Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Parking in Redbridge – Consultation

From Redbridge Council

Tell us what you think about parking

We’re reviewing how parking is provided to residents, businesses and visitors to Redbridge.

To do this it’s vital that we get your views so we’re asking you to take just five minutes to tell us what you think by completing our short consultation.

We know that parking affects everyone in different ways and because of this it is a huge challenge for us to get right. It isn’t a subject that can be considered on its own, there are lots of other factors that we will need to take into account including road safety, the local economy and an increase in our population and car ownership. The longer term plan is to develop a parking offer that is consistent and fair.

The first phase of our consultation is to understand more about your more general views on parking. This will help us develop a vision and set of aims to make parking work in years to come. It will also help us to make decisions about what parking schemes are best for the majority.

The consultation is for everyone, not just car users, and it’s open until 28 August 2015.

Find out more and take part

Editor: Here's some info before you start ...

"Cars are parked 95% of the time". Let's check!

The typical driver spends 106 days of their life searching for a parking space

From AutoBlog
  • 30% of most traffic in a city comes from people looking for parking spaces.
  • Most cars are parked 90 percent of the time.
  • Urban planners, architects and politicians are the three groups most in need of a parking expert.
While often an afterthought, creating good parking spaces is essential in creating a more efficient, more sustainable and even more walkable environment. Parking lots need to be easy to enter, a breeze to leave and easy to pay for. If not, parking can make any place a frustration for someone to visit or live, ....


  1. Just replied suggesting the council reads current thinking! For example,

    "In the last few decades a growing number of European cities have led the world in changing the direc- tion of parking policy. European citizens grew tired of having public spaces and footpaths occupied by surface parking.

    Each parking space consumes from 15 m2 to 30 m2, and the average motorist uses two to five different parking spaces every day. In dense European cities, a growing number of citizens began to question whether dedicating scarce public space to car parking was wise social policy, and whether encouraging new buildings to build parking spaces was a good idea. No matter how many new parking garages and motorways they built, the traffic congestion only grew worse, and as much as 50% of traffic congestion was caused by drivers cruising around in search of a cheaper parking space.

    In the cities reviewed here, parking policy has been reoriented around alternative social goals. Some recent parking reforms are driven by the need to comply with EU ambient air quality or national greenhouse gas targets. Other new parking policies are part of broader mobility targets encouraging reductions in the use of private motor vehicles.

    While London, Stockholm, and a few other European cities have managed to implement congestion charging to reduce motor vehicle use, more are turning to parking.

    Every car trip begins and ends in a parking space, so parking regulation is one of the best ways to regulate car use. Vehicles cruising for parking often make up a significant share of total traffic. Other reasons for changing parking policies were driven by the desire to revitalize city centers and repurpose scarce road space for bike lanes or bike parking.

    The amount of parking available in a city is heavily influenced by public policy. On-street parking is governed by municipal or district policy, and off-street parking is generally controlled through zoning and building regulations. These are ultimately political questions: how much parking is built in new buildings, and how much public space should be dedicated to motor vehicle parking as opposed to other uses.

    The impacts of these new parking policies have been impressive: revitalized and thriving town centers; significant reductions in private car trips; reductions in air pollution; and generally improved quality of life.

    Progress in Europe on parking reform should not be overstated. Most cities still impose minimum park- ing requirements on developers, and few cities have imposed maximum parking requirements. While
    a growing number of cities have mandated charges for both on- and off-street parking, they generally charge rates that are too low. The most innovative European parking practices are discussed below as actionable measures that can be applied by any city government depending on their short- and long- term goals.1"

  2. And of course I hope that key habitat of automobilis ferii hasn't been forgotten!

    That thing that was often raised at the Sustainability Forum and is in the Council's environmental policy, that requires planning permission to change the ecology of from meadow/woodland to desert!

    It is not obvious that the other species in the ecology have been properly considered, because this species does seem to have droit de majeure.

    Should some form of licence be charged to allow this species to get to its resting and sleeping platform?

    It crosses paths of what seems to be a sub species. The sub species faces many issues that are easily resolvable, as shown in this article and accompanying wild life film.

    A licence fee to cross someone else's land and enter the nesting space would be eminently reasonable!

  3. From the land of the free

    "As we enter the mayoral election season, I wouldn't be surprised if our candidates hear from citizens that our city isn't providing enough parking, so our officials need to "fix it" - in other words, do what it takes to get us closer to the ideal of easy-and-free parking anywhere we want to go, while no one else can park on our own street except me and my neighbors.

    However, I wonder if the politicians and bureaucrats who hear this perspective from the citizenry realize the prices paid for all the vast supply of parking that is implied to be necessary. While I could highlight many ways that the omnipresence of parking as a land use can negatively affect us, such as excessive and polluted storm runoff and urban heat islands, I want to focus on two main impacts: the reduced appeal and effectiveness of walking and the terrific financial burden our obsession with parking places on both the private and public sector.

    The negative impacts on walking as a means of mobility and access are pretty obvious. Massive on-site parking supply pushes destinations apart, meaning fewer destinations are available within a reasonable walking distance, diminishing the practicality of getting around on foot. Off-street parking facilities are also generally unpleasant to walk next to or through, reducing the qualitative experience of being a pedestrian as well. With such conditions, even folks who might not be predisposed against walking will be more likely to drive to and between their destinations (thus creating more traffic and pollution). In short, excessive on-site parking and walkable environments are not terribly compatible.

    Of course, the traffic congestion and health impacts are becoming more widely known as consequences of a lack of walkability. Not to mention the burden placed on those who walk because, for whatever reason, they're unable to drive. Finally, from a more purely qualitative perspective, there are those who actually like walking in cities and who are denied that experience.

    The negative impact of the financial burden of excessive and poorly located parking may be even more pernicious, however. It would be silly to declare parking unnecessary at the present time, especially for most commercial uses in Houston; our relatively lower densities and sparse public transit network mean that parking is necessary for a sufficient number of employees, customers and visitors to access destinations. But onsite parking, mandated by Houston city code and perceived as necessary regardless of code by most developers, comes at great cost - it takes extra money to build parking, not to mention to acquire and use the underlying land for that purpose. What ends up happening is that enormous resources are spent purely for vehicle storage, rather than using that capital and land for actual economic activity. Where does the Houston economy actually take place? Usually in buildings, not in parking lots or garages - yet what quantity of underutilized financial resources are locked into parking? How much more expensive, or financially tenuous, is a development project than it otherwise would have been if more land could be used productively? How might our built environment improve if more could be spent on creating quality buildings and more affordable housing rather than creating more parking?"

  4. 'We’re reviewing how parking is provided to residents, businesses and visitors to Redbridge' Translation: 'We think we can generate much more parking revenue from residents, businesses and visitors to Redbridge'

    'To do this it’s vital that we get your views so we’re asking you to take just five minutes to tell us what you think by completing our short consultation.' Translation: To get away with any of this we need to give the impression that we will consider the public's views. Then we will ignore those views and do what we initially planed anyway.

    'We know that parking affects everyone in different ways and because of this it is a huge challenge for us to get right.' Translation: Many people of going to be pi**ed off when we hike up the parking charges, so it's going to be a huge challenge for us to pull it off.

  5. Obviously 'Anonymous' has a first class degree in Councilspeak. (An M.C-S. perhaps?). I have also studied the subject extensively and I agree wholeheartedly with his(?her) translations. What I find very difficult to understand is that although motor vehicles have been around now for something like 130 years, although the numbers increase daily, although they are a fact of life, although the numbers will continue to grow and like 'climate change' will always be with us because, again like 'climate change' they are a cast-iron source of revenue (but perhaps a shade more openly than C.C.), why is everyone so surprised when these mechanical necessities need space. Are we expected, world-wide, to return to horse transport and pretend the wheel was never invented?

    This is the twenty-first century. Accommodate it! Live with it! Accept it and plan accordingly because, ladies and gentlemen, it ain't gonna go away!

  6. I wouldn't be too sure!

  7. I don't know why we do it, but when faced with a perceived problem, we tend to look at immediately related factors, and not to ask how we got to where we are and are we sure we want to be there, albeit with slight tweaks. Sometimes it is a good idea to think issues through properly fom everyone's perspective!

  8. I do not drive and have never done so. When I was in my 20s, few of my friends drove. It was a mortgage or a car - and I chose the mortgage.
    The simple answer to parking is that too many people have cars who do not need them. I have used Radio Cars in Ilford for the past 40 years - and saved a hell of a lot of money. Try it! I walk to Sainsbury's and have a mini-cab back. I go by bus to Ilford and have mini-cab back. Public transport in the London area serves my needs - and when you retire it is free. Why have a car? See London from the top of a red bus. It's great!

  9. We must encourage visitors to come to Redbridge! Parking easily and with reasonable charge will help that!

  10. Parking in Barkingside High Street is a joke. Because parking is on both sides of the road, which has a number of traffic lights as well, and people reverse into parking spaces, it is very difficult and dangerous to drive in the High Street. Why can't parking bays be made larger for people to drive into and be staggered each side of the street to allow the traffic to flow. It used to be much better before the Council mucked around with the layout. Maybe that was the only way to keep the planners employed!

  11. At one time an extensive survey was carried out to establish which roads in the Borough were suitable for pavement parking 2-wheels-up and 4-wheels-up. Whatever became of this survey? I suspect it foundered on the cost of providing signage.

    My own personal bugbear is the number of Blue Badges being issued and their apparent misuse. I would love to be asked to show mine but have never been asked. As it is, it is almost impossible to find a vacant disabled parking bay, particularly in Central Ilford.

    1. It is underway. Fullwell was the first ward and I think is now finished. These things take time to roll out. I'll check.

      Sometimes the use of a Blue Badge can be misunderstood. I have personally been verbally abused for using what was then an orange badge to deposit my mother-in-law at the local hospital, when I returned to my car to move it so the space could be used by someone else who needed it.

      They didn't see me get her out of the car, into a wheelchair and into the hospital. They saw an able bodied middle aged man getting into a parked car with an orange badge.

    2. Point taken - but where checks have been made i.e. the photo on the reverse has been checked and there is no passenger then there is clearly a well-known abuse of the system.

      It is difficult to enforce because the misused Blue Badge is confiscated but then Auntie or Grannie to whom the badge was originally issued demands it back.