Parking on Pavements (DfT consultation Sept 2020)

[DarloRich]

I'm not saying that cars should 'go away' but it is encumbent on everybody to cut their coat according to their cloth which in this case means the space available where they live. If the pavement is wide enough to presrve sufficient space for all pedestrians, then the LA can mark spaces that use part of the pavement and maintain the surface when it is subjected to additional weright.
The only exception would be registered blue badge vehicle used by or specifically for the registered disabled person.

You have no solution to the problems for areas like mine or an acknowledgment of the realities of life other than to complain people dare to own cars. Life is such that more than one car is required by normal families to allow them work and earn a living. Where will they park. Ideas please?

People shouldn't be parking on the pavement but the government and local authority need to ensure there is sufficient provision to meet demand. There isnt. That is the problem.

 

[bramling]

I'm not saying that cars should 'go away' but it is encumbent on everybody to cut their coat according to their cloth which in this case means the space available where they live. If the pavement is wide enough to presrve sufficient space for all pedestrians, then the LA can mark spaces that use part of the pavement and maintain the surface when it is subjected to additional weright.
The only exception would be registered blue badge vehicle used by or specifically for the registered disabled person.

So what do you propose? The displaced cars aren’t going to simply vanish into thin air. Reality is in most places this isn’t a major issue, as people are considerate in leaving space for others to walk past. Perhaps this isn’t the case in St Albans?!

It’s evident we can include people who get to work by car on your list of dislikes, alongside rail commuters of course (especially those who use a season ticket). For most people walking cycling or taking a bus isn’t a viable option for getting to work, so you seem to be advocating the bulk of the population isolate themselves in their home.

 

[ainsworth74]

However, nobody can claim that London has proportionately more spacious roads, it's just that when looking for places to live, most there also consider where their vehicles will live before they move, not pretend that it isn't their respopnsibility. There are many in London that don't have the facility to park so (shock, horror) they have to do without their beloved car. This may be the decision that many more have to make. If local transport doesn't suit them then either the local authority will encourage providers to deliver a service, or they will have to seek another location where parking isn't restricted.

If we had London style public transport I'd chuck my car away in a heartbeat! But we don't sadly and considering that we can accommodate the needs of pavement users and car users by allowing a small amount of pavement parking (with tightly defined limits backed up by rigorous enforcement for those that don't stick to it) I'm not sure the answer is really just "well move then if you don't like it"?

Certainly I would expect that any new build estates or other developments are done with proper consideration for road users and pedestrians to ensure that we don't need to pavement park any more. But on the ones we have I still think some level of compromise will be required as I don't think it's as easy as saying "well don't do it".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless it is marked as permitted, it isn't appropriate, even in the mind of the selfish motorist.

Untrue. There are places where it has no impact whatsoever, e.g. very wide pavements or pavements that go nowhere.

There are a lot of people on here who would rather cars went away, but those people also benefit from taxis, lifts in cars, buses/trains driven/guarded by people who had to go to work by car etc.

It's wrong where it causes the pavement to narrow such that a user who wishes to get through can't get through. That's all.

 

[ainsworth74]

So what do you propose? The displaced cars aren’t going to simply vanish into thin air. Reality is in most places this isn’t a major issue, as people are considerate in leaving space for others to walk past. Perhaps this isn’t the case in St Albans?!

Which is why I'd like to see pavement markings in relevant areas backed up by enforcement. It works in London and I think for the majority of people who are considerate it would work as well and then we can crack down on those that take the proverbial (such as the guy who decided to park their Audi completely blocking the pavement once, I'd have been overjoyed to see them get a penalty notice).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Certainly I would expect that any new build estates or other developments are done with proper consideration for road users and pedestrians to ensure that we don't need to pavement park any more. But on the ones we have I still think some level of compromise will be required as I don't think it's as easy as saying "well don't do it".

Too many Councils are still running with planning restrictions that bar developers from having enough space. MK Council fixed this a while ago, but others need to. The car simply is not going to go away, and suggesting that it is is deluded. The correct thing to do is to provide enough spaces - so two for a two bedroom house, potentially more for a 3 or 4 bedroom family home - and alongside that improve alternatives so the cars sit in those spaces unused as much as possible.

 

[bramling]

Untrue. There are places where it has no impact whatsoever, e.g. very wide pavements or pavements that go nowhere.

There are a lot of people on here who would rather cars went away, but those people also benefit from taxis, lifts in cars, buses/trains driven/guarded by people who had to go to work by car etc.

It's wrong where it causes the pavement to narrow such that a user who wishes to get through can't get through. That's all.

Sums it up perfectly. This seems to be being inflated into a massive issue which it simply isn’t. In many places it’s the done thing and no one bats an eyelid as it doesn’t cause a problem except to those who go round looking for problems to get self-righteous about.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is why I'd like to see pavement markings in relevant areas backed up by enforcement. It works in London and I think for the majority of people who are considerate it would work as well and then we can crack down on those that take the proverbial (such as the guy who decided to park their Audi completely blocking the pavement once, I'd have been overjoyed to see them get a penalty notice).

Yes, that is my favoured option, but with Councils not able to vary the national standard on their provision, so they can't be anti-car just because they want to be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only exception would be registered blue badge vehicle used by or specifically for the registered disabled person.

I wouldn't make that exception, rather I'd mark them an appropriate disabled bay, which is usual practice in areas where parking is primarily on-street anyway.

 

[AndrewE]

Untrue. There are places where it has no impact whatsoever, e.g. very wide pavements or pavements that go nowhere..

except that vehicles break up paving slabs, leaving tripping hazards, injured pedestrians (NHS picks up the bill - if they recover) councils being sued for compensation etc.
Of course all this perversely increases the GDP but you can't say it makes anyone better off, apart from the suing lawyers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

except that vehicles break up paving slabs, leaving tripping hazards, injured pedestrians (NHS picks up the bill - if they recover) councils being sued for compensation etc.
Of course all this perversely increases the GDP but you can't say it makes anyone better off, apart from the suing lawyers.

The parking clearly makes people better off, though.

Most pavements in MK aren't slabs anyway, they tend not to be used in new developments. Tarmac is more common, or block-paved which tends to have the same strength as the block-paved road.

 

[DarloRich]

I wouldn't make that exception, rather I'd mark them an appropriate disabled bay, which is usual practice in areas where parking is primarily on-street anyway.

agreed - mark a space up right outside their door.

 

[AM9]

The parking clearly makes people better off, though.

Most pavements in MK aren't slabs anyway, they tend not to be used in new developments. Tarmac is more common, or block-paved which tends to have the same strength as the block-paved road.

Round here we have ashphalt (or whatever the modern equivalent black-top is now) but it certainly isn't vehicle quality paving. Where vehicles do parks on it a lot, - particularly vans, there are sags and soemtimes subterranean cables and pipes are 'troublesome' which might be partially down to non-pedestrian loads.
My reason for mentioning blue badge vehicle parking partially assumed marked spaces for residents, however there are many blue badged drivers who need to call on residents when performing their jobs.

 

[krus_aragon]

Even my 08 plate Fiesta (which isn't exactly a large car) is to large for the garage.

The Fiesta is a really good example of a car that's ballooned in recent decades. My 2001 Fiesta felt tiny compared to current models. (Yet according to some they're still a "supermini" car!)
Here's how its size (length x width) has grown over the years:
Mk I (1976): 3.57m x 1.57m
Mk II (1983): 3.57m x 1.57m
Mk III (1989): 3.74m x 1.60m
Mk IV (1995): 3.82m x 1.63m
Mk V (2002): 3.92m x 1.69m
Mk VI (2009): 3.97m x 1.72m
Mk VII (2017): 4.04m x 1.73m
(all numbers lifted from Wikipedia)

In old money, that's 8 1/2" longer and 4" wider than the model two decades ago, or 18" longer and 6" wider than they were in the mid 1980s. No wonder they don't fit in some garages!

 

[Snow1964]

In London, planning rules were changed few years ago, and TfL now object to spaces being provided to park cars on new developments where there is high PTAL
Some Developments are also car capped (basically becomes a condition of buying or renting, that you agree not to have a car)

PTAL is a public transport assessibility level graded 0-6 and is used as a very blunt method of discouraging car ownership. But of course is a spot location so has no relevance to how much public transport is available at other end of journey. Completely useless if you live somewhere like Central Croydon, but work few miles away in rural Surrey where public transport is negligible.

But actually I agree with the principle of not blocking footpaths so wheelchairs, pushchairs and guide dogs can't get though, as forcing them to step into the road is the wrong answer. Should be something like a simple 1m minimum path width to be maintained rule.

 

[AM9]

except that vehicles break up paving slabs, leaving tripping hazards, injured pedestrians (NHS picks up the bill - if they recover) councils being sued for compensation etc.
Of course all this perversely increases the GDP but you can't say it makes anyone better off, apart from the suing lawyers.

You will see that I would expect the LA to authorise any pavement parking, (subject to the preservation of an adequate clearway for pedestrians), thus any strengthening of the substrate required would be undertaken as part of that authorisation.

 

[RichT54]

It doesn't just affect residential areas. The buildings where I used to work before I retired were originally divided into offices each with space for about 20 people to work. During refurbishment, the office partitions were removed and larger open plan areas were created into which many more desks and people could be crammed.

Although the business park was located in a village that has a main line railway station, most people drove to work by car. Soon the car park was full and people started parking on the access roads. An adjacent building was mostly empty and an arrangement was made to use part of its car park. Even that was not enough and people started parking on the verges and pavements on the main road, leading to complaints from local residents and the council. I used to get there at a ridiculously early time to ensure I got a space in the main car park.

 

[AndrewE]

In London, planning rules were changed few years ago, and TfL now object to spaces being provided to park cars on new developments where there is high PTAL
Some Developments are also car capped (basically becomes a condition of buying or renting, that you agree not to have a car)

PTAL is a public transport assessibility level graded 0-6 and is used as a very blunt method of discouraging car ownership. But of course is a spot location so has no relevance to how much public transport is available at other end of journey. Completely useless if you live somewhere like Central Croydon, but work few miles away in rural Surrey where public transport is negligible.

so it is easily cycleable for most people then

But actually I agree with the principle of not blocking footpaths so wheelchairs, pushchairs and guide dogs can't get though, as forcing them to step into the road is the wrong answer. Should be something like a simple 1m minimum path width to be maintained rule.

What about injuries to pedestrians when they walk on a damaged bit of pavement not currently being parked on? Cars and vans have roads provided at public expense (whether or not the taxpayer is a motorist,) more lightly built pavements (usable by all) get damaged or blocked by selfish motorists. It's a bit one-sided isn't it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

there are many blue badged drivers who need to call on residents when performing their jobs.

Are there really? Personal visitors, maybe.

 

[Ianno87]

You have no solution to the problems for areas like mine or the acknowledgment of the relatives of life other than to complain people dare to own cars. Life is such that more than one car is required by normal families to allow them work and earn a living. Where will they park. Ideas please?

People shouldn't be parking on the pavement but the government and local authority need to ensure there is sufficient provision to meet demand. There isnt. That is the problem.

I think there are *certain areas* (not necessarily yours - but very much special cases) where the "I need a car in front of my house" mentality needs to change.

Central residential streets in Cambridge for example. All walking distance to the city centre, offices/university buildings, the railway station, multiple bus routes and easy cycling to much of the city. I find it hard to believe that many residents "need" a car on hand nearby 24/7.

(My idea is "reverse park and ride"; residents parking at the Park and Ride sites, with free residents bus travel for when you need your car. Combined with time-limited residents bays in the streets themselves)

 

[Bletchleyite]

(My idea is "reverse park and ride"; residents parking at the Park and Ride sites, with free residents bus travel for when you need your car. Combined with time-limited residents bays in the streets themselves)

Most benefits of a car involve having it at home. If you're not going to have it at home, there's little point owning one.

 

[AM9]

Are there really? Personal visitors, maybe.

By 'many' I don't mean a majority, blue badges aren't in the majority so it is unlikely to be different for working PRMs. But with the pressure on full employment, there are quite a few working people who take jobs that require travel to residences other than their own. To prevent them parking a distance from their destination that would make their job difficult or impossible to perform would be breach the Equalities Act.

 

[AM9]

Most benefits of a car involve having it at home. If you're not going to have it at home, there's little point owning one.

Well spotted. That is the new reality that needs to be thought through when choosing a job, a home and ultimately, a practical means of transport for work and leisure.

 

[Ianno87]

Most benefits of a car involve having it at home. If you're not going to have it at home, there's little point owning one.

Alternative take: What's the point of car ownership when 95% the time it is little more than a piece of metal sat stationary taking up road space from others (of all travel modes)? (Especially in an area where other travel modes are easily accessible and abundant)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Alternative take: What's the point of car ownership when 95% the time it is little more than a piece of metal sat stationary taking up road space from others (of all travel modes)? (Especially in an area where other travel modes are easily accessible and abundant)

Car clubs can help there and other usage models.

 

[Ianno87]

Car clubs can help there and other usage models.

I agree. If (numbers made up to illustrate the point) 20 houses can share 5 Zipcars (with permanent spaces) for the weekly shop rather than have a car each, that's a 75% reduction in street parking requirement straight away). When you need a car for a longer period, go fetch it from the Park and Ride.

 

[AM9]

Car clubs can help there and other usage models.

Then a few shared parking places in every road will suffice. Cars in clubs only rquire on parking location at a time.

 

[sprunt]

Car owners should stop asking everyone else to solve the problem of where they are to legally and safely store their vehicles when they aren't using them. They should have thought of that before they chose to buy them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Car owners should stop asking everyone else to solve the problem of where they are to legally and safely store their vehicles when they aren't using them. They should have thought of that before they chose to buy them.

I trust you never do any of the following:

• Get a lift in a car
• Use a taxi, which is a car
• Take a bus, which is driven by someone who got to work by car
• Take a train, which is driven or guarded by someone who got to work by car
• etc

If you do, you're a hypocrite, frankly.

 

[GB]

Car owners should stop asking everyone else to solve the problem of where they are to legally and safely store their vehicles when they aren't using them. They should have thought of that before they chose to buy them.

Typical comment from someone who can't (or wont) see beyond their own nose.