and it would greatly inform the debate if you could get such information. If you are right, then I can understand that it would be appropriate to bring all of the Marchmont streets, where on-street parking is needed, into the same zone.
I think it less likely, however, that residents of the roads with large family homes will take a similar view about welcoming Marchmont residents into the S1 family. Hatton Place and Tantallon Place are good examples. Those roads have been transformed with the introduction of S1. Their properties are very different from the properties just around the corner in Marchmont. They are large family homes with off-street parking. The roads had been solidly parked before but are now empty, showing that the residents do not want or need to park on their streets. I very much doubt that these residents will feel much affinity with the residents of Marchmont whose objective is to maximise the number of cars that can be parked on the streets.
I therefore suggest that it may be appropriate to subdivide S1 into sub-zones determined by the type of property in the road. The natural boundaries are the places where tenemented or terraced properties end and family homes with off-street parking begin. I understand that the focus of the debate will then become whether, in the interest of the wider community, those with the good fortune to live in the roads where residents do not need on-street parking should have residents from adjacent streets given any special dispensation to park there (i.e. unlimited parking for the price of a resident’s permit).
I therefore do not believe that you will find a common sense of purpose throughout the whole of the current S1 zone and the Marchmont areas of Z7 and Z8. The Council and our elected politicians will have to make that difficult decision about whether residents who do not need any on-street parking should be in the same controlled parking zone as residents whose objective will be to maximise the number of cars that can be parked on the streets of the zone. This is the element of ‘balanced use’ to which Cameron Rose referred in his deputation to the Council on 21 September 2006.
http://www.myedinburgh.org/channel/205/downloads/counciladdress0906.doc
In this, he notes that over 500 cars could be parked in Lauder Road. The implication is clearly that, as a single community, the burden of car parking should be spread more evenly throughout the area. The debate will be whether having Lauder Road empty is good or bad for residents as a whole. I set out my own views on this in my earlier posting. http://marchmontparking.blogspot.com/2006/11/concerns-from-s1.html
B) Reducing demand for parking and valuing the street environment
I understand that you do not believe that there should be any action to reduce the demand for parking from residents, even if the streets where they live do not have sufficient spaces. I had suggested that there are two ways in which this could be done:
However, you have dismissed both of these options. As I understand your position, you consider that residents – whether existing residents or new residents moving in – should be entitled to park their cars near to their properties for the cost of the administration of the permits. They should make no financial contribution to the community in return for preferential parking rights on the streets. Parking should be available on-street for any resident that requires it, close to his or her home, from the day they move in.
The approach you advocate does not allow those who do not need on-street parking – either because they do not own a car or because they have off-street parking - to place a value on the road space or the streetscape. You pointed out to me that the 1,225 residents’ permits currently issued in Zone 8, even though they are 62% more than the 755 residents’ spaces available, are still a small number by comparison with the number of dwellings in the zone. I infer that car owners are a minority in Zone 8. I would be unhappy if I were a non car owning resident of Zone 8, paying £2 per day to travel to work on the bus, to have residents’ cars dominating my home environment for the cost of just 31 pence per day (£80 per year). I would expect to get something in return for this loss of my environment and I would want the car owning residents to make a contribution to the community equal to the value to all residents of the road space.
Moreover, I believe that a combination of unrestricted issuing of permits at the current cost of £80 per year, together with a rezoning that makes more spaces available for Marchmont residents in a newly expanded S1, will lead to an increase in the number of cars in the area. People are currently discouraged from acquiring a car and moving into Marchmont because parking is difficult. If it becomes both easy and cheap, there will be no economic signal to constrain an increase in car ownership in the area. I am not persuaded that this is equitable for the car owning and non car owning residents of Marchmont and Zone 8.
My views on this extend beyond Marchmont to my own area of the Grange. Although you maintain that the cost of a resident’s permit should not exceed the administrative costs, we can observe a market price for parking on the streets of Zone S1. There is already plenty of parking available to all residents of Marchmont Zone 8 and S1. Most of the pay and display bays are empty in S1 for most of the day. There are many bays available for parking for the whole nine hours from 0830 to 1730 (e.g. in Lauder Road and Dick Place). These cost £4.30 per day and the meters allow a rollover, whereby if you arrive mid afternoon, you can buy nine hours of parking to take you through to mid afternoon the following day without moving the car.
The issue therefore is money, not parking space. Zone 8 residents are not willing to pay the £4.30 per day for guaranteed parking, rather than £80 per year for a resident’s permit in their overcrowded zone. I conclude that the present value of road space to car owners is less than £4.30 per day. If it is not worth that much to the residents of the present Zone 8 to be able to park in S1, it will appear inequitable to the residents of Hatton Place and Tantallon Place to be required to have cars parked in their streets for the cost of a resident’s permit, which at £80 per year is the equivalent of 31 pence per day. I suspect that the residents of Hatton Place would pay a lot more than £80 per year just to keep their roads empty if they were given the choice and that they therefore place a much higher value on the road space, probably closer to the £1,118 per year for pay-and-display parking. If a Marchmont resident can secure a road space for £80 to keep his car in, why cannot another resident secure road space for the same price and keep it empty? I certainly would pay more than £80 per year to have yellow lines painted the length of the street where I live. It is not evident to me why the “balance” to which Cameron Rose refers in his deputation to the Council should be in favour of car owners who need on-street parking and against non car owners and those residents with off-street parking who do value empty space in the roads and the amenity of a pleasant and safe streetscape. By keeping the cost of permits down below the evident market price for on-street parking, this creates a cross subsidy to those with residents’ permits from those who do not need on-street parking. I have not seen a persuasive case for this social redistribution of benefit.
Thank you for letting me express my views here, being an outsider on your blog for Marchmont residents. I will be very interested to see the reaction from residents near and far.
Yours truly,
I must apologise to everyone because I had assumed and then misled you all to believe that Anonymous lives in S1. This isn't the case. Anonymous lives in the Grange just outside of S1. I hope you will forgive me.
Of course, this is where all of the commuters and people from S1 (and maybe 7 and 8, too) who don't want to buy permits are hanging out.
Anonymous has promised me a follow up email which I will add to the bottom of this post when it arrives.
I hope I put our case reasonably well. I think the main point from my side was some kind of proof that we aren't going to overrun the quiet side of S1, the bit that Sciennes sits in and is now empty. Here's a sketch of my proof that doesn't require any statistics.
Two or three years ago, when my wife and I came back from the States, we didn't buy a permit immediately. We parked in what is now the empty, eastern bit of S1.
Now, during the day, it was impossible to find a space, I would drive around endlessly, hoping that someone would leave in front of me, letting me in. I would also notice that some people had their drives covered by the inconsiderate and other such unpleasantness.
At night, however, it was a different story altogether. Parking was trivial and immediate. I always ended up right on the edge of S1, within view of the Argyle pub, as close as possible to my own house. There were very few cars in that area at night.
The overflow from 7 and 8 (and possibly elsewhere) would have gone up there at night, just as I did. That overflow must have been bigger before than it would be now because back then the streets of 7 and 8 were only half full at night - everyone now would need a permit and having paid will prefer their own streets to having to use overflow.
So, this, I think, goes to show that if zones 7 and 8 were merged with S1, then the situation for S1 Sciennes would be better, night and day, than it used to be at night before S1.
Here's Anonymous' email:
Hugh,
Thank you for the time that you and Cameron Rose took yesterday to meet me and to explain your position. That has helped me to understand much better what it is that you are seeking. I have therefore set down in this e-mail what I understand to be the position and I hope that you will find it helpful to post this on your blog to see if it does accord with the wishes of the residents of Marchmont. I am sure that you will be the first to add your own comments after the posting below, to correct me if I have misunderstood and to put your proposals in your own perspective. I truly appreciate the open spirit in which you have invited me to contribute to your debate and I trust the discussion here will continue in a constructive manner that allows us all to see issues from each other’s perspective.
What does ‘good’ look like for residents’ parking in Marchmont and Zone S1?
- Zones 7, 8 and S1 will remain. You are not advocating a merger of these zones. Rather, residents of Marchmont (Z8) want the boundaries of S1 enlarged to incorporate all of Marchmont (the streets currently in Z8 and Z7 bounded by Whitehouse Loan, Melville Drive, Causewayside, Sciennes Road and Warrender Park Road). Thus S1 would be larger; Z8 and Z7 would be smaller than at present.
- Most of the pay-and-display bays in the Marchmont sections of the present Z8 will be converted into shared use, meaning that holders of residents’ permits will not be required to pay to park in them.
- You do not want the Council to stop selling new permits (i.e. to residents who do not currently have permits). Although you acknowledge the current S1 limits of two permits per dwelling, you do not want any other action to reduce demand for parking, such as a waiting list for new permits or any increase in the cost of the permits.
- You seek a ‘balance’ of parking density across the community, meaning that you do not consider it appropriate to take account of an individual street’s capacity for parking in determining the number of parking spaces that should be made available nearby for residents of that street. If there are spaces in adjacent streets, these should be used for parking by residents of the more crowded streets. It is the community as a whole that should be considered; it is divisive to let individual streets optimise their parking for their own exclusive benefit.
I hope that the above is consistent with your current proposals – albeit expressed in my words from the perspective of an outsider. I will be interested to see the degree of unanimity among contributors to your blog about whether this is indeed what you all seek.
An outsider’s perspective on these proposals
A) Setting the zone boundaries
It seems logical to set the boundaries of parking zones to align with natural boundaries, such as major roads or lines where the style of housing changes. By putting together groups of properties – say, tenemented flats and terraced housing – which have similar demands for parking, there will be a broad consensus between all residents in that zone about what is desirable. There will also be a stronger sense of a common purpose, in that one street’s gain is not another street’s loss. The current boundary between Z8 and S1 does appear arbitrary and I can see why residents of Warrender Park Road would feel a strong affinity with residents of, say, Arden Street. To the outsider, the streets have a similar look and feel of grand terraces. It is hard to understand why Arden Street should be in Zone S1 when Warrender Park Road is in Zone 8. In both cases I think it a crying shame that the roads look like car parks, diminishing the grand architecture of the area, but that is clearly what the residents of both roads want and their wishes should take precedence over mine.
I can therefore see why it seems logical to merge the Marchmont section of Zone S1 with the Marchmont sections of Zones 7 and 8, creating an area where residents share a common purpose of seeking to maximise the number of cars they can park on their streets. You told me that the number of spaces available in the Marchmont section of S1 is many more than the number needed to accommodate all the demand from Marchmont Zone 8 at present (if shared use is introduced to the pay-and-display bays) and therefore, after the proposed boundary changes, there should be no problem of anyone being unable to park near their home. I have not seen any data to support this assertion, in particular any data about the number of cars owned by residents of Marchmont (rather than the number of residents permits held by them) and it would greatly inform the debate if you could get such information. If you are right, then I can understand that it would be appropriate to bring all of the Marchmont streets, where on-street parking is needed, into the same zone.
I think it less likely, however, that residents of the roads with large family homes will take a similar view about welcoming Marchmont residents into the S1 family. Hatton Place and Tantallon Place are good examples. Those roads have been transformed with the introduction of S1. Their properties are very different from the properties just around the corner in Marchmont. They are large family homes with off-street parking. The roads had been solidly parked before but are now empty, showing that the residents do not want or need to park on their streets. I very much doubt that these residents will feel much affinity with the residents of Marchmont whose objective is to maximise the number of cars that can be parked on the streets.
I therefore suggest that it may be appropriate to subdivide S1 into sub-zones determined by the type of property in the road. The natural boundaries are the places where tenemented or terraced properties end and family homes with off-street parking begin. I understand that the focus of the debate will then become whether, in the interest of the wider community, those with the good fortune to live in the roads where residents do not need on-street parking should have residents from adjacent streets given any special dispensation to park there (i.e. unlimited parking for the price of a resident’s permit).
I therefore do not believe that you will find a common sense of purpose throughout the whole of the current S1 zone and the Marchmont areas of Z7 and Z8. The Council and our elected politicians will have to make that difficult decision about whether residents who do not need any on-street parking should be in the same controlled parking zone as residents whose objective will be to maximise the number of cars that can be parked on the streets of the zone. This is the element of ‘balanced use’ to which Cameron Rose referred in his deputation to the Council on 21 September 2006.
http://www.myedinburgh.org/channel/205/downloads/counciladdress0906.doc
In this, he notes that over 500 cars could be parked in Lauder Road. The implication is clearly that, as a single community, the burden of car parking should be spread more evenly throughout the area. The debate will be whether having Lauder Road empty is good or bad for residents as a whole. I set out my own views on this in my earlier posting. http://marchmontparking.blogspot.com/2006/11/concerns-from-s1.html
B) Reducing demand for parking and valuing the street environment
I understand that you do not believe that there should be any action to reduce the demand for parking from residents, even if the streets where they live do not have sufficient spaces. I had suggested that there are two ways in which this could be done:
- Through a waiting list. There could be a moratorium on new permits in an area (or sub-area of densely parked streets) until enough people had moved out to bring the number of permits down to the number of spaces available. That would guarantee residents a space on their own street. During the moratorium, new people moving into the area would know when they buy or rent the property that they will not get a resident’s permit and will therefore have to pay the pay-and-display rates until such time as they get a permit. They will take this into consideration when deciding whether to buy or rent the property. With a property turnover of, say, 20% (average five years residency), the current excess in Zone 8 could take up to two years to clear and the waiting list could become that long.
- By increasing the cost of the permit. The current £80 per year reflects the administrative cost of providing the permit; it bears no relationship to the value that those buying the permit place on it. Raising the price would reduce demand and there will be a price at which the number of permits will equal the number of spaces in each area without the need for any waiting list. Given the emptiness of the pay-and-display bays in S1, which cost £4.30 per day or £1,118 to park in every day for a year, I infer that the value of a parking place is currently less than £1,118 per year and raising the charge to something less than this would be sufficient to bring demand and supply back into balance.
However, you have dismissed both of these options. As I understand your position, you consider that residents – whether existing residents or new residents moving in – should be entitled to park their cars near to their properties for the cost of the administration of the permits. They should make no financial contribution to the community in return for preferential parking rights on the streets. Parking should be available on-street for any resident that requires it, close to his or her home, from the day they move in.
The approach you advocate does not allow those who do not need on-street parking – either because they do not own a car or because they have off-street parking - to place a value on the road space or the streetscape. You pointed out to me that the 1,225 residents’ permits currently issued in Zone 8, even though they are 62% more than the 755 residents’ spaces available, are still a small number by comparison with the number of dwellings in the zone. I infer that car owners are a minority in Zone 8. I would be unhappy if I were a non car owning resident of Zone 8, paying £2 per day to travel to work on the bus, to have residents’ cars dominating my home environment for the cost of just 31 pence per day (£80 per year). I would expect to get something in return for this loss of my environment and I would want the car owning residents to make a contribution to the community equal to the value to all residents of the road space.
Moreover, I believe that a combination of unrestricted issuing of permits at the current cost of £80 per year, together with a rezoning that makes more spaces available for Marchmont residents in a newly expanded S1, will lead to an increase in the number of cars in the area. People are currently discouraged from acquiring a car and moving into Marchmont because parking is difficult. If it becomes both easy and cheap, there will be no economic signal to constrain an increase in car ownership in the area. I am not persuaded that this is equitable for the car owning and non car owning residents of Marchmont and Zone 8.
My views on this extend beyond Marchmont to my own area of the Grange. Although you maintain that the cost of a resident’s permit should not exceed the administrative costs, we can observe a market price for parking on the streets of Zone S1. There is already plenty of parking available to all residents of Marchmont Zone 8 and S1. Most of the pay and display bays are empty in S1 for most of the day. There are many bays available for parking for the whole nine hours from 0830 to 1730 (e.g. in Lauder Road and Dick Place). These cost £4.30 per day and the meters allow a rollover, whereby if you arrive mid afternoon, you can buy nine hours of parking to take you through to mid afternoon the following day without moving the car.
The issue therefore is money, not parking space. Zone 8 residents are not willing to pay the £4.30 per day for guaranteed parking, rather than £80 per year for a resident’s permit in their overcrowded zone. I conclude that the present value of road space to car owners is less than £4.30 per day. If it is not worth that much to the residents of the present Zone 8 to be able to park in S1, it will appear inequitable to the residents of Hatton Place and Tantallon Place to be required to have cars parked in their streets for the cost of a resident’s permit, which at £80 per year is the equivalent of 31 pence per day. I suspect that the residents of Hatton Place would pay a lot more than £80 per year just to keep their roads empty if they were given the choice and that they therefore place a much higher value on the road space, probably closer to the £1,118 per year for pay-and-display parking. If a Marchmont resident can secure a road space for £80 to keep his car in, why cannot another resident secure road space for the same price and keep it empty? I certainly would pay more than £80 per year to have yellow lines painted the length of the street where I live. It is not evident to me why the “balance” to which Cameron Rose refers in his deputation to the Council should be in favour of car owners who need on-street parking and against non car owners and those residents with off-street parking who do value empty space in the roads and the amenity of a pleasant and safe streetscape. By keeping the cost of permits down below the evident market price for on-street parking, this creates a cross subsidy to those with residents’ permits from those who do not need on-street parking. I have not seen a persuasive case for this social redistribution of benefit.
Thank you for letting me express my views here, being an outsider on your blog for Marchmont residents. I will be very interested to see the reaction from residents near and far.
Yours truly,
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
More data
On Monday night a bunch of dedicated volunteers trudged the streets in the cold rain. They wrote down in massive detail exactly what cars were parked, whether they had permits and if there were any spaces. They also worked out where yellow lines could be turned into spaces.
A huge thanks then to:
The data is here.
A huge thanks then to:
- Amanda Alabaster and Sheila Cant
- Bruce and Paula Armstrong
- Catherine Markey
- Graham Kerr
- Jana McBride
- Janne Falch Irgens
The data is here.
uk.parkatmyhouse.com
A couple of people noticed the article in the paper about uk.parkatmyhouse.com. The site lets you offer your parking space for people to rent. Someone was trying to flog a residents' parking permit for zone 8! (Who the hell would buy that for 15 quid a day? They still wouldn't be able to park!)
Marilyn Jackson went further and told the website that since this was illegal they'd better do something about it. Nice one, Marilyn!
Here's the letter she got back:
Dear Ms. Jackson,
Thank you for your e-mail and for raising the issue of resident permits.
ParkatmyHouse.com is a registered company and it goes without saying that we have no interest whatsoever in promoting illegal activity.
We provide a means by which people (i.e. landowners) who have the legal right to decide how a piece of land is used, can rent it as a parking space. Thus, we are mainly concerned with driveways and garages attached to a piece of property.
Contrary to what you may have viewed on the front page of the website, we do not encourage the sale or lease of resident permits since the land concerned is council property. We have removed information stating that customers can rent a space in a resident's bay from the front page of ParkatmyHouse.com.
As with all user-content-driven web sites such as eBay, ultimate responsibility for the legal status of the product being marketed (in our case, parking spaces) lies with the user. We make this clear in our terms and conditions -
4.2. "The User must be legally permitted to advertise the parking space on the Website. It is the responsibility of the User to investigate the legality of licensing the car park space."
To rectify the situation, we have done the following -
We are also looking into any other necessary or advisable steps.
If you have any other questions or wish to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards,
Katie Harvey
Marilyn Jackson went further and told the website that since this was illegal they'd better do something about it. Nice one, Marilyn!
Here's the letter she got back:
Dear Ms. Jackson,
Thank you for your e-mail and for raising the issue of resident permits.
ParkatmyHouse.com is a registered company and it goes without saying that we have no interest whatsoever in promoting illegal activity.
We provide a means by which people (i.e. landowners) who have the legal right to decide how a piece of land is used, can rent it as a parking space. Thus, we are mainly concerned with driveways and garages attached to a piece of property.
Contrary to what you may have viewed on the front page of the website, we do not encourage the sale or lease of resident permits since the land concerned is council property. We have removed information stating that customers can rent a space in a resident's bay from the front page of ParkatmyHouse.com.
As with all user-content-driven web sites such as eBay, ultimate responsibility for the legal status of the product being marketed (in our case, parking spaces) lies with the user. We make this clear in our terms and conditions -
4.2. "The User must be legally permitted to advertise the parking space on the Website. It is the responsibility of the User to investigate the legality of licensing the car park space."
To rectify the situation, we have done the following -
- Contacted the individuals advertising resident permit bays explaining that it is illegal to rent them.
- Disabled the relevant listings.
We are also looking into any other necessary or advisable steps.
If you have any other questions or wish to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards,
Katie Harvey
Alex gets away with it
Alex has just sent me an email with a scan of a letter from the parking folk letting him off a fine. He was parked out side 21 Marchmont Road which is actually a pay and display slot but you would have to be psychic to know it because the signs point the wrong way.
In fact, I myself parked in exactly the same place just before starting this campaign and was let off, too, after sending a letter. I haven't tried it again because I don't if I'd get away with it twice.
So, it looks as though that area has two spaces for you all to use for the cost of only a letter of complaint!
Are there other places like this? I notice that someone in our street has helpfully bent all the signs to point directly into the street - is that enough justification?
In fact, I myself parked in exactly the same place just before starting this campaign and was let off, too, after sending a letter. I haven't tried it again because I don't if I'd get away with it twice.
So, it looks as though that area has two spaces for you all to use for the cost of only a letter of complaint!
Are there other places like this? I notice that someone in our street has helpfully bent all the signs to point directly into the street - is that enough justification?
Arrrrghh! I got a ticket today!
Last night I came home really late - 5:45pm - silly me for leaving it so long. I couldn't find a residents' space and dropped the car miles away up in Warrender Park Terrace in a space that opened up gloriously in front of me; some foolish person actually pulled out of a spot at that time of night, ha!
This morning I spent three quarters of an hour walking around up there trying to find my car - it wasn't where I remembered it, so I checked every street and most of them twice. Finally, I came home dejected at 09:25 to discover that I had got it wrong. The night I remembered was the night before - last night I had parked in the single vacant pay and display slot in Marchmont Crescent, just thirty yards from my house.
Fortunately, the parking warden knew where my car was all along. They had helpfully left me with a big red ticket on the windscreen to help me see pick it out from a distance.
Anyway, I had some fairly stern words with myself, I can tell you! So, now I'm wondering, is it worth my while writing them a letter, begging to be let off? I mean this situation must be a parking warden's dream come true! I am feeling today as if this whole scenario has been engineered to generate fine revenue - grrrr. (I know it hasn't, I know it's been done to solve the problems for the poor sods who had to put up with terrible parking in S1 before - but that won't occur to me until about a week from now when my sense of humour decides it's been on holiday long enough)
How many of you have been getting tickets since September that you didn't get before? Have any of them been waived when you complained?
This morning I spent three quarters of an hour walking around up there trying to find my car - it wasn't where I remembered it, so I checked every street and most of them twice. Finally, I came home dejected at 09:25 to discover that I had got it wrong. The night I remembered was the night before - last night I had parked in the single vacant pay and display slot in Marchmont Crescent, just thirty yards from my house.
Fortunately, the parking warden knew where my car was all along. They had helpfully left me with a big red ticket on the windscreen to help me see pick it out from a distance.
Anyway, I had some fairly stern words with myself, I can tell you! So, now I'm wondering, is it worth my while writing them a letter, begging to be let off? I mean this situation must be a parking warden's dream come true! I am feeling today as if this whole scenario has been engineered to generate fine revenue - grrrr. (I know it hasn't, I know it's been done to solve the problems for the poor sods who had to put up with terrible parking in S1 before - but that won't occur to me until about a week from now when my sense of humour decides it's been on holiday long enough)
How many of you have been getting tickets since September that you didn't get before? Have any of them been waived when you complained?
Friday, December 01, 2006
Crazy bins
I've just received this letter from a resident (name removed). The wind has picked up the bins and flung them about - in this case into a car. This was even before tonight's wind which has actually blown a roof off in Marchmont Crescent, crushing a car (no one, thankfully, was hurt). After tonight's gales they will probably be finding our bins in Kansas!
Hi Hugh,
Firstly a big thanks for starting this campaign against these restrictions!
I am so frustrated and angry at Edinburgh City Council they always mess things up!!!
This may of be interest to you, last night when I finally managed to find a car space on marchmont street, it happened to be next to the ugly black bin!! The wind kept knocking the lid all night and my family found it difficult to sleep but worse, I woke up to find that the bin had rolled towards my car and slightly damaged it!
I walked around marchmont and found several bins toppled over! I have read a letter about bins on your blog and thought I would attach photos and my comment if you wish to add this to the web page. The bins are a nuisance - not only do they take up parking space they damage cars too! Surely they should be bolted onto the road??
I am writing to the council, if you have any advice it would be appreciated, I realise you are a very busy person! Please feel free to use any of the above and photos!
Thanks
Hi Hugh,
Firstly a big thanks for starting this campaign against these restrictions!
I am so frustrated and angry at Edinburgh City Council they always mess things up!!!
This may of be interest to you, last night when I finally managed to find a car space on marchmont street, it happened to be next to the ugly black bin!! The wind kept knocking the lid all night and my family found it difficult to sleep but worse, I woke up to find that the bin had rolled towards my car and slightly damaged it!
I walked around marchmont and found several bins toppled over! I have read a letter about bins on your blog and thought I would attach photos and my comment if you wish to add this to the web page. The bins are a nuisance - not only do they take up parking space they damage cars too! Surely they should be bolted onto the road??
I am writing to the council, if you have any advice it would be appreciated, I realise you are a very busy person! Please feel free to use any of the above and photos!
Thanks
Traders
Of the points we raised in the meeting with Jim Grieve, the only one that we made no headway on was the problems faced by our local traders.
Jim rightly pointed out that, before the CPZ was introduced, there weren't free short term bays outside any of the shops. Indeed, it seems that one of the purposes of the CPZ was to make it easier for customers to find parking near by. After all, with commuters squatting in all the parking for most of the day, where would shoppers have parked? I hadn't really thought about this at the time.
Does it seem as if the traders are trying to win something they never had by blaming the new changes and so manipulate the situation to their advantage?
No, it only occured to me too late that the problem is quite simple. There used to be hundreds of commuters every day parking just around the corner and walking into town right by the shops in our community. Many would have stopped off on their ways to and from their cars to spend money in the local stores. This passing trade was what has helped to make Marchmont's shops vibrant and diverse.
Now they aren’t coming through. Any who do probably begrudge every extra step they have to take through the community that has just thrown them out. The merchants have grown up serving an environment that has just been removed.
What does everyone think? Is this something worth fighting for?
Jim rightly pointed out that, before the CPZ was introduced, there weren't free short term bays outside any of the shops. Indeed, it seems that one of the purposes of the CPZ was to make it easier for customers to find parking near by. After all, with commuters squatting in all the parking for most of the day, where would shoppers have parked? I hadn't really thought about this at the time.
Does it seem as if the traders are trying to win something they never had by blaming the new changes and so manipulate the situation to their advantage?
No, it only occured to me too late that the problem is quite simple. There used to be hundreds of commuters every day parking just around the corner and walking into town right by the shops in our community. Many would have stopped off on their ways to and from their cars to spend money in the local stores. This passing trade was what has helped to make Marchmont's shops vibrant and diverse.
Now they aren’t coming through. Any who do probably begrudge every extra step they have to take through the community that has just thrown them out. The merchants have grown up serving an environment that has just been removed.
What does everyone think? Is this something worth fighting for?
Detailed minutes from the meeting with Jim Grieve
These are the detailed minutes from the meeting with Jim Grieve (they are a bit rough and ready, sorry): Please, if you think I've missed anything, or made any errors, let me know.
Marilyne said that city development has promised a review of boundaries in about 12 months - once things have settled. Changes would take a number of months (9?) after that - if there are no objections it might be quicker. A two part consultation is needed and the legal processes can't really be rushed.
New zones have a 2 permit limit. That isn't the case in the old zones. The council is considering applying that limit to the old zones. Second permits would become more expensive. They are also considering making permits cheaper for environmentally friendly cars (SUVs would still be the same price).
The council have discussed so far an extension of the controlled parking times until perhaps 8 in the evening - giving residents more time
Comment from me: probably, most of the people without permits parking at this time are most likely residents who've not yet bought permits. Wouldn't they just buy them if this came in? Then we'd have exactly the same situation except that council revenues would increase (I'm not cynically suggesting that is the motive).
A question was asked about the reason for introducing dual use in S1. Jim answered that they had noticed that the demand is fluid, changing at different times of day and that dual use is a response to this. The proper name for dual use is shared use.
The council is in discussions at the moment to determine whether the shared use changes should be introduced in a piece meal way or city wide.
The council is concerned about sustainability of solutions. Therefore, some 'focused' short term solutions would be possible before the review which will come in 12 months.
Redrawing zone boundaries is considered the most sustainable way to do things.
There was a suggestion (from Jim) to allow residents to begin parking in pay & display from 4pm onwards. The idea of applying this in the morning, to allow residents to stay in the bays longer than the 9am cutoff was raised and Jim thought there may be some scope there as well. Some residents felt that this might be more complicated than necessary and suggested we go directly to dual use.
Comment from me: At the time I don't think it was clear if we were talking about long term or short term solutions. I think we may have objected to this, thinking it would be for the long term. It certainly would help in the short term and I think we should try to get it put back on the table as well as the permission to use S1.
Jim had concerns that merging 7, 8 and S1 would make a 'super-zone', too big. He believes that this goes against the whole idea of controlled zones and risks inter-zone commuting.
The council will be doing parking surveys. These will begin on Monday. They will take 2 weeks. Analysis of the results is expected to take 1 week. The area to be covered by the survey is South Clerk Street and up to Bruntsfield Links. These 'Beat Surveys' will be taken at five points during the day. There will then be a report to the executive.
Comment from me:We need to get a copy of that report and the data
Shared use cannot be done quicker than the legal processes allow. Changes could not even begin before the traders' permits are ready - this means that it will be at least 5 months before consideration will begin. Analysis can happen, but the council can't be asked for approval before then - then the consultations need to begin.
Changing so that residents can park in pay and display from 4pm wouldn't require a traffic regulation order - changing to shared use would. Jim would need to check out the potential limitations of this. But, he felt that it would confine the effect to the areas affected and would be appropriate. He wasn't prepared to make promises, yet.
In Greenhill, people have been able to park in neighbouring zones. To repeat this it needs to be 'focused'. We will give Jim a list of streets and evidence that these streets are hurting. The council will then send letters to all permit holders in those streets allowing them to park in S1. Parking wardens will be given the registrations of these cars and will not ticket them if they are parked in residents' bay in S1. There would be no cost to residents for this. Jim wanted to be clear that this would be temporary only, up until such a time as the long term solutions were in place and it wouldn't bind the council to anything.
Jim resisted the non-focused approach. Changing by geography, rather than by named streets, would have a different political feel.
Approval only needs asking the council heads - this is because this approach has already happened in other areas (Zone 6) and doesn't need a legal process.
We will need to supply locations of potential changes to the yellow lines - turning these into parking - additionally, we'll need to suggest areas for the bolder changes.
There is the possibility that in the long term, rather than S1 adsorbing the 'panhandles' of 7 and 8; 7 and 8 may instead adsorb some parts of S1.
The council has no proposals to introduce free parking bays near traders. There are a few half hour bays elsewhere in the city. The council believes they are producing opportunities for customers to park. At present anyone can park for 10 minutes. You have 5 minutes allowed and then you have 5 minutes grace.
One of the ideas behind the CPZ was to benefit the traders, allowing customers to find parking spaces.
There will be a consultation exercise regarding shopping areas in some parts of Marchmont and Sciennes. Then, afterwards, there will be a public consultation period. They will be looking at four shopping areas in the city where they feel that some enhancement would assist the local businesses. Argyle Place and Terrace would be one of the areas under review. They would review street furniture, parking, accessibility. The Traders' Association would be one of the consultees. The contract (handed out to external consultants) will be done before christmas. The consultation (of interest groups, not the public) would happen in spring.
Letters will be very useful to Jim - Jim will not be able to reply to them all.
Neighbourhood Partnerships will be coming in at some point that will deal with
this stuff in the future - these groups will have a budget.
Marilyne said that city development has promised a review of boundaries in about 12 months - once things have settled. Changes would take a number of months (9?) after that - if there are no objections it might be quicker. A two part consultation is needed and the legal processes can't really be rushed.
New zones have a 2 permit limit. That isn't the case in the old zones. The council is considering applying that limit to the old zones. Second permits would become more expensive. They are also considering making permits cheaper for environmentally friendly cars (SUVs would still be the same price).
The council have discussed so far an extension of the controlled parking times until perhaps 8 in the evening - giving residents more time
Comment from me: probably, most of the people without permits parking at this time are most likely residents who've not yet bought permits. Wouldn't they just buy them if this came in? Then we'd have exactly the same situation except that council revenues would increase (I'm not cynically suggesting that is the motive).
A question was asked about the reason for introducing dual use in S1. Jim answered that they had noticed that the demand is fluid, changing at different times of day and that dual use is a response to this. The proper name for dual use is shared use.
The council is in discussions at the moment to determine whether the shared use changes should be introduced in a piece meal way or city wide.
The council is concerned about sustainability of solutions. Therefore, some 'focused' short term solutions would be possible before the review which will come in 12 months.
Redrawing zone boundaries is considered the most sustainable way to do things.
There was a suggestion (from Jim) to allow residents to begin parking in pay & display from 4pm onwards. The idea of applying this in the morning, to allow residents to stay in the bays longer than the 9am cutoff was raised and Jim thought there may be some scope there as well. Some residents felt that this might be more complicated than necessary and suggested we go directly to dual use.
Comment from me: At the time I don't think it was clear if we were talking about long term or short term solutions. I think we may have objected to this, thinking it would be for the long term. It certainly would help in the short term and I think we should try to get it put back on the table as well as the permission to use S1.
Jim had concerns that merging 7, 8 and S1 would make a 'super-zone', too big. He believes that this goes against the whole idea of controlled zones and risks inter-zone commuting.
The council will be doing parking surveys. These will begin on Monday. They will take 2 weeks. Analysis of the results is expected to take 1 week. The area to be covered by the survey is South Clerk Street and up to Bruntsfield Links. These 'Beat Surveys' will be taken at five points during the day. There will then be a report to the executive.
Comment from me:We need to get a copy of that report and the data
Shared use cannot be done quicker than the legal processes allow. Changes could not even begin before the traders' permits are ready - this means that it will be at least 5 months before consideration will begin. Analysis can happen, but the council can't be asked for approval before then - then the consultations need to begin.
Changing so that residents can park in pay and display from 4pm wouldn't require a traffic regulation order - changing to shared use would. Jim would need to check out the potential limitations of this. But, he felt that it would confine the effect to the areas affected and would be appropriate. He wasn't prepared to make promises, yet.
In Greenhill, people have been able to park in neighbouring zones. To repeat this it needs to be 'focused'. We will give Jim a list of streets and evidence that these streets are hurting. The council will then send letters to all permit holders in those streets allowing them to park in S1. Parking wardens will be given the registrations of these cars and will not ticket them if they are parked in residents' bay in S1. There would be no cost to residents for this. Jim wanted to be clear that this would be temporary only, up until such a time as the long term solutions were in place and it wouldn't bind the council to anything.
Jim resisted the non-focused approach. Changing by geography, rather than by named streets, would have a different political feel.
Approval only needs asking the council heads - this is because this approach has already happened in other areas (Zone 6) and doesn't need a legal process.
We will need to supply locations of potential changes to the yellow lines - turning these into parking - additionally, we'll need to suggest areas for the bolder changes.
There is the possibility that in the long term, rather than S1 adsorbing the 'panhandles' of 7 and 8; 7 and 8 may instead adsorb some parts of S1.
The council has no proposals to introduce free parking bays near traders. There are a few half hour bays elsewhere in the city. The council believes they are producing opportunities for customers to park. At present anyone can park for 10 minutes. You have 5 minutes allowed and then you have 5 minutes grace.
One of the ideas behind the CPZ was to benefit the traders, allowing customers to find parking spaces.
There will be a consultation exercise regarding shopping areas in some parts of Marchmont and Sciennes. Then, afterwards, there will be a public consultation period. They will be looking at four shopping areas in the city where they feel that some enhancement would assist the local businesses. Argyle Place and Terrace would be one of the areas under review. They would review street furniture, parking, accessibility. The Traders' Association would be one of the consultees. The contract (handed out to external consultants) will be done before christmas. The consultation (of interest groups, not the public) would happen in spring.
Letters will be very useful to Jim - Jim will not be able to reply to them all.
Neighbourhood Partnerships will be coming in at some point that will deal with
this stuff in the future - these groups will have a budget.
Documents from the meeting
We took along some documentation to the meeting with Jim Grieve on Wednesday. Here they are:
We also had a bunch of maps but I can't put them online. They showed where suggested changes might be made.
I also handed over just under one hundred letters that we've been collecting. Jim said that those would be very useful in making his case for the changes that need to be implemented. He didn't think he'd be able to answer them all though :-)
We also had a bunch of maps but I can't put them online. They showed where suggested changes might be made.
I also handed over just under one hundred letters that we've been collecting. Jim said that those would be very useful in making his case for the changes that need to be implemented. He didn't think he'd be able to answer them all though :-)
Highlights of the meeting with Jim Grieve
Marilyne MacLaren had set up a meeting for us with Jim Grieve, which we had yesterday. Twelve of us and Marilyne went down there and met with him in the Mandela Room in City Chambers for a little over an hour. I must say he did very well and came across like a nice guy; I’m not sure I would like to have been in his position, one against thirteen.
It turned out pretty well, I think. Everyone got a chance to speak and explain something about the problems we’ve all been having. It sounded very much as though Jim already knew how difficult things are for us and he was prepared to help us out. I’ll give you the highlights and I’ll put detailed minutes on the blog.
Long Term
I realise as I went through my notes from the meeting that I’m still a bit unclear about some of the timings of things. I will follow up with Jim to find out and post on the blog.
To get short term point 1 we need to gather some data, I think. On a couple of nights next week we need to walk the streets of zones 7 and 8 (Marchmont and Sciennes only) and count the number of spaces of different types. We have that once already for zone 8, but a few more samples would mean that we can be sure our statistics are correct. We need that data for zone 7. Then, we can submit the list to Jim.
So, I am looking for a few volunteers prepared to brave the weather at about 9 or 10 at night on Monday and Tuesday next week. If enough people volunteer it will be a very quick and easy job.
Please, shoot me an email if you can help.
There were also a couple of pints had at the end of the evening :-)
It turned out pretty well, I think. Everyone got a chance to speak and explain something about the problems we’ve all been having. It sounded very much as though Jim already knew how difficult things are for us and he was prepared to help us out. I’ll give you the highlights and I’ll put detailed minutes on the blog.
Long Term
- The council will look at redrawing the boundaries of the zones. This is seen as the most sustainable solution.
- Shared use (I’ve wrongly been calling it dual use) will very likely be introduced in many places and this is very likely to happen in our areas.
- There will be a review of all yellow lines and parking bays in the old zones to see if more spaces can be made available.
- There are no plans to help the traders. We’ll need to look at this again.
- If we give a list of streets that are badly affected, Jim will issue letters to permit holders in those streets allowing them, until the long term solutions are in place, to park in S1.
- There may be a possibility of allowing permit holders to park in pay & display until 10 or 10:30 am and after 4pm. We will need to work on this issue.
I realise as I went through my notes from the meeting that I’m still a bit unclear about some of the timings of things. I will follow up with Jim to find out and post on the blog.
To get short term point 1 we need to gather some data, I think. On a couple of nights next week we need to walk the streets of zones 7 and 8 (Marchmont and Sciennes only) and count the number of spaces of different types. We have that once already for zone 8, but a few more samples would mean that we can be sure our statistics are correct. We need that data for zone 7. Then, we can submit the list to Jim.
So, I am looking for a few volunteers prepared to brave the weather at about 9 or 10 at night on Monday and Tuesday next week. If enough people volunteer it will be a very quick and easy job.
Please, shoot me an email if you can help.
There were also a couple of pints had at the end of the evening :-)
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Concerns from S1
I think there may be some worries in S1 that their new found parking freedom is about to be invaded by hordes of several million 'Zone 8ers'. I received this email from Lapis Lazuli.
The problems in S1 before were caused by commuters, I think, not neighbouring residents. Moreover, our numbers show that the impact on S1, if pay and display is turned over to dual use as well, will be unnoticeable.
However, even though our cause won't hurt S1 in any way, we ought to try and address these concerns. Does anyone have any ideas about what we might do?
I must also say that, despite what Lapis implies, I've only delete spam comments from the blog and that I don't think any one in Zone 8 would threaten Lapis.
Here's the email:
I understand that there is a campaign running to allow residents of N Marchmont to be allowed to park in zone S1. Do not believe there is any unanimity on this across marchmont. This is opposed by all those I have canvassed on this in the marchmont portion of zone S1.
We have suffered from free-loading zone 8ers for 20 years or more.
See also my comments and those of an anonymous but like minded person at http://marchmontparking.blogspot.com/ (if they haven’t been censored again).
Given the strong feelings aroused among those in N marchmont I am obliged to remain anonymous (as is my right in law under section 8 of the Human Rights Act).
I simply wished you to have support to protect S1 from
Z8 cars flooding in again.
lapis
And I have this one from a resident of S1.
Hugh,
Congratulations on your web site, which is providing a constructive forum for airing views and facts about parking. I am writing to you to express a contrary view to those of your local residents in Marchmont, not to be argumentative, but simply to present an alternative view, so that you can see how others view the situation from outside Marchmont.
I would oppose any proposal to merge zones 8 and S1. I want zones to be as small as it is practical to set up and enforce. Let me explain why I believe those of us in the Grange and those in Marchmont will always have opposing views on this and why it will be very difficult for the politicians and Council officials to adjudicate on the matter.
Your own website (blog) is very helpful in providing statistics that enable us to support our prejudices with real facts. I see from the analysis of Zone 8 spaces vs permits that there are 1225 residents’ permits in zone 8, while there are only 755 residents’ spaces. There are only 322 pay and display spaces, so even if all of these were converted to shared use, there would still be insufficient spaces for residents to park all their cars in zone 8.
That is the nub of the problem. Residents of zone 8 have more cars than there is space in which to park them. They will therefore want the zone to be as large as possible to allow them to spill over into an area where demand for on-street parking is less than supply. Those living in that outer area (e.g. S1), however, if demand for on-street parking from residents is less than the available space, will take a diametrically opposing view, wanting any controlled parking zone to be as small as possible. In that way, those residents are more likely to have a space outside their property available for their own parking or empty to improve the appearance and cleanliness of the street. In the extreme, their ideal parking zone would be the exclusive parking rights in the length of road in front of their own property.
I am fortunate in living in a house in the Grange with a garage for my cars. When I moved here, I considered my needs for my family and my furniture and I looked for a property that met my needs. I have two children and two cars. My requirements were therefore for a house with enough bedrooms for my family and enough off-street parking for my cars. If I had purchased a house that was too small for my family or my furniture, I would not expect my neighbours to provide lodging for my children, nor to store my surplus furniture in their houses or gardens. I certainly would not expect to leave my surplus furniture outside their houses. I take a similar view with cars. If I could not afford a property in South Edinburgh with off-street parking, I would have to choose between the amenity of living in South Edinburgh (and forsaking one or both of my cars) or living somewhere less pleasant where I could park both my cars off-road. I do not assume that it is a right of a resident to be provided with on-street parking.
I know that the world looks very different to residents of Marchmont. I see from your blog that a major concern of Marchmont residents is about the refuse bins taking up parking space. Residents of Marchmont understandably see the roads as a parking resource in which the objective is to maximise the number of cars that can be parked there.
Residents of the Grange (at least some of them) take the opposite view. The ideal state of the roads is to have no parked cars in them at all. When I first moved to the Grange, there were rarely any cars parked outside my house at night or at weekends. My children played in the street. They learned to cycle in the road and I felt comfortable letting them cycle round the block as the roads are wide enough to accommodate wobbly cyclists and careful drivers. More recently, however, the roads became more solidly parked. The gutters were not getting swept when the road sweeping lorry came round. The buses could not stop by the kerb in Lauder Road because cars parked at the bus stops. And my children’s cycle to school was now past a continuous line of parked cars.
With the advent of Zone S1, things have improved markedly in that area. The roads look much better, feel safer and generally make the Grange a more pleasant place to be and to walk through. Contributors to your blog start from the presumption that empty spaces in streets are a waste and that they should be used for parking. I take the opposite view. Empty spaces are good and improve the amenity of the streets I live in and walk through. You may have noticed that the Grange Association (our local residents’ group) has lobbied the Council about the visual impact of the new signs, posts and road markings of Zone S1. We jealously guard the Grange’s Conservation Area status. You can imagine that if we are troubled by the visual impact of some posts and ticket machines, we are much more troubled by the impact of having parked cars and vans. Their impact is much greater and does markedly change the look and feel of the area.
I know that my views may irritate people in Marchmont, who may feel that the residents of the Grange are very fortunate in being able to afford the luxury of houses with off-street parking, and that the Grange should provide some relief for the overspill of cars from Marchmont. However, I believe that the residents of Marchmont (Zone 8 specifically) must be responsible for finding the solution to their own problem.
The problem is too many cars for the spaces available in Zone 8. How you choose to solve that problem is up to you. You could restrict the number of residents’ permits to the number of spaces available and then auction them, or raffle them, or have a lottery. You could club together to rent some garages or off-street parking outside the area. You can lobby the Council to increase the amount of parking available on-street (e.g. end-on parking). But the solution must be contained within Zone 8. It is not reasonable to expect those outside zone 8, who have made provision for the storage of their vehicles, to cross-subsidise Zone 8 by providing parking on the streets of the Grange or other parts of S1. We like our empty streets.
Your blog is revealing in showing how the world looks completely different to you in Marchmont than it does to me in the Grange. There are comments such as:
“We want the council to know that they need to stop fixing problems by creating problems in other places.”
implying that it is the Council that is creating the problem of there being too many cars in Zone 8.
Another comment:
“Mary has lived there for many, many years and has never had a permit in all that time. She used to park just round the corner in the free parking in S1 and never had any trouble finding a space not too far away.”
shows that there are still more cars of residents of Zone 8 not in your statistics. I therefore doubt the statement:
“The problems in S1 before were caused by commuters, I think, not neighbouring residents. Moreover, our numbers show that the impact on S1, if pay and display is turned over to dual use as well, will be unnoticeable.”
Your numbers show that there are at least 470 cars (plus those like Mary who are not in your numbers) that would park in S1, this being the excess number of Zone 8 permits issued comared with spaces available. I don’t think that is ‘unnoticeable’.
I do understand that this is not a problem that can be solved overnight, and glib statements from people like me that “you have too many cars” do not sound helpful. However, there is the longer term question of whether Zone 8 residents really do need that many cars. I notice that your excellent statistics on the number of spaces in each street were collected by driving round the streets. I found that very revealing. It would never occur to me to drive to Marchmont. It’s only round the corner and I can walk it in five minutes. Maybe that’s because I would have to get my car out of the garage and you can just hop into your car parked on the street. But it does make me wonder if you are a bit too wedded to your cars.
I trust that you will take my comments here as helpful in setting out an opposing view, so that you can see how the debate lies. I do understand that you have a real problem and that you need to solve it and I am just an outsider in your deliberations.
I would be very happy if you want to post some or all of this e-mail on your blog, but please do not publish my name, phone number or e-mail address. Just call me ‘a resident of the Grange’.
I am copying this e-mail to Marilyne MacLaren and Jim Grieve.
Yours sincerely,
The problems in S1 before were caused by commuters, I think, not neighbouring residents. Moreover, our numbers show that the impact on S1, if pay and display is turned over to dual use as well, will be unnoticeable.
However, even though our cause won't hurt S1 in any way, we ought to try and address these concerns. Does anyone have any ideas about what we might do?
I must also say that, despite what Lapis implies, I've only delete spam comments from the blog and that I don't think any one in Zone 8 would threaten Lapis.
Here's the email:
I understand that there is a campaign running to allow residents of N Marchmont to be allowed to park in zone S1. Do not believe there is any unanimity on this across marchmont. This is opposed by all those I have canvassed on this in the marchmont portion of zone S1.
We have suffered from free-loading zone 8ers for 20 years or more.
See also my comments and those of an anonymous but like minded person at http://marchmontparking.blogspot.com/ (if they haven’t been censored again).
Given the strong feelings aroused among those in N marchmont I am obliged to remain anonymous (as is my right in law under section 8 of the Human Rights Act).
I simply wished you to have support to protect S1 from
Z8 cars flooding in again.
lapis
And I have this one from a resident of S1.
Hugh,
Congratulations on your web site, which is providing a constructive forum for airing views and facts about parking. I am writing to you to express a contrary view to those of your local residents in Marchmont, not to be argumentative, but simply to present an alternative view, so that you can see how others view the situation from outside Marchmont.
I would oppose any proposal to merge zones 8 and S1. I want zones to be as small as it is practical to set up and enforce. Let me explain why I believe those of us in the Grange and those in Marchmont will always have opposing views on this and why it will be very difficult for the politicians and Council officials to adjudicate on the matter.
Your own website (blog) is very helpful in providing statistics that enable us to support our prejudices with real facts. I see from the analysis of Zone 8 spaces vs permits that there are 1225 residents’ permits in zone 8, while there are only 755 residents’ spaces. There are only 322 pay and display spaces, so even if all of these were converted to shared use, there would still be insufficient spaces for residents to park all their cars in zone 8.
That is the nub of the problem. Residents of zone 8 have more cars than there is space in which to park them. They will therefore want the zone to be as large as possible to allow them to spill over into an area where demand for on-street parking is less than supply. Those living in that outer area (e.g. S1), however, if demand for on-street parking from residents is less than the available space, will take a diametrically opposing view, wanting any controlled parking zone to be as small as possible. In that way, those residents are more likely to have a space outside their property available for their own parking or empty to improve the appearance and cleanliness of the street. In the extreme, their ideal parking zone would be the exclusive parking rights in the length of road in front of their own property.
I am fortunate in living in a house in the Grange with a garage for my cars. When I moved here, I considered my needs for my family and my furniture and I looked for a property that met my needs. I have two children and two cars. My requirements were therefore for a house with enough bedrooms for my family and enough off-street parking for my cars. If I had purchased a house that was too small for my family or my furniture, I would not expect my neighbours to provide lodging for my children, nor to store my surplus furniture in their houses or gardens. I certainly would not expect to leave my surplus furniture outside their houses. I take a similar view with cars. If I could not afford a property in South Edinburgh with off-street parking, I would have to choose between the amenity of living in South Edinburgh (and forsaking one or both of my cars) or living somewhere less pleasant where I could park both my cars off-road. I do not assume that it is a right of a resident to be provided with on-street parking.
I know that the world looks very different to residents of Marchmont. I see from your blog that a major concern of Marchmont residents is about the refuse bins taking up parking space. Residents of Marchmont understandably see the roads as a parking resource in which the objective is to maximise the number of cars that can be parked there.
Residents of the Grange (at least some of them) take the opposite view. The ideal state of the roads is to have no parked cars in them at all. When I first moved to the Grange, there were rarely any cars parked outside my house at night or at weekends. My children played in the street. They learned to cycle in the road and I felt comfortable letting them cycle round the block as the roads are wide enough to accommodate wobbly cyclists and careful drivers. More recently, however, the roads became more solidly parked. The gutters were not getting swept when the road sweeping lorry came round. The buses could not stop by the kerb in Lauder Road because cars parked at the bus stops. And my children’s cycle to school was now past a continuous line of parked cars.
With the advent of Zone S1, things have improved markedly in that area. The roads look much better, feel safer and generally make the Grange a more pleasant place to be and to walk through. Contributors to your blog start from the presumption that empty spaces in streets are a waste and that they should be used for parking. I take the opposite view. Empty spaces are good and improve the amenity of the streets I live in and walk through. You may have noticed that the Grange Association (our local residents’ group) has lobbied the Council about the visual impact of the new signs, posts and road markings of Zone S1. We jealously guard the Grange’s Conservation Area status. You can imagine that if we are troubled by the visual impact of some posts and ticket machines, we are much more troubled by the impact of having parked cars and vans. Their impact is much greater and does markedly change the look and feel of the area.
I know that my views may irritate people in Marchmont, who may feel that the residents of the Grange are very fortunate in being able to afford the luxury of houses with off-street parking, and that the Grange should provide some relief for the overspill of cars from Marchmont. However, I believe that the residents of Marchmont (Zone 8 specifically) must be responsible for finding the solution to their own problem.
The problem is too many cars for the spaces available in Zone 8. How you choose to solve that problem is up to you. You could restrict the number of residents’ permits to the number of spaces available and then auction them, or raffle them, or have a lottery. You could club together to rent some garages or off-street parking outside the area. You can lobby the Council to increase the amount of parking available on-street (e.g. end-on parking). But the solution must be contained within Zone 8. It is not reasonable to expect those outside zone 8, who have made provision for the storage of their vehicles, to cross-subsidise Zone 8 by providing parking on the streets of the Grange or other parts of S1. We like our empty streets.
Your blog is revealing in showing how the world looks completely different to you in Marchmont than it does to me in the Grange. There are comments such as:
“We want the council to know that they need to stop fixing problems by creating problems in other places.”
implying that it is the Council that is creating the problem of there being too many cars in Zone 8.
Another comment:
“Mary has lived there for many, many years and has never had a permit in all that time. She used to park just round the corner in the free parking in S1 and never had any trouble finding a space not too far away.”
shows that there are still more cars of residents of Zone 8 not in your statistics. I therefore doubt the statement:
“The problems in S1 before were caused by commuters, I think, not neighbouring residents. Moreover, our numbers show that the impact on S1, if pay and display is turned over to dual use as well, will be unnoticeable.”
Your numbers show that there are at least 470 cars (plus those like Mary who are not in your numbers) that would park in S1, this being the excess number of Zone 8 permits issued comared with spaces available. I don’t think that is ‘unnoticeable’.
I do understand that this is not a problem that can be solved overnight, and glib statements from people like me that “you have too many cars” do not sound helpful. However, there is the longer term question of whether Zone 8 residents really do need that many cars. I notice that your excellent statistics on the number of spaces in each street were collected by driving round the streets. I found that very revealing. It would never occur to me to drive to Marchmont. It’s only round the corner and I can walk it in five minutes. Maybe that’s because I would have to get my car out of the garage and you can just hop into your car parked on the street. But it does make me wonder if you are a bit too wedded to your cars.
I trust that you will take my comments here as helpful in setting out an opposing view, so that you can see how the debate lies. I do understand that you have a real problem and that you need to solve it and I am just an outsider in your deliberations.
I would be very happy if you want to post some or all of this e-mail on your blog, but please do not publish my name, phone number or e-mail address. Just call me ‘a resident of the Grange’.
I am copying this e-mail to Marilyne MacLaren and Jim Grieve.
Yours sincerely,
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Phone calls and visits and emails
I have been getting lots of phone calls and visits over the past few days (as well as lots of very encouraging emails and handwritten letters). Thank you everyone for your support!
One very sad tale came tonight from Mary who is retired living in the east end of Zone 8 (I forgot to ask if I could blog about her, so her name has been changed and there's no address). Mary has lived there for many, many years and has never had a permit in all that time. She used to park just round the corner in the free parking in S1 and never had any trouble finding a space not too far away.
That was until the introduction of S1. Now she's bought a permit for zone 8, and expected she'd be able to park nearby. Not so! She is forced to park out the other side of S1 as far away as Oswald Road! From there she has to walk back to her flat.
I do hope the council will help us with this. As I get more and more stories like this it becomes quite upsetting.
One very sad tale came tonight from Mary who is retired living in the east end of Zone 8 (I forgot to ask if I could blog about her, so her name has been changed and there's no address). Mary has lived there for many, many years and has never had a permit in all that time. She used to park just round the corner in the free parking in S1 and never had any trouble finding a space not too far away.
That was until the introduction of S1. Now she's bought a permit for zone 8, and expected she'd be able to park nearby. Not so! She is forced to park out the other side of S1 as far away as Oswald Road! From there she has to walk back to her flat.
I do hope the council will help us with this. As I get more and more stories like this it becomes quite upsetting.
New permits applied for
I have been a bit slack over the last few days - work pressure has been getting the better of me. I received some information from Marilyne a while ago and haven't blogged it - I am bad, I know.
Below is a letter from Jim Grieve to Marilyne that she has forwarded to me from the 17th of November.
Dear Marilyne,
You asked me for some further information regarding the above. I am advised that, since 4 September, a further 113 permits have been issue in Zone 7 and 148 in zone 8. We are in the process of organising surveys in these areas, the results of which we will use as a basis for any changes to the distribution of residents' permits. I am pursuing the other issues you raised the other day - ie the positioning of a ticket machine in Greenhill Place and the poles issue in Thirlestane Road and will respond as soon as I can.
Kind Regards
Jim
Below is a letter from Jim Grieve to Marilyne that she has forwarded to me from the 17th of November.
Dear Marilyne,
You asked me for some further information regarding the above. I am advised that, since 4 September, a further 113 permits have been issue in Zone 7 and 148 in zone 8. We are in the process of organising surveys in these areas, the results of which we will use as a basis for any changes to the distribution of residents' permits. I am pursuing the other issues you raised the other day - ie the positioning of a ticket machine in Greenhill Place and the poles issue in Thirlestane Road and will respond as soon as I can.
Kind Regards
Jim
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Hugh, the complete idiot, strikes again (Council meeting next week! Not this week)
Umm, oops. I have been stressing about all the things I haven't done for the meeting with the council. Ahem, Ursula has just pointed out that the meeting is not this Wednesday; it's on the 29th!
I'm very sorry about getting this wrong :-(
I'm very sorry about getting this wrong :-(
Monday, November 20, 2006
Survey of Parking in Marchmont
Assunta and I drove around every street in Marchmont at about 1pm this afternoon. We recorded how many residents spaces there were free and how many pay and displays. Actually, we missed a few, so I'll redo those tomorrow.
Then, Janne and I did the same thing from 9pm to 11pm. This time we covered every street very carefully. The table below shows you where the spaces are. You may notice that there were NO permit spaces in Zone 8 Marchmont! I am now parked on a yellow line and I am looking forward to an early rise to move the car.
S1 has so many spaces that they are difficult to count! Long stretches with room for many, many cars are difficult to estimate so the error for S1 is probably quite high. Zone 8 is easy because there aren't really any spaces at all, so the figures are pretty accurate (particularly for residents' spaces).
BTW, Cameron and Monica have done the same thing for Sciennes.
I'll put the afternoon figures for Marchmont out once I've finished them off.
*Whitehouse Loan is being converted as we speak, so this is difficult
Then, Janne and I did the same thing from 9pm to 11pm. This time we covered every street very carefully. The table below shows you where the spaces are. You may notice that there were NO permit spaces in Zone 8 Marchmont! I am now parked on a yellow line and I am looking forward to an early rise to move the car.
S1 has so many spaces that they are difficult to count! Long stretches with room for many, many cars are difficult to estimate so the error for S1 is probably quite high. Zone 8 is easy because there aren't really any spaces at all, so the figures are pretty accurate (particularly for residents' spaces).
BTW, Cameron and Monica have done the same thing for Sciennes.
I'll put the afternoon figures for Marchmont out once I've finished them off.
| 20th November 2006 - 9pm-11pm | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Zone 8 (Marchmont Only) | |||
| Street | Residents | Pay&Display | |
| Meadow Place | 0 | 0 | |
| Marchmont Crescent | 0 | 2 | |
| Roseneath Place | 0 | 0 | |
| Roseneath Terrace | 0 | 0 | |
| Argyle Place | 0 | 2 | |
| Argyle Park Terrace | 0 | 0 | |
| Warrender Park Road | 0 | 4 | |
| Warrender Park Terrace | 0 | 7 | |
| Whitehouse Loan | 0 | 6 | |
| Marchmont Road | 0 | 0 | |
| Marchmont Street | 0 | 2 | |
| Spottiswoode Street | 0 | 2 | |
| Total | 0 | 25 | |
| Zone S1 (Marchmont Only) | |||
| Marchmont Crescent | 5 | 2 | |
| Spottiswoode Road | 34 | 14 | |
| Lauderdale Street | 46 | 29 | |
| Arden Street | 34 | 6 | |
| Thirleston Road | 47 | 25 | |
| Strathern Road | 6 | 9 | |
| Whitehouse Loan | 33* | 6 | |
| Marchmont Road | 2 | 2 | |
| Spottiswoode Street | 35 | 12 | |
| Total | 242 | 105 | |
*Whitehouse Loan is being converted as we speak, so this is difficult
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Where is there room for more parking spaces
I've received a couple of letters suggesting that there a few places with single yellow lines that don't seem to have a good reason not to be parking spaces. Shoot me an email or drop a comment on the blog if you've noticed anywhere like that.
Thank you for all the help
I just wanted to say a huge thank you to everyone who has been working so hard on this! We've delivered a vast number of letters so far.
So far we've delivered to:
Warrender Park Crescent
Warrender Park Terrace
Marchmont Street
Meadow Place
Marchmont Crescent
Roseneath Place
Argyle Park Terrace
Argyle Place
Roseneath Terrace
A bit of Warrender Park Road
Leaving (in the bit we planned on, up to the links):
Rest of Warrender Park Road
Marchmont Road
Spottiswoode Street
Whitehouse Load
Zone 7
And, flyers have been done up to the links as well!
That really is a huge amount of folding, labelling and delivering. So thank you very much to Janne, Mailin, Sarah, Paula, Richard, Assunta, Fraser, Mel and Bruce! A fabulous job.
So far we've delivered to:
Warrender Park Crescent
Warrender Park Terrace
Marchmont Street
Meadow Place
Marchmont Crescent
Roseneath Place
Argyle Park Terrace
Argyle Place
Roseneath Terrace
A bit of Warrender Park Road
Leaving (in the bit we planned on, up to the links):
Rest of Warrender Park Road
Marchmont Road
Spottiswoode Street
Whitehouse Load
Zone 7
And, flyers have been done up to the links as well!
That really is a huge amount of folding, labelling and delivering. So thank you very much to Janne, Mailin, Sarah, Paula, Richard, Assunta, Fraser, Mel and Bruce! A fabulous job.
New Zones all in one go
Julie has pointed out that there was an article in the Herald and Post yesterday (page 7) about the new Zones coming in. The council are going to introduce them all at once so they don't have the same gridlock that S1 caused.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
A contrary position
I have received an email going against the trend. I've received so many emails of support that this one rather took me by surprise. I thought it my duty to publish it and Sarah has agreed to that.
Dear Whoever you are who left a note on my car,
If you're logging the number of individuals like yourself who thinks that there should be a straight correlation between number of cars on the street and number of parking permits sold, please note that I am emphatically against your shortsighted cause.
Edinburgh is awash with cars and something needs to be done to reduce the pollution, danger and general gridlock. I dont find it remarkable at all that there are more permits than cars and we all take our chances with what's available. That's fine by me.
If you were to analyse what you see out the window of your Marchmont tenement, perhaps looking beyond your parked car, you would see the distinctive nineteenth century architecture of the street. The area is just not designed for this volume of cars. Nobody had them in 1880. You're griping about trying to fit something into an environment for which it wasnt designed. I'd go wider than Marchmont with this observation: the city is not big enough for all the cars that people want to drive and neither even is the country.
I would be perfectly happy if the car permit doubled in cost and the number of spaces halved. If you dont like the fact that you cant always park your car on the street (which is a privilege not a right in my view), my advice to you is to get a bike, join the car club, or take the bus.
I know that Marilyne MacLaren is interested in this issue. I think our elected representatives are there not just to court the numpty vote, but also to fix a strategic eye on what might be for the general good of our neighbourhood, of our city and our country. I therefore hope that she and you will take into consideration the fact that there is some proportion of your neighbours, me being one, which does not support your action.
yours sincerely,
Sarah Price
Dear Whoever you are who left a note on my car,
If you're logging the number of individuals like yourself who thinks that there should be a straight correlation between number of cars on the street and number of parking permits sold, please note that I am emphatically against your shortsighted cause.
Edinburgh is awash with cars and something needs to be done to reduce the pollution, danger and general gridlock. I dont find it remarkable at all that there are more permits than cars and we all take our chances with what's available. That's fine by me.
If you were to analyse what you see out the window of your Marchmont tenement, perhaps looking beyond your parked car, you would see the distinctive nineteenth century architecture of the street. The area is just not designed for this volume of cars. Nobody had them in 1880. You're griping about trying to fit something into an environment for which it wasnt designed. I'd go wider than Marchmont with this observation: the city is not big enough for all the cars that people want to drive and neither even is the country.
I would be perfectly happy if the car permit doubled in cost and the number of spaces halved. If you dont like the fact that you cant always park your car on the street (which is a privilege not a right in my view), my advice to you is to get a bike, join the car club, or take the bus.
I know that Marilyne MacLaren is interested in this issue. I think our elected representatives are there not just to court the numpty vote, but also to fix a strategic eye on what might be for the general good of our neighbourhood, of our city and our country. I therefore hope that she and you will take into consideration the fact that there is some proportion of your neighbours, me being one, which does not support your action.
yours sincerely,
Sarah Price
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
A letter from Marilyne
Dear Hugh
Well done on the Evening News article, I thought it read well.
I have discussed the issue with Brian Grieve in the City Development Dept and he has gone away to look at whether there are any legal impediments to allowing Zone 8 residents to park in Zone 1. As I said to you at the M/S Community Council, the officers are reluctant to change the boundaries of Zones straight away, until things have settled down, in areas such as the Grange and Greenhill, and the Thirlestane Road setts are re-laid. I can see the logic in their position!
I have from Mr Grieve three dates for a meeting with residents, either 28th or 30th of November during the day, or Wednesday 29th November, early evening. I also can make any of these dates at present. Could you please get back to me with the date and time you prefer, quite quickly if you don't mind, as diaries fill up.
May I suggest that we have a spread of residents from different streets?
Kind regards
Marilyne MacLaren
Councillor Marilyne MacLaren
Tel: 0131 529 3174
Fax: 0231 529 7494
Well done on the Evening News article, I thought it read well.
I have discussed the issue with Brian Grieve in the City Development Dept and he has gone away to look at whether there are any legal impediments to allowing Zone 8 residents to park in Zone 1. As I said to you at the M/S Community Council, the officers are reluctant to change the boundaries of Zones straight away, until things have settled down, in areas such as the Grange and Greenhill, and the Thirlestane Road setts are re-laid. I can see the logic in their position!
I have from Mr Grieve three dates for a meeting with residents, either 28th or 30th of November during the day, or Wednesday 29th November, early evening. I also can make any of these dates at present. Could you please get back to me with the date and time you prefer, quite quickly if you don't mind, as diaries fill up.
May I suggest that we have a spread of residents from different streets?
Kind regards
Marilyne MacLaren
Councillor Marilyne MacLaren
Tel: 0131 529 3174
Fax: 0231 529 7494
Research Group
There is a little research group, formed during the last MSCC meeting, to find out facts and figures about the parking situation and to propose a well thought out solution that suits everyone. I've blogged a bit about the group before, here.
We met today, for the first time, at Cameron's house. Cameron's taken a bunch of tasks on himself, stuff to find out from the council about zones 7 and S1. We're also going to survey every street in Marchmont and Sciennes at different times of day to find out how many empty spots there are or not.
Cameron had laid on lunch for us which was fantastic and just what I needed. Cheers Cameron!
We're going to be meeting again on Monday.
I've said before that I'm not very observant. Dorothy asked us what we thought about the tram system coming in soon. My only reply was "There's a tram system?" Oh, what a pillock. Well, this evening I asked Janne, my wife, thinking I couldn't be the only one who nothing about anything not placed directly in front of him in large flashing letters. I got looked at, if you know what I mean. Anyway, I don't care, she's told me silly rumour there's castle in this city of ours - preposterous!
We met today, for the first time, at Cameron's house. Cameron's taken a bunch of tasks on himself, stuff to find out from the council about zones 7 and S1. We're also going to survey every street in Marchmont and Sciennes at different times of day to find out how many empty spots there are or not.
Cameron had laid on lunch for us which was fantastic and just what I needed. Cheers Cameron!
We're going to be meeting again on Monday.
I've said before that I'm not very observant. Dorothy asked us what we thought about the tram system coming in soon. My only reply was "There's a tram system?" Oh, what a pillock. Well, this evening I asked Janne, my wife, thinking I couldn't be the only one who nothing about anything not placed directly in front of him in large flashing letters. I got looked at, if you know what I mean. Anyway, I don't care, she's told me silly rumour there's castle in this city of ours - preposterous!
Monday, November 13, 2006
Evening News - I love them
There was a huge article in the Evening News about us, called "City taking us for parking ride"! It has interviews with Paula and Marilyne and really does a fine job of laying out our case.
It also a huge picture of me leaning on someone else's car trying to look thoughtfully and gravely into the distance - coming off looking a bit confused :-) My mother will take one look at it and say "Good heavens, Hugh, didn't I teach you how to tuck your shirt in?" BTW, if it's your car I'm leaning on, sorry.
It also a huge picture of me leaning on someone else's car trying to look thoughtfully and gravely into the distance - coming off looking a bit confused :-) My mother will take one look at it and say "Good heavens, Hugh, didn't I teach you how to tuck your shirt in?" BTW, if it's your car I'm leaning on, sorry.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Photos of a slightly bedraggled hippie
The photographer from the Evening News has just left. He took hundreds of photos up and down the Crescent and by my car which I had to park on Warrender Park Terrace last night since I foolishly came back at 6:30. A pretty miserable day for it, I felt quite sorry for the poor guy.
Hopefully then there'll be an article in the Evening News (I got confused by the email address, I think) tomorrow or the day after. I have my fingers crossed that it won’t have morphed into ‘Missing Link Finally Found in Marchmont’.
Hey, this means our letters of protest to them must have worked! Fabulous work Paula and Sarah (did I miss anyone)!
Hopefully then there'll be an article in the Evening News (I got confused by the email address, I think) tomorrow or the day after. I have my fingers crossed that it won’t have morphed into ‘Missing Link Finally Found in Marchmont’.
Hey, this means our letters of protest to them must have worked! Fabulous work Paula and Sarah (did I miss anyone)!
Alan Roden from The Scotsman
Word seems to be spreading! I just picked up the phone and found Alan Roden, the transport correspondent from The Scotsman, on the other end. He wants to write a story about our problem and asked for the details from me. He'd even read the blog!
I have to say the thing foremost in my mind was "Don't screw this up! Don't screw this up!" I'm not very good at unprepared public speaking (as those of you subjected to my waffle at the MSCC meeting can attest) and so I do just hope I got all the right points across.
Alan said that he would try to get the story in tomorrow or the day after. Isn't this good news?
Also, there may be a photographer coming round today. I may have to spend the next few hours brushing up or one quick photo of me will put everyone off our campaign. Would any of you be ready at short notice to drop in for a photo? I thought that a photo of lots of us would look better than one shabby hippie!
I have to say the thing foremost in my mind was "Don't screw this up! Don't screw this up!" I'm not very good at unprepared public speaking (as those of you subjected to my waffle at the MSCC meeting can attest) and so I do just hope I got all the right points across.
Alan said that he would try to get the story in tomorrow or the day after. Isn't this good news?
Also, there may be a photographer coming round today. I may have to spend the next few hours brushing up or one quick photo of me will put everyone off our campaign. Would any of you be ready at short notice to drop in for a photo? I thought that a photo of lots of us would look better than one shabby hippie!
Thursday, November 09, 2006
A reply from Murray Black (Bins)
Sarah has received a reply from the council about the bins. I've copied it out below.
Personally, I had no idea about the bins until they were suddenly moved. How many of you knew or did not know where they were going?
I also don't think it really matters whether or not we were aware at the time or whether or not we attend the German Church. What matters is that it is our street and we don't like where they've put the bins now. We want them moved now and so far we haven't heard a good reason (except a hint at some bureaucratic inertia) why they can't simply be put in the right place.
Dear Ms Sandow,
SITING OF WASTE CONTAINERS - MARCHMONT CRESCENT
I refer to your recent enquiry with regard to the above.
The locations along Marchmont Crescent were chosen to minimise walking distances and ensure public safety, as residents are not required to cross the public thoroughfare to deposit their domestic waste. Efforts were made to reduce the impact on residents' car parking and adjustments to the parking bays were carried out accordingly.
I assure you that the new locations were advertised and all statutory procedures were followed.
All of the waste container bays, that were marked on the carriageways within Marchmont, were on display at the public exhibitions held at the German Speaking Church on Chalmers Crescent on 7 and 8 May 2003.
The Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) procedure began on 1 September 2003 and the standard procedures regarding public notification were carried out. On 28 May 2004, statutory bodies were notified; a legal notice was advertised in the Scotsman; and Street Bills were in place along Marchmont Crescent and remained up until 18 June 2004.
Our Highways and Waste Management Officers satisfactorily addressed any objections to the Traffic Regulation Order that were received and subsequently the TRO/03/44 came into effect on 20 April 2004.
Unfortunately, statutory obligations will not allow the Department to accommodate your request to relocate the waste containers. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact Jonathon James on 469 5479.
Yours sincerely,
Murray Black
Senior Waste Management Officer
What are the statutory obligations?
I have spoken with Jonathon James already. There's a report on that meeting in the blog, here.
Personally, I had no idea about the bins until they were suddenly moved. How many of you knew or did not know where they were going?
I also don't think it really matters whether or not we were aware at the time or whether or not we attend the German Church. What matters is that it is our street and we don't like where they've put the bins now. We want them moved now and so far we haven't heard a good reason (except a hint at some bureaucratic inertia) why they can't simply be put in the right place.
_________
Dear Ms Sandow,
SITING OF WASTE CONTAINERS - MARCHMONT CRESCENT
I refer to your recent enquiry with regard to the above.
The locations along Marchmont Crescent were chosen to minimise walking distances and ensure public safety, as residents are not required to cross the public thoroughfare to deposit their domestic waste. Efforts were made to reduce the impact on residents' car parking and adjustments to the parking bays were carried out accordingly.
I assure you that the new locations were advertised and all statutory procedures were followed.
All of the waste container bays, that were marked on the carriageways within Marchmont, were on display at the public exhibitions held at the German Speaking Church on Chalmers Crescent on 7 and 8 May 2003.
The Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) procedure began on 1 September 2003 and the standard procedures regarding public notification were carried out. On 28 May 2004, statutory bodies were notified; a legal notice was advertised in the Scotsman; and Street Bills were in place along Marchmont Crescent and remained up until 18 June 2004.
Our Highways and Waste Management Officers satisfactorily addressed any objections to the Traffic Regulation Order that were received and subsequently the TRO/03/44 came into effect on 20 April 2004.
Unfortunately, statutory obligations will not allow the Department to accommodate your request to relocate the waste containers. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact Jonathon James on 469 5479.
Yours sincerely,
Murray Black
Senior Waste Management Officer
_________
What are the statutory obligations?
I have spoken with Jonathon James already. There's a report on that meeting in the blog, here.
(Re)Labelling Letters, Cutting Up Flyers and Deliveries
At the MSCC meeting Marilyne MacLaren suggested that letters not be sent to the council directly, but rather kept for her to take to them. Apparently, letters have a tendency to be 'lost' once they enter that bureaucratic quagmire. She suggested that the best plan is to collect them all so they can be presented en masse, in their most powerful and weighty form.
Certainly a good plan and certainly the right thing to do. But, ughh, I have visions of these letters never getting outside of my dining room! So far they've been printed, binned, reprinted, scrapped and printed all over again as I make mistake after mistake with them (and I'm not even going to think about all the trees that are being sacrificed in the name of adequate parking!). After all that hard work that Paula, Mel and Janne put in folding and labelling what felt like a mountain of letters, it has to be redone!
I have printed off a few hundred new labels which need to replace the old ones. I've also got a few hundred fliers printed that Mailin designed that need to be cut up and stuck on people's windscreens. And, of course, the letters need to be delivered.
So, if you're up for any of those tasks, please, either drop round. Oh, and if you do come round to mine, the doorbell doesn't work, so you might need to knock quite hard.
Certainly a good plan and certainly the right thing to do. But, ughh, I have visions of these letters never getting outside of my dining room! So far they've been printed, binned, reprinted, scrapped and printed all over again as I make mistake after mistake with them (and I'm not even going to think about all the trees that are being sacrificed in the name of adequate parking!). After all that hard work that Paula, Mel and Janne put in folding and labelling what felt like a mountain of letters, it has to be redone!
I have printed off a few hundred new labels which need to replace the old ones. I've also got a few hundred fliers printed that Mailin designed that need to be cut up and stuck on people's windscreens. And, of course, the letters need to be delivered.
So, if you're up for any of those tasks, please, either drop round. Oh, and if you do come round to mine, the doorbell doesn't work, so you might need to knock quite hard.
Marchmont and Sciennes Community Council Meeting
As you may know there was an MSCC meeting last night. They have them every month. A few of us went to see what happens at these things. Sarah, Paula, Mailin and I trudged up to the church in Grange Road, braving the cold. Steve arrived separately.
I must say, I had been prepared for several hours of monstrous boredom. Although I've never been to a council meeting before, my relatives have told me horror stories of their local councilsand I thought I was going to be in for a tough time.
It was actually very interesting, much to my surprise. There were lots of people there, many more than I'd expected. I found out all about the rise and fall of crime in the area, school uniforms and tree planting. I confess that I had recently wondered how it is that anyone ever finds out about things happening in their community. Well, anyone who knows me will happily tell me that I'm not the most observant person in the world, to which I usually have to reply, "Sorry, I didn't see you there." That said, this community council looks like an excellent way to keep informed of things going on in the area. I think I will go more often.
We made our case (well, I stood up and fumbled a few words about our campaign; I should have guessed and prepared something), with all of us chipping in ideas and comments. The discussion about parking was perhaps the longest of the evening. It does seem that others have similar pain to us which gives me hope that together we can do something about it.
I got to meet Monica Higgins, the florist in Argyle Place who founded the local traders' association. We were all keen to get the residents and the traders together so that we can come up with a solution that is to the mutual benefit of all.
So, there's going to be a little research group, charged with finding that solution and working out what statistics and facts would best make our case to the council. Monica will stand up for the traders, I will be representing zone 8, Cameron Rose and Assunta will support zone 7 and Dorothy Ryle will speak for zone S1 (I hope I have the names right). Our first meeting is set for Monday at 12, noon; I'll let you know how it goes.
Marilyne MacLaren, the Lib. Dem. Councillor for Marchmont was there, too. She offered to set up some meetings for us and to help us bring our case before the council. I'll get in touch with her and work through what the next steps should be.
Biggest thanks must go to Sarah for buy the beer in the pub afterwards!
I must say, I had been prepared for several hours of monstrous boredom. Although I've never been to a council meeting before, my relatives have told me horror stories of their local councilsand I thought I was going to be in for a tough time.
It was actually very interesting, much to my surprise. There were lots of people there, many more than I'd expected. I found out all about the rise and fall of crime in the area, school uniforms and tree planting. I confess that I had recently wondered how it is that anyone ever finds out about things happening in their community. Well, anyone who knows me will happily tell me that I'm not the most observant person in the world, to which I usually have to reply, "Sorry, I didn't see you there." That said, this community council looks like an excellent way to keep informed of things going on in the area. I think I will go more often.
We made our case (well, I stood up and fumbled a few words about our campaign; I should have guessed and prepared something), with all of us chipping in ideas and comments. The discussion about parking was perhaps the longest of the evening. It does seem that others have similar pain to us which gives me hope that together we can do something about it.
I got to meet Monica Higgins, the florist in Argyle Place who founded the local traders' association. We were all keen to get the residents and the traders together so that we can come up with a solution that is to the mutual benefit of all.
So, there's going to be a little research group, charged with finding that solution and working out what statistics and facts would best make our case to the council. Monica will stand up for the traders, I will be representing zone 8, Cameron Rose and Assunta will support zone 7 and Dorothy Ryle will speak for zone S1 (I hope I have the names right). Our first meeting is set for Monday at 12, noon; I'll let you know how it goes.
Marilyne MacLaren, the Lib. Dem. Councillor for Marchmont was there, too. She offered to set up some meetings for us and to help us bring our case before the council. I'll get in touch with her and work through what the next steps should be.
Biggest thanks must go to Sarah for buy the beer in the pub afterwards!
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
I am an idiot who can't count
I've just noticed the number of residents' permits Ruth Muir says there are in Zone 8 and the number I have been saying there are differ. Mine come from the document F.125 which can be picked up from the parking permit people down at Waterloo Place.
I have just double checked and noticed that this time I count 755 spaces, not 738. Ahem, sorry, it would appear that I'm an idiot. My count doesn't include Richmond Terrace where the residents have their own special places (26 of them).
Still there is a difference of 74 spaces. Where do these come from? I'm not sure, and I've asked her, but it could be because the F.125 form talks about minimum number of spaces and maybe the council expect more to squeeze in.
It might be interesting to find out how many cars actually fit in some of the streets. In Marchmont Crescent with the bins now taking up residents' spaces, I wonder if we even have as many as 47. I will check to see.
I have just double checked and noticed that this time I count 755 spaces, not 738. Ahem, sorry, it would appear that I'm an idiot. My count doesn't include Richmond Terrace where the residents have their own special places (26 of them).
Still there is a difference of 74 spaces. Where do these come from? I'm not sure, and I've asked her, but it could be because the F.125 form talks about minimum number of spaces and maybe the council expect more to squeeze in.
It might be interesting to find out how many cars actually fit in some of the streets. In Marchmont Crescent with the bins now taking up residents' spaces, I wonder if we even have as many as 47. I will check to see.
The other part of Ruth's answer
Dear Mr Leather,
Residents’ Parking Zone 8
I refer to your recent enquiries regarding the above.
In response to your query please note the following.
The total number of permit holders in Zone 8 is 1225.
The total number of permit spaces in Zone 8 is 829.
On-street kerb side parking is at a premium within the city and the residents’ parking scheme is in place to ensure that residents have priority over other motorists during the restricted hours. Unfortunately, it is not possible to guarantee every permit holder a parking space within the street in which they reside.
In addition to residents’ parking bays, permit holders can park free of charge in pay and display bays within their zone between
With regard to pay and display spaces in Zone 8, please find attached a copy of schedule 5 of The Corporation of Edinburgh (Traffic Regulation; Restrictions on Waiting, Loading and Unloading, and Parking Places) Order 1973. This contains details of the number of pay and display bays within each street in zone 8.
The rules governing the residents’ permit scheme mean that any motorist meeting the residential qualifications in zones 1 to 8 may apply for a resident permit. Within the new extended Controlled Parking Zone, permits are limited to two per household.
We expect there to be an increase in the number of zone 8 permit holders as motorists who had been parking in the unrestricted streets just outside Zone 8 are no longer able to do so. However, we are currently considering the option of increasing the availability of spaces for permit holders in zone 8 and should anything change then all residents within the zone will be informed in due course.
I hope that this information is of use. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me on 0131 469 3698 or by e-mail at ruth.muir@edinburgh.gov.uk
Yours sincerely
Ruth Muir
Customer Care Section
Parking Operations
A couple of answers from the council
I have just received an email from Ruth Muir, the poor sod at the council who seems to have been lumbered with answering all my questions. I had asked how many pay and display spaces there are in Zone 8, thinking this would be a good way to judge how effective dual use parking would be at redressing our problem. She has sent me this list:
That wouldn't go all the way to sorting out our problem but it would certainly help.
BTW, the reason that some streets appear multiple times is that each contiguous block of spaces is listed separately. If your browser supports long titles then hovering your mouse over the street name will show the details of the block. Otherwise you can download the original document from http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/hleather/parking/schedule5.doc once I get round to putting it on the website.
| Street | Spaces |
|---|---|
| Argyle Park Terrace | 3 |
| Argyle Place | 6 |
| Barclay Terrace | 5 |
| Bruntsfield Crescent | 17 |
| Bruntsfield Terrace | 4 |
| Gillespie Crescent | 15 |
| Gillespie Crescent | 5 |
| Hailes Street | 5 |
| Leamington Terrace | 2 |
| Leamington Terrace | 4 |
| Leamington Terrace | 3 |
| Leamington Terrace | 3 |
| Leamington Terrace | 8 |
| Leamington Terrace | 8 |
| Leamington Terrace | 3 |
| Leamington Terrace | 4 |
| Lower Gilmore Place | 4 |
| Lower Gilmore Place | 4 |
| Marchmont Crescent | 5 |
| Marchmont Crescent | 1 |
| Marchmont Crescent | 6 |
| Marchmont Road | 3 |
| Marchmont Road | 3 |
| Marchmont Street | 9 |
| Meadow Place | 7 |
| Spottiswoode Street | 12 |
| Upper Gilmore Place | 6 |
| Upper Grove Place | 6 |
| Upper Grove Place | 8 |
| Viewforth | 7 |
| Viewforth | 2 |
| Viewforth | 2 |
| Viewforth | 6 |
| Viewforth Square | 4 |
| Warrender Park Crescent | 9 |
| Warrender Park Road | 2 |
| Warrender Park Road | 4 |
| Warrender Park Road | 3 |
| Warrender Park Road | 4 |
| Warrender Park Road | 3 |
| Warrender Park Road | 6 |
| Warrender Park Road | 5 |
| Warrender Park Road | 15 |
| Warrender Park Terrace | 14 |
| Warrender Park Terrace | 11 |
| Westhall Gardens | 7 |
| Westhall Gardens | 3 |
| Westhall Gardens | 3 |
| Whitehouse Loan | 5 |
| Whitehouse Loan | 14 |
| Whitehouse Loan | 12 |
| Whitehouse Loan | 3 |
| Whitehouse Loan | 3 |
| Whitehouse Loan | 3 |
| Whitehouse Loan | 3 |
| Total | 322 |
That wouldn't go all the way to sorting out our problem but it would certainly help.
BTW, the reason that some streets appear multiple times is that each contiguous block of spaces is listed separately. If your browser supports long titles then hovering your mouse over the street name will show the details of the block. Otherwise you can download the original document from http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/hleather/parking/schedule5.doc once I get round to putting it on the website.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
A wee meeting at my house
There was a meeting at my house on Sunday night, a few of us sat down over some beer (thanks Steve :-)) to chat about the situation and to decide what we should do about it all. Here are the minutes from it - please, let me know if I've missed anything.
Mailin has made some posters for us and has been taking them round to some of the local shops. She's been talking to the owners there and finding out what they think of the new parking arrangements. It looks like they're not entirely chuffed. We all decided that we should try to join forces. At the moment there might be a bit of a conflict in the things we're asking for, so if we can sort something out to the mutual benefit of all then everything will go much more smoothly. If Monica (leading the traders' group) comes to the next MSCC meeting we'll talk then, otherwise we'll arrange something specially.
We discussed some possible ideas that might suit both groups. Steve suggested triple use spaces for all spaces. All spaces would then be free for residents, x hours ticket and regulations and free half hour loading. We'll find out what the traders have in mind.
Janne offered to help Mailin speaking to the local traders and putting posters up.
We decided that flyers on car windows would be a very good idea. Mailin, who's already done a great on the posters, volunteered to design the flyers. We'll put them on car windows at the same time that we deliver letters to people.
We thought we should try to get more articles published in the local newspapers about this. Hugh will ask Cameron Rose if he would like to set his hand to this. Steve will try to persuade his wife, Catrina, to give it a shot and Sarah said she would write something, too.
We also decided to split the letter delivery task into two bits. Preparing the envelopes and doing all the letter folding is just about as time consuming as doing the deliveries! Mailin and Sarah offered to do that bit and others will do the deliveries.
Mailin has made some posters for us and has been taking them round to some of the local shops. She's been talking to the owners there and finding out what they think of the new parking arrangements. It looks like they're not entirely chuffed. We all decided that we should try to join forces. At the moment there might be a bit of a conflict in the things we're asking for, so if we can sort something out to the mutual benefit of all then everything will go much more smoothly. If Monica (leading the traders' group) comes to the next MSCC meeting we'll talk then, otherwise we'll arrange something specially.
We discussed some possible ideas that might suit both groups. Steve suggested triple use spaces for all spaces. All spaces would then be free for residents, x hours ticket and regulations and free half hour loading. We'll find out what the traders have in mind.
Janne offered to help Mailin speaking to the local traders and putting posters up.
We decided that flyers on car windows would be a very good idea. Mailin, who's already done a great on the posters, volunteered to design the flyers. We'll put them on car windows at the same time that we deliver letters to people.
We thought we should try to get more articles published in the local newspapers about this. Hugh will ask Cameron Rose if he would like to set his hand to this. Steve will try to persuade his wife, Catrina, to give it a shot and Sarah said she would write something, too.
We also decided to split the letter delivery task into two bits. Preparing the envelopes and doing all the letter folding is just about as time consuming as doing the deliveries! Mailin and Sarah offered to do that bit and others will do the deliveries.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Evening News thinks residents parking in Marchmont Crescent has never been easier
Sarah has just pointed out that tonight there is an article about parking in the Evening News. A double page spread, no less. And what does it say? What misery of us Zone 8ers have they brought to light? Here are the first few of paragraphs:
Pulling into Marchmont Crescent, you can’t help but notice something has changed. There are no new buildings, not even any new shops, yet there’s something very different…
Then it hits you – there are parking spaces. Lots of EMPTY parking spaces. Just a few months ago, finding a free space in this heavily-polluted affluent area which borders Edinburgh’s green lung, the Meadows, was akin to finding a needle in a very large haystack.
Now the tables have turned, though the fact that the spaces are no longer free goes a long way to explaining why they are available.
It has been almost two months since the council’s Controlled Parking Zone extended into Marchmont and the Grange, and there is no doubt that the streets are quieter – finding a parking space has probably never been easier.
In Sarah’s words, “What are they ******* talking about?” All very nice for the top end of the Crescent, I’m sure they’re all dead chuffed and good luck to them. It is one thing to have no one notice the disaster here, it’s quite another to have them think that we’re swimming in spaces.
By the way, I think that the slant of the article is to suggest that businesses are getting a raw deal while residents have far too many spaces.
I think we need a letter to them fairly quickly. Would anyone like to volunteer?
Mailin has found this link to the article,
Pulling into Marchmont Crescent, you can’t help but notice something has changed. There are no new buildings, not even any new shops, yet there’s something very different…
Then it hits you – there are parking spaces. Lots of EMPTY parking spaces. Just a few months ago, finding a free space in this heavily-polluted affluent area which borders Edinburgh’s green lung, the Meadows, was akin to finding a needle in a very large haystack.
Now the tables have turned, though the fact that the spaces are no longer free goes a long way to explaining why they are available.
It has been almost two months since the council’s Controlled Parking Zone extended into Marchmont and the Grange, and there is no doubt that the streets are quieter – finding a parking space has probably never been easier.
In Sarah’s words, “What are they ******* talking about?” All very nice for the top end of the Crescent, I’m sure they’re all dead chuffed and good luck to them. It is one thing to have no one notice the disaster here, it’s quite another to have them think that we’re swimming in spaces.
By the way, I think that the slant of the article is to suggest that businesses are getting a raw deal while residents have far too many spaces.
I think we need a letter to them fairly quickly. Would anyone like to volunteer?
Mailin has found this link to the article,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)