Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Road chiefs put brakes on parking zones plan

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 May 2009
MOVES to dramatically extend parking restrictions in Edinburgh have been ditched after a study found there was little evidence of commuters using residential streets as a "park-and-ride".
Residents in outlying areas have long complained that motorists are leaving their cars in quiet city streets before heading to work.

But the council study found while there was evidence of problems with commuter parking, overall the number of veh
icles was limited.

The study also found public resistance to extending parking restrictions and identified a funding shortfall that would see money diverted from road safety or public transport schemes.

The council's transport committee yesterday agreed to scrap plans for controlled parking zones in Prestonfield and the area around Colinton Road and Meggetland.

But it agreed to press ahead with the creation of a CPZ in the Ashley area of Shandon, as well as bringing in restrictions in parts of Inverleith's Arboretum Road and Kinnear Road and the western section of Craigleith Road.

Gavin Corbett, an Ashley resident and chairman of Craiglockhart Primary's parent council, said the creation of a CPZ in his area, which will omit the five streets that make up the Shaftesbury Park Colonies, was a "pig's ear" of a solution.

He said: "The issues are the same throughout the area, yet they have chosen to exclude one little pocket. There's going to be someone who dies in a fire one day because the fire engine can't get through the streets here. I hope it doesn't take something like that for them to take action."

The council study was compiled by officials who recorded the number plates of all cars parked within the five areas under consideration, before tracing individual vehicle movements. The report found while there was strong evidence commuter parking could be a problem in some areas, it was limited in its extent.

The council report also found without sufficient levels of pay-and-display parking, the cost of residents' parking permits would have to be raised to pay for the CPZ extensions.

Councillor Phil Wheeler, the council's transport convener, said: "Having listened to a number of local councillors, it became clear that, when considering extensions to the CPZ, one size does not necessarily fit all.

"The committee has, therefore, requested a further report exploring fresh proposals for managing parking pressures around the fringes of the CPZ. These proposals should include the establishment of local panels – comprising local ward councillors, representatives of the relevant community council and, where appropriate, council officials."

The last extension to the controlled zone, in June last year, included around 15 streets from Grange Loan to the South Suburban Railway line.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

me150,

06/05/2009 11:49:27
This policy has never made sense to me.

Parking is restricted during working hours when locals are at work and have teken their cars. So the spaces are empty during the day. The restrictions end and the locals get home to fill a space which has been empty all day.

Would it not be better to allow parking in these zones during working hours then restrict parking at a time when the locals are returning home after work?
2

James (1),

06/05/2009 11:54:57
Free permits for residents would have solved the problem throughout the city.
After all this was to stop people bring cars into the city and not to penalise residents.
This will we, wont we thinking of the council just shows that no matter who is in power, you will always have amatuer thinkers making up the rules as they go along.
3

Aslan,

Edinburgh 06/05/2009 11:57:47
I sense a Fuelheid rant on this one.

My Bingo Card for the occasion includes the following: 'Nazis', 'braindead smoking ban', stupid Labour', 'nuggets', 'WAKE UP' and 'return it to how it was in the 80s'.

Anyone else want to play?
4

simonp,

06/05/2009 12:00:46
#2 I agree but now the permits have been introduced they should be in force 24/7. We have to pay to cover the council's admin costs.

I find it hard to believe that there are no problems re commuter parking but if that is what they found I am sure it must be true.
5

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/05/2009 12:13:56
The extended contolled parking zone is all about making money. Nothing more, nothing less. They either make money from the parking charges or the fines. Either way, they cannot loose.

How about a bit of direct action? Let's have a day where we all park illegally, (but safely), refuse to pay parking charges and then refuse to pay the resultant fines. Maybe the message will then get through.

#3:

What's the smoking ban, stupid labour or the nazis got to do with this? This is just a rip-off planned by the SNP controlled council.
6

Aslan,

Edinburgh 06/05/2009 12:18:39
#5 - you normally manage to work at least one of 'smoking ban', 'stupid labour' and the 'nazis' into your rants, regardless of subject. So am a bit disappointed you've managed to avoid it on this occasion.

Still, at least we have your trademark, Citizen Smith style call for direct action - er, you first - and a cheeky wee typo.

All's well on Planet Petrolheed!
7

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 06/05/2009 12:27:51
You're right #6! If you do a Google search for

"smoking ban" "stupid labour" nazis

almost all of the hits are Fuel Head commenting on Scotsman/Evening News stories.
8

James (1),

06/05/2009 12:28:24
#4 I agree we should pay the councils admin costs but would question that £80 per permit is needed to pay this.
The initial set up would be the most expensive but the follow up is nowhere near that come the renewal.
That said if they reduced the cost then they would not be fleecing the public under the guise of "for the benefits of the residents"
9

simonp,

06/05/2009 12:29:53
#8 Keeping all the well motivated hard working staff at CECC does not come cheap
10

Sarcasm,

06/05/2009 12:33:05
And the reason it isn't going ahead.

"...and identified a funding shortfall that would see money diverted from road safety or public transport schemes."

If it doesn't make money it's a no go, however good the principle might or might not be.
11

Davy,

06/05/2009 12:38:03
All parking should be free.
Apart from double yellows then the vehicle should be crushed.
Fire engines and ambulances the only exception.
12

I love to eat Sellotape,

06/05/2009 12:42:00
No parking should be free.

In fact, nothing in the world should be free.

All parks should charge an entrance fee.

You should have to pay to use a loo. Even at home.

Walking down the road should cost money. So should running down it. People with prams should pay double.

And if you want to pleasure yourself over a photo of something attractive, you should give the government some money.


13

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 06/05/2009 12:46:50
#5 your usual pro car rants I see.
Given that EVERY town or city in the World (almost) charges for car parking, your suggestion that we Council tax payers should subsidise you motorists doesn't wash with me. Car drivers are subsidised enough as it is.
14

James2122,

06/05/2009 12:47:18
Shandon is a park & ride. Residents set off to work, then out of towners come in and park there, then they come back and head back out of town and then residents come back and park.

Whats the problem??????
15

My opinions count for more than yours,

so pay attention 06/05/2009 12:55:25
7. If you do a Google image search of "cretin", guess what comes up?
16

mobocaster,

Aberdeen 06/05/2009 12:59:29
Since when did public streets become the sole preserve of residents then?

Whatever happened to the principle that so long as your vehicle is roadworthy, taxed & insured, you can park wherever you like (within reason O/C)?

17

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/05/2009 13:01:28
#13:

"Car drivers are subsidised enough as it is."

Don't be ridiculous.
18

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 06/05/2009 13:06:08
#6 & #7:

There's nothing like word association to bring about change in the way people think. The propagandists have used it for years.

Now I'm turning the tables on them and on the evidence of you two guys, it seems to be slowly working!
19

My opinions count for more than yours,

06/05/2009 13:06:42
Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ... Stupid labour ... smoking ban ... Nazis ... bring back Maggie ...
20

Aslan,

Edinburgh 06/05/2009 13:14:19
#18 - not sure how word association is meant to work here, but, when I read any of those phrases in one of your rants, I a) laugh and b) automatically assume that the target of your rant is either in the right or is A Good Thing. Even if I had no opinion on them / it previously.

Hence why I'm now a massive supporter of Speed Cameras and the Smoking Ban - all thanks to you.

Is that what you meant?
21

I love to eat Sellotape,

06/05/2009 13:24:31
19. Are you okay?
22

PaulB,

Edinburgh 06/05/2009 13:58:10
It's about time that someone controlled the crazy double and even triple parking which occurs on the streets between Leith Walk and Easter Rd - come on Council - you would make a fortune if you introduced paid parking in this area - so close to the city centre, yet a free for all. At the moment it's like wacky races but no-one cares.I wrote to the council but they have done nothing.
23

tomias,

Edinburgh 06/05/2009 19:26:03
market forces
24

Julian.,

edinburgh 06/05/2009 22:50:59
James(1)

Nice to see some things never change. Of course your free permit idea would mean that everyone outside the zones would be subsidising those within the zones.

But I find it strange. If you think the council makes money out of these schemes why did:-

"The study also found public resistance to extending parking restrictions and identified a funding shortfall that would see money diverted from road safety or public transport schemes."

FUNDING SHORTFALL if they went ahead??? Surely not.
25

Julian.,

edinburgh 06/05/2009 22:55:27
#16 Mobocaster,

And when exactly did we have the principle that anyone could park wherever they liked (within reason)?

Anyway the CPZ's do not make the streets for the sole use of residents. There are pay and display bays for anyone to use and anyone can park anywhere in these zones free of charge after 5:30pm and all weekends. In my opinion a big mistake.
26

Disappointed of Edinburgh,

Edinburgh 07/05/2009 08:03:24
The main reason for the decision not to increase the parking zone is that council will never get the cost of implementation back. They have been surprised at the lack of revenue from the recently extended zones.
Much pressure was placed on the council to introduce the parking restrictions because nimbys think that they are the only people who have the right to park in the street in which they live.
Zones S1 and S2 are prime examples and have large swathes of permit bays outside some of the largest houses in Edinburgh. These rarely have a car in them and you can look along a complete length of street where no cars are parked. Had the council introduced shared parking bays, some cars could at least have parked and generated some revenue whereas the council have generated none at all. The nimbys have simply parked their cars in their own drives, but ensured that no-one else can park near their beloved house.
In these recently extended zones the council won't ever recover the implementation costs so they are hardly going to make the same mistake again. For once the council have actually learnt from a mistake!
27

James (1),

07/05/2009 13:51:05
#25 Those subsidising would be who? Oh yes, those that dont live in the area? The ones the council do not want in the area (without paying you understand!).

SHORTFALL (oops, my caps lock go stuck just like yours. It must be that word?)so you are telling me this scam, sorry scheme, is running at a loss?
No, exactly it is running at a profit.
What it means is the council cannot make a bigger profit in this area. Oh but wait, this scam was not a money making venture, it was for the poor residents. What about them?
Stuff them, there is no money to be made.
Do the council know if the police are going to move their HQ to this area and that is perhaps why they are protecting the area from zones? Just like Fettes!
28

James (1),

07/05/2009 13:53:40
#26 your road tax was the only thing necessary to park (legally) but now we have tubes who will say "its a road fund licence"
That tax disc pays for your roads whether you like it or not. It goes into a big pot and is divide up and used in part for the roads.
Only an idiot would say it was not. So Julian, what do you say?
29

wolfette,

Edinburgh 11/06/2009 20:00:07
#2 - James, I totally agree. If the cost of a parking permit is just to cover the cost of implementation, why is it cheaper in other cities than in Edinburgh? It's just a money making scheme for Edinburgh City Council.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.