Yellow Lines

John Richmond has sent me a list of the spaces he can make for us:

AMENDMENTS TO ZONE 8 PARKING BAYS

ROAD	PROPOSAL	BAYS
Warrender Park Road o/s 102	Remove 2m double yellow lines west of Spottiswood Street and extend residents parking.	-
Warrender Park Road opp 115-119	Move City Car Club parking bay eastwards. Move public parking bays westwards. Introduce residents parking bays between residents and City Car Club bays.	+2
Warrender Park Crescent opp 1	Extend residents parking bays westwards.	+1
Warrender Park Crescent opp 5	Extend residents parking bays eastwards.	+3
Warrender Park Crescent opp 9-11	Introduce 10m residents parking bay.	+2
Warrender Park Crescent o/s 12	Extend residents parking bay.	+1
Warrender Park Crescent opp 13	Introduce 10m residents parking bay	+2
Warrender Park Crescent o/s 20	Extend residents parking bay eastwards.	+1
Marchmont Street o/s 14-15	Extend residents parking bay northwards.	+3
Marchmont Street o/s 5	Introduce public parking bay.	+3
Warrender Park Terrace o/s 1	Extend residents parking bay eastwards.	+1
Marchmont Road o/s 11	Extend residents parking bay northwards.	+1
Marchmont Crescent o/s 21	Extend residents parking bay northwards.	+1
Marchmont Crescent opp1	Remove double yellow lines and introduce 10m residents parking bay	+2
Roseneath Place o/s 19-21	Extend residents parking bay northwards.	+2
Meadow Place o/s 12	Extend residents parking bay southwards.	+2
Meadow Place o/s 10	Extend residents parking bay northwards.	+1
Roseneath Terrace o/s 30-32	Introduce 10m residents parking bay	+2
Roseneath Terrace o/s 3	Extend residents parking bay eastwards.	+1
Argyle Place o/s 41	Extend residents parking bay northwards.	+1
Argyle Place o/s 31	Extend residents parking bay southwards.	+2
Argyle Place o/s 30	Change double yellow lines to single yellow lines.	-
Argyle Place o/s 28 and o/s 17	Extend public parking bay northwards and southwards	+2
Roseneath Street o/s 1 and o/s 7	Extend public parking bay eastwards and westwards	+2
Roseneath Street o/s 8	Extend residents parking bay eastwards.	+1
Warrender Park Road o/s 6 and o/s 14	Extend residents parking bay eastwards and westwards.	+1
Warrender Park Road o/s 18	Extend residents parking bay eastwards.	+1

PROPOSALS REQUIRING RELOCATION OF CONTAINERS

ROAD	PROPOSAL	BAYS
Marchmont Crescent opp15-17	Investigate moving refuse containers from west to east side of road, adjacent to steps to Roseneath Place (SfC – Murray Black)	-
Marchmont Street o/s 4	Extend residents bay northwards. Depending on relocation of refuse container.	+2
Marchmont Crescent o/s 1	Extend residents parking bay northwards. Depending on relocation of refuse container.	+1

PROPOSALS NOT CONSIDERED FEASIBLE

ROAD	PROPOSAL	BAYS
Chalmers Crescent	Introduce residents parking bay – not sufficient space available.	-
Warrender Park Road Adjacent to school	Introduce residents parking bay – guardrail, not considered possible on road safety grounds.	-
Warrender Park Road o/s 153	Introduce residents parking bay – shops, loading required	-
Whitehouse Loan o/s 1	Introduce residents parking bay – hotels, loading required	-

PROPOSALS ALREADY PROCESSED

ROAD	PROPOSAL	BAYS
Warrender Park Road o/s 102	Confirm that single yellow line is to be removed and residents parking bays are to be extended eastwards.	-
Marchmont Street east side	Confirm that public parking bay is to be removed and residents parking bays introduced.	-

AMENDMENTS TO ZONE S1 PARKING BAYS

ROAD	PROPOSAL	BAYS
Marchmont Road at Thirlestane Road	Extend residents parking bays southwards.	+1
Strathearn Road o/s 8	Introduce residents parking bays.	+2
Strathearn Road o/s 78	Remove double yellow lines. Move bus stop westwards. Extend residents parking bays westwards.	+2

URGENT! Avoid Some Streets in S1

Our ability to park in S1 is causing some discontent in a few streets there. The worst affected is Marchmont Crescent South. Please, avoid parking in that street at all and let your neighbours know, too.

There are some other streets where concerns are less vociferous but please try to avoid these as well.

• Lauderdale Street
• Spottiswoode Street
• Arden Street
• Marchmont Road

Jim Grieve and Eddie McDowell don’t want to enforce this yet and ask us to be considerate instead. We may find, though, that we won’t have a choice if we’re not careful. I think a prohibition will certainly be worse for us.

In my opinion, the problem is down to us not yet having shared use bays. They are very likely coming soon and that should free up more spaces for us so we don’t have to park in S1 as often. But, my worry is that until that goes through all the legal hurdles, we will give people in S1 the mistaken impression that merging with us will be bad for them. Even if they only think that due to a weird temporary situation, it won’t help us.

So, remembering that zone 8 permits probably stand out a mile to S1ers, please try to park in emptier streets – even if that means walking a bit further. Hopefully it’ll only be for a few months. Once the tough streets in zone 8 are merged into S1 the permits will all look the same and with shared use, too, all stress will vanish. We need to protect our long term goals.

Let me know what you think about all this.

Missing Streets Allowed to Park in S1

I’ve just heard from Eddie McDowell and Jim Grieve at the council that the missing streets have been given permission to park in S1!

The streets in question are:

• Warrender Park Crescent
• Argyle Park Terrace
• Sylvan Place
• Findhorn Place

Permit holders in those streets can start parking in S1 from today.

A letter will be sent out officially sometime next week. But since it is in effect from today, if you live in those streets, please let your neighbours know, too.

Thanks to Jim and Eddie!

There is a draft of the letter, here.

Car Tax

Not strictly parking related, but Mailin has drawn my attention to this petition to stop the new Tax As You Drive system where you'll have to buy a tracking device and will then be charged for every mile.

The petition is at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/sign

Looks like they needed 750,000 signatures to stop it and I think they have them.

Drivetime

I was interviewed today by Stephen Jardine from Scottish TV's Drivetime. They wanted to talk about the parking changes in Edinburgh. I'm not quite sure how much of an idiot I managed to make of myself - probably quite a lot! I'm not sure if I said anything that will upset anyone, bugger. Well, fingers crossed, eh? It was very interesting, I've never done anything like this before.

It's due to air on the 15th of Feb at 19:30 - though I wouldn't be surprised if I got edited out completely - I can't be the most photogenic of subjects :-)

Yellow Lines in the Biting Cold

This morning Marilyne MacLaren, Jim Grieve, John Richmond and I walked round the streets of Marchmont zone 8 looking where yellow lines could be removed to make more room for parking. It was baltic out there and I really must say how much I appreciate their time and effort on our behalf.

(From the left) Jim, Marilyne and John)

We found lots and lots of places where we can squeeze in more cars. Most of the ones on the list were agreed on and a few more that weren't on the list. There were some places we had listed which will be left to keep loading areas for local businesses and some for keeping visibility round corners and so on. On the whole, though, I think it will improve the situation quite a lot.

We'll have to wait a while for the places to get verified (John will go round and take measurements and so forth to get it all precisely). Then there'll be the statutory consultations which will take a few months, but soon :-) I'll keep you up to date if Jim or John send me the final list.

Jim also said that he hopes to be able to make decisions about the streets not included in the temporary measures within a month, maybe as short as a fortnight. I have my fingers crossed.

Removing Yellow Lines

On Tuesday, Marilyne is going to drag some of the council officials around the streets in zone 8 Marchmont to find out where there are yellow lines that could be turned into spaces. A little while ago a few of us wrote down some places that might be suitable.

Please, please, if you have any further suggestions, send them to me before Tuesday. Here's the list:

Street: Meadow Place
1 space by shortening the double yellows at the top.
3 or more spaces by making spaces where people park anyway, further down. At night these 'non-spaces' are all used and car have no trouble passing.

Street: Roseneath Place
4 spaces by removing double yellows in the end-on section. 1 and a half by moving the bin to the other side of the road.

Street: Marchmont Crescent (North)
2 spaces on the inner side of the turn with Warrender Park Road - 1 on the outer side
2 spaces could be made by moving the bins to the other side (next to the stairs). Another 1 if they were put adjacent to each other
2 spaces at the bottom, north end, by shortening useless double yellow lines
1 space - the space set aside for the bin at the bottom is twice the size it needs to be and the double yellow could be shortened on that side
Marchmont Crescent could be made one way and given end-on on one side - many, many more spaces

Street: Warrender Park Crescent (Marchmont Street - Whitehouse Loan)
Worthless yellow lines in Warrender Pk Cres opposite #3 (wasting 10 spaces); opposite #12 (? spaces); at #12 (1 space); opp #20 (wasting 5 spaces).

Street: Warrender Park Terrace (Marchmont Road - Spottiswoode Street)
3 spaces

Street: Marchmont Street (North)
8 spaces

Street: Warrender Park Road (Spottiswoode Street - Marchmont Street)
7 spaces

Street: Argyle Place Terrace
Single yellow lines at the end of the cul-de-sac, presumably required for vehicles turning, but are used for parking after 5.30pm (when the road is most congested). These could be removed, or painted as double yellow if they are truly required to be kept free at all times

Street: Argyle Place (Zone 8 side only)
Yellow line at the bottom of the road beyond the bin could be shortened, as could the yellow line in front of the post-box at the shops.

Street: Roseneath Terrace
Yellow line beside the bin on right hand side of the road coming in from Argyle Place is unnecessarily long and could be used for parking. The yellow line on the left hand side at the end of the road before Roseneath Place could be used for parking without obstructing the road but the other side should be kept clear. NB: There is a MC place and one cycle was in it, although often there are more. This should be kept for that use, cars often park in it in the evening.

Street: Whitehouse Loan (Warrender Park Road - Warrender Park Crescent)
*2 spaces at corner of Whitehouse Loan & Warrender Park Road
*1 space at corner of Whitehouse Loan & Warrender Park Crescent

Street: Warrender Park Road (Marchmont Street - Whitehouse Loan)
*4 spaces at the front of 151-153 Warrender Park Road (& Whitehouse Loan)
*4 spaces along railings opposite primary school entrance (Whitehouse Loan end)

Missing Streets! (Bad Hippie)

I am guilty of exactly the type of "I'm all right, Jack" attitude that I so wanted to avoid. When I read the letter from the council I skimmed the list of streets covered, saw Marchmont Crescent, where I live, and thought everything was cool.

I must apologise to those people whose streets have not been included! Particularly to those in Findhorn Place and Grange Loan, some of whom put in a vast amount of work with the campaign and who aren't on the list! I am very, very sorry for letting you down.

I will try to find out why those streets are not included and see if the council will add them. Please let me know if your street isn't on the list and you are still having trouble parking.

The Letter!

Hi everyone,

Now a few days ago I received, along with many of you, a letter allowing me to park in S1.

I would be very interested in hearing from you if you think you should have a letter and don't or if your street isn't on the list and you think it should be.

04 January 2007

Dear Resident

PARKING PRESSURES IN ZONES 7 AND 8

Since the introduction of zone S1 of the controlled parking zone extension, in September 2006, there has been increased pressure on residents' bays in certain streets within zones 7 and 8. This is due to residents who have recently purchased a permit when previously they parked outwith their zone in what is now S1.

In an effort to ease the pressure in the short term, we have made arrangements to allow zone 7 and 8 permit holders, in specified streets, to park in bays within zone S1, during the controlled hours. The streets are Argyle Place, Gladstone Terrace, Livingstone Place, Marchmont Crescent, Marchmont Road, Marchmont Street, Meadow Place, Roseneath Place, Roseneath Street, Roseneath Terrace, Spottiswoode Street, Warrender Park Road and Warrender Park Terrace.

In order to ensure, however, that the balance of controlled parking in the new zone S1 is not compromised, the above arrangements will be subject ot review and may be changed accordingly. In any event, the arrangement is temporary and will end when the new zone boundaries are established.

In the longer term we are looking at the feasibility of adjusting zone boundaries, reallocating existing parking places and investigating other means by which the utilisation of the available kerbside could be improved.

Survey work recently carried out in the area is currently being analysed. It is anticipated that the results of that analysis, and an indication of the type of measures that would be appropriate to address the issues identified by the surveys, will be available shortly.

I hope that you will find the temporary arrangement helpful. If you have any questions please contact the Parking Customer Care team on 0131 469 3898 for advice.

Yours faithfully,


Keith Rimmer
Head of Transport

Success! And a new article in the Evening News tomorrow

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 :-)

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?

1. 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.


2. 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.


3. 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.


4. 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:

1. 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.


2. 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,

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:

• 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 -

• 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?

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?

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

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?

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.

Documents from the meeting

We took along some documentation to the meeting with Jim Grieve on Wednesday. Here they are:

• Agenda


• Statistics


• Residents' Proposed Solutions

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

1. The council will look at redrawing the boundaries of the zones. This is seen as the most sustainable solution.


2. 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.


3. 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.


4. There are no plans to help the traders. We’ll need to look at this again.

Short Term

1. 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.


2. 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 :-)