Leicester City Council are consulting on their new Parking Action Plan and Healthy Air Leicester and Leicestershire have submitted a detailed response. If you have 5 minutes, you could use some of our points below and submit your own response.
Response to consultation on Parking Action Plan
Foreword
It is disappointing that the mayor’s foreword makes no mention of the connection between car parking provision and transport behaviour and therefore the importance of this policy for influencing the environmental impact of the city and the level of air pollution.
Responsibilities
Motorists and residents also have a responsibility to choose sustainable transport options when possible, which would help to reduce congestion.
Ambitions
The first in the list of the ambitions suggests that you think the economy of the city is dependent on car parking provision. We disagree - we think that the economy of the city is dependent on people being able to move around easily but this does not mean that everyone has to drive. There is now a good deal of evidence that improved cycling and pedestrianization (and less car access) actually boosts the local economy. This is counter-intuitive in our car-obsessed times but the evidence is clear.
You acknowledge the link between this policy and the Sustainable Transport Plan and you re-state the aim to ‘encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport’ but there is no commitment here to reducing car parking provision. We think this is needed to discourage people from driving into the city.
Aims and objectives
We suggest that, in order to tackle dangerous and inconsiderate parking, the council will need to increase parking fines.
The aims should refer to the health issues caused by congestion and air pollution.
Key achievements in 2015
The introduction of a ‘simpler parking charging scheme’ is listed as an achievement. In practice, this scheme reduced the cost of parking and encouraged more people to drive and we do not think that this is an achievement. For example, one of our members works near University Road and her colleague stopped catching the bus to work and started driving when she found that she could just top up her parking every three hours and it is then cheaper to park for the day than it is to buy a bus ticket. This is a backwards step and should have been thought through more carefully. The city council should not do anything that encourages people to drive, given that we already have an illegal level of air pollution.
Funding
The city council would have more money for public transport improvements and cycling schemes if they implemented a Workplace Parking Levy. Nottingham City Council have used this source of income very effectively to help fund their tram system and Leicester City Council should follow their example. We think that you should use more of your parking income on improving bus services and funding cycling schemes, to give people alternatives to using a private car.
Parking availability
This clearly shows that there is already too much parking provision in Leicester because the car parks are never full. We are also aware that the way the NCP prices parking makes it cheaper than taking the bus, which again encourages commuters to drive to work. The council should tackle this if at all possible.
Proposed action plan
The ‘Planning for the Future’ objective makes no mention of tackling air pollution to improve people’s health or mitigating climate change, which are enormous omissions.
We agree that more residents’ parking schemes are needed and we are glad that the council is planning to implement more of these.
To tackle school run parking (and congestion), you will first need to discourage parents from driving their children to school and then encourage walking and cycling. It is not realistic to expect to deal with this problem without some discouragement.
We agree that it is important to review the pricing options of park and ride to tackle congestion. It should always be cheaper to take public transport than to park in the city.
Parking facilities could include the provision of bike repair stations, like those recently provided by Warwickshire County Council (http://tinyurl.com/zj93yn2), rather than defining parking provisions as for motor vehicles only.
Response to consultation on Parking Action Plan
Foreword
It is disappointing that the mayor’s foreword makes no mention of the connection between car parking provision and transport behaviour and therefore the importance of this policy for influencing the environmental impact of the city and the level of air pollution.
Responsibilities
Motorists and residents also have a responsibility to choose sustainable transport options when possible, which would help to reduce congestion.
Ambitions
The first in the list of the ambitions suggests that you think the economy of the city is dependent on car parking provision. We disagree - we think that the economy of the city is dependent on people being able to move around easily but this does not mean that everyone has to drive. There is now a good deal of evidence that improved cycling and pedestrianization (and less car access) actually boosts the local economy. This is counter-intuitive in our car-obsessed times but the evidence is clear.
- In the book, ‘Bikenomics’, Elly Blue explains the direct benefits to the economy (as opposed to the indirect benefits such as less expenditure on healthcare etc) of encouraging active travel. She relates how, in a car-obsessed New York, despite initial resistance from local businesses, the converting of a 'normal' highway into a pedestrian/cycling one, led to a noticeable increase in local business takings.
- Sustrans challenge the idea that free parking benefits local businesses:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/free-parking-not-good-high-streets - Cycling UK believe that cycling makes a significant contribution to the economy:
http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycling-and-economy - Even the UK government has acknowledged this and is now saying that cycle promotion benefits local economies. See here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-value-of-cycling-rapid-evidence-review-of-the-economic-benefits-of-cycling
or here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycling-and-walking-the-economic-case-for-action
You acknowledge the link between this policy and the Sustainable Transport Plan and you re-state the aim to ‘encourage more people to walk, cycle and use public transport’ but there is no commitment here to reducing car parking provision. We think this is needed to discourage people from driving into the city.
Aims and objectives
We suggest that, in order to tackle dangerous and inconsiderate parking, the council will need to increase parking fines.
The aims should refer to the health issues caused by congestion and air pollution.
Key achievements in 2015
The introduction of a ‘simpler parking charging scheme’ is listed as an achievement. In practice, this scheme reduced the cost of parking and encouraged more people to drive and we do not think that this is an achievement. For example, one of our members works near University Road and her colleague stopped catching the bus to work and started driving when she found that she could just top up her parking every three hours and it is then cheaper to park for the day than it is to buy a bus ticket. This is a backwards step and should have been thought through more carefully. The city council should not do anything that encourages people to drive, given that we already have an illegal level of air pollution.
Funding
The city council would have more money for public transport improvements and cycling schemes if they implemented a Workplace Parking Levy. Nottingham City Council have used this source of income very effectively to help fund their tram system and Leicester City Council should follow their example. We think that you should use more of your parking income on improving bus services and funding cycling schemes, to give people alternatives to using a private car.
Parking availability
This clearly shows that there is already too much parking provision in Leicester because the car parks are never full. We are also aware that the way the NCP prices parking makes it cheaper than taking the bus, which again encourages commuters to drive to work. The council should tackle this if at all possible.
Proposed action plan
The ‘Planning for the Future’ objective makes no mention of tackling air pollution to improve people’s health or mitigating climate change, which are enormous omissions.
We agree that more residents’ parking schemes are needed and we are glad that the council is planning to implement more of these.
To tackle school run parking (and congestion), you will first need to discourage parents from driving their children to school and then encourage walking and cycling. It is not realistic to expect to deal with this problem without some discouragement.
We agree that it is important to review the pricing options of park and ride to tackle congestion. It should always be cheaper to take public transport than to park in the city.
Parking facilities could include the provision of bike repair stations, like those recently provided by Warwickshire County Council (http://tinyurl.com/zj93yn2), rather than defining parking provisions as for motor vehicles only.