Controlled Parking Zones Commentary

Transcription

1 Controlled Parking Zones Commentary November 2012 Residents Association

2

3 Controlled Parking Zones Commentary TPN ITQ 001 C FjdGlvbiUzYV9hX2FmaW5kaXRlbWluZm9hY3Rpb25fYWl0ZW1fY19hMT 03 December 2012 Controlled Parking Zones Commentary November 2012 Residents Association Residents Association London Borough Barnet Mott MacDonald, Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom +44 (0) (0)

4

5 Issue and revision record A 29/11/12 M Ring R Hearle R Hearle First Issue B 29/11/12 M Ring R Hearle R Hearle Second Issue Following client review C 03/12/12 M Ring R Hearle R Hearle Incorporating Client Comments This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.. hx2fmaw5kaxrlbwluzm9hy3rpb25fywl0 ZW1fY19hMTUxOTMwMTk1MQ/121127

6

7 Contents 1 Introduction Background 1 2 Discussion of CPZ Options for Option 1 a) Introduce no new CPZs Option 1 b) Remove Existing CPZs Option 2 LB Barnet Proposed New CPZ Option 3 LB Barnet Proposed New CPZ, plus Additional Adjacent Streets Option 4 CPZ for Whole Suburb Traffic Regulation Orders - Summary 6 3 Concluding Comments 8 Appendices 9 Appendix A. Plan of Current and Consulted CPZs 10 hx2fmaw5kaxrlbwluzm9hy3rpb25fywl0 ZW1fY19hMTUxOTMwMTk1MQ/121127

8 1 Introduction Mott MacDonald (MM) has been asked by the Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents Association (HGRA) to provide comment on the future of Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) in the Suburb. The London Borough Barnet (LBB) has recently undertaken a public consultation to introduce CPZ restrictions in a number of streets adjacent to current CPZs operating in the suburb. The HGRA provided MM with four discussion options to consider as follows: 1. Do little option, including; a. Introduce no new CPZs b. Remove existing CPZs 2. LBB consultation proposal to introduce a one hour scheme in the following streets: i. Hampstead Way ii. Willifield Way iii. Asmuns Hill iv. Temple Fortune Hill v. Hill Close 3. As above option but also to include additional streets immediately adjacent reflecting current parking demand and to mitigate displacement. 4. Introduce a CPZ across the entire suburb to operate for one hour a day, Monday to Friday, excluding bank holidays. A plan showing the current and existing CPZs can be found in Appendix A. In addition, to providing comment on the four options MM were asked to prepare a further option, or process, which could be adopted. This has been provided based on our experience gained from undertaking a large number of similar parking studies for different local authorities across the UK. What follows in Section two is a discussion on the above options and in Section Three a summary of an approach that could be adopted as an alternative to the above options. 1

9 2 Discussion of CPZ Options for The following section provides a summary of the proposals and Section Three sets out a possible process to undertake a parking study based on MM experience. There is also a summary of the Traffic Regulation Order process, included at request due to possible confusion amongst HGRA members.!"#$% This is a proposal put to us by HGRA following suggestions by a number of residents in the suburb. Advantages Additional residents and their visitors are not affected by the costs of parking in a CPZ restricted street. Residents, visitors and service vehicles are able to park in non CPZ operating streets without restriction. CPZ creep is reduced as displacement is restricted to streets adjacent to the existing CPZs. Disadvantages Streets within the suburb adjacent to CPZs would continue to experience parking demand issues. Unsafe or inappropriate parking practices which are currently taking place will continue unless a waiting restriction review (a review of existing and/or introduction of new single yellow and double yellow lines) is undertaken. Congestion could remain (CPZ layouts can be effective in reducing this). Parking at junctions, if currently occurring will continue affecting safety for vulnerable users such as pedestrians and cyclists. Large vehicles or vans can continue to park on-street (these are often excluded from eligibility for permits). Existing parking problems are likely to exacerbate with continued growth in car use. &!"'() % This was suggested by residents to HGRA with 1 a) above. Advantages No residents in the suburb incur the costs of parking within a CPZ. 2

10 Visitors to residents will not experience disruption associated with the CPZs. Service vehicles to residential properties during CPZ operational periods are able to park on-street without restriction, Street furniture is reduced as CPZ signage can be removed. On-street parking restrictions are less confusing to motorists as there is not a period of time when only permit holders can park. The number of free parking spaces is increased. Disadvantages Commuter parking will likely return. Residents would find it increasingly difficult to park on street. Streets adjacent to the existing CPZs are currently experiencing parking demand problems and it is assumed some of this demand would migrate to streets where the CPZ is removed. Increase in inappropriate and unsafe parking practices, particularly at junctions and double parking. Enforcement is likely to reduce with the removal of a CPZ. Revenue raised through the operation of a CPZ is often used to fund its enforcement; isolated restrictions outside a CPZ could be enforced less frequently. Removal of CPZs could see vehicles parking on-street close to transport hubs for a number of weeks or months at a time. This is has been experienced extensively in other areas adjacent to transport hubs. * "+,$% The LBB recently consulted on proposals to introduce CPZ restrictions for one hour a day between Monday and Friday, in streets immediately adjacent to the existing CPZ near Golders Green underground station. It is understood this was an informal consultation as opposed to a statutory consultation summarised in Section 2.6. MM has been informed by the HGRA that these streets are currently experiencing parking demand problems and have submitted a petition to the LBB requesting that they be included within the existing CPZ; along with several other concerns they frequently observe shopkeepers and employees from local retail outlets parking in their street all day causing parking demand issues. Advantages Residents experiencing parking demand issues will be protected from all day commuter parking. 3

11 On-street parking can be efficiently managed to better meet the needs of residents and their visitors. One hour a day restrictions allow retail and local business user parking to continue outside the hours of enforcement. Parking demand surveys should be undertaken to ascertain potential scheme effectiveness. Only parking spaces in safe and appropriate locations will be accommodated creating a safer highway layout for pedestrians and cyclists. Areas where parking is a particular concern, such as Garden Suburb Infant School, can be reviewed and, if appropriate additional restrictions can be introduced to improve safety. Disadvantages Streets adjacent to the proposed streets are likely to experience an increased demand (it is our understanding that these streets already experience parking demand issues during the day). Residents and their visitors will incur a cost to park on street during hours of enforcement. There is likely to be fewer parking spaces on-street. Parking spaces in unsafe or inappropriate locations will be restricted. Traffic volumes could increase in adjacent streets not operating a CPZ as drivers look for parking spaces. Parking is only available to permit holders during the hours of restriction. - *"+,$%. / Option 3 has been suggested (neutrally) by HGRA, for our observations, as an extension to the LBB consultation. HGRA have mentioned streets such as Meadway, Heathgate and Erskine Hill for possible inclusion in a CPZ extension proposal. In addition to the advantages and disadvantages discussed as part of option 2 the following should also be considered. Advantages These streets are already understood to be experiencing parking demand issues and their inclusion would better manage parking demand by removing all day parking. Large vehicles and garage repair vehicles will be unable to park all day. 4

12 A safe highway layout can be provided improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Congestion in the area could be reduced as a CPZ can create a highway layout which reduced vehicle congestion. Disadvantages CPZ creep could become an issue in the Suburb. There are two churches operating on these streets and a CPZ could impact on their weekday activities. Traffic volumes could increase in adjacent streets not operating a CPZ as drivers look for parking spaces, compounded by the increase in parking demand. Residents and their visitors will incur a cost to park on street during hours of enforcement. There will likely be fewer parking spaces on-street. Parking spaces in unsafe or inappropriate locations will be restricted. 0 -"%1&& The HGRA has also requested that consideration and comment be given to the specimen idea of introducing a CPZ for the entire suburb (possibly excluding some very central streets where appropriate) to illustrate the contrast with options two and three above.. Advantages Parking demand in all streets can be managed to prevent all day commuter / visitor parking across the whole suburb. On-street parking can be efficiently managed to better meet the needs of residents and their visitors. A safe highway layout, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists can be created. Displacement is mitigated / removed as all streets are protected by the CPZ. Congestion in the area could be reduced as a CPZ can create a highway layout which reduced vehicle congestion. Large vehicles and garage repair vehicles will be unable to park all day. Parking enforcement across the whole suburb would likely increase and be more effective in reducing unsafe and inappropriate parking. 5

13 Disadvantages There are a number of attractors in the area 1. It must be established whether attractors have sufficient off-street parking that a suburb wide CPZ would disrupt their operations. Parking restrictions may be introduced in streets that do not need or desire a CPZ. All streets would incur a cost to park on-street during a period of the day. There is likely to be fewer parking spaces on-street. Parking spaces in unsafe or inappropriate locations will be restricted ''4 MM have been asked to provide a short summary on the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process due to a possible misunderstanding of the process amongst some HGRA members. All on-street waiting and loading restrictions require a TRO to be prepared and made by the Local Authority to allow them to enforce the following: On-street parking places (permit, pay and display, disabled badge holders, motorcycle bays etc) Off-street parking places (charging structure and definitions of parking places) Waiting restrictions (double yellow lines, single yellow lines) Controlled Parking Zones TROs are legally enforceable and any motorist not following the restriction detailed in the TRO (which is correctly signed and marked on the highway as prescribed in the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2002) can be issued a Penalty. The TRO is formed of Articles and Schedules; Articles define restrictions and the Schedules prescribe the location of the restriction, hours of operation and charges which may apply to them. Before a TRO can be made permanent and sealed by the Local Authority it must be advertised following a statutory process set out in central government legislation. 1 Lyttelton playing fields, Hampstead golf course, Hampstead Heath, St Judes Church The Free Church, Northway Gardens, Mercury Tennis Club and Highgate golf club and HGS Synagogue. 6

14 The first part of the process involves advertising the proposals in a public notice and allowing 21 days for objections or comments in support. If there are objections these should be presented, together with any comments in support, to the councils relevant Committee for consideration. If all objections are resolved to the satisfaction of Members, the council can seal the TRO and implement any changes required on the highway. If objections are not resolved council officers would need to amend the proposals, and undertake a new statutory consultation process which would be reported to the councils committee for approval. No changes to a TRO can be made unless the statutory consultation process has been adhered to. 7

15 3 Concluding Comments In order to progress with any form of CPZ proposal in the Hampstead Garden Suburb, MM consider the following stages to be key for a detailed assessment of existing conditions to be completed and to facilitate the development of any necessary parking proposals. Initially, a detailed land use study of the suburb should be completed focusing on attractors in the area to understand parking demand patterns but also include observational studies to understand where parking difficulties are experienced throughout the suburb. The land use study would help inform the design of parking demand surveys. Parking demand surveys should be undertaken to establish the nature and extent of existing demand in the area. If these parking surveys are designed effectively they can provide information on the current CPZs and streets throughout the suburb which should be considered for inclusion if they demonstrate parking demand issues. Surveys should be completed at 5am or 6am to ascertain a base line residential demand meaning the type of parking occurring can be ascertained; whether demand is predominantly from residents or visitors and commuters. This information could influence the type of CPZ introduced, for example is one hour a day sufficient to meet the needs of residents or should a broader scope of measures be considered. Alternatively, it may suggest that only a limited number of yellow line restrictions might be sufficient. Following the parking demand surveys a public consultation should be undertaken to develop an understanding of the effectiveness of the current CPZs. Importantly, this should include residents throughout the remainder of the suburb. Residents in the suburb should be asked if they experience parking difficulties, what these difficulties are and if they would support the introduction of a parking management scheme in their area. Gathering the above data will support the development of a robust set of parking management proposals that will more likely meet the needs of residents and attractors (places of worship and recreational facilities etc.) in the area. Following these initial stages, a more detailed public consultation, usually incorporating a staffed public exhibition could be programmed to discuss the plans in detail with local residents introducing amendments where appropriate 8

16 Appendices Appendix A. Plan of Current and Consulted CPZs 10 9

17 Appendix A. Plan of Current and Consulted CPZs 10

18 Figure A.1: Plan showing existing and consulted CPZs (information provided by HGRA) Source: Map Data 2012 Google 11