Your say / Residents Parking Zones (RPZ)
‘It is time for new, innovative ideas to improve Bristol transport’
Several decades ago, I took my toddler to Broadmead on the bus. Whilst wandering, we were accosted by a man with a free chocolate bar. My son’s eyes lit up, and we were ushered into Broadmead Church, where my end of the deal was to answer a lot of survey questions.
And I really mean a huge number of questions. About options and costs for bus fares and parking charges to go shopping in Broadmead. By this point, the boy is bouncing around the room with a very chocolatey face, and I am giving increasingly random and impulsive answers and wanting to escape.
Why would this matter to anyone in 2024? Because this was an attempt to gather evidence, however flawed, and understand the market. To make evidence-based decisions about setting effective parking charges and supporting public transport.
is needed now More than ever
Earlier this year in Bristol, the Labour administration was proposing to treble the cost of residents’ parking permits, based on the idea that residents parking schemes (RPS) “may have the effect of encouraging more short, local trips by car”.
Not a single shred of evidence has been presented to justify what is otherwise no more than an anecdotal observation. There is no attempt to balance this with the overall benefits of residents’ parking, which include reducing car-based commuting.
There is no attempt to consider the “unintended consequences” of a price hike, such as people deciding not to renew and park on the edges of the RPSs , where residents are already suffering from chaotic parking.
In June 2023, when the nine-month review of residents parking was announced, many people were concerned that the outgoing mayor would pull some stunt on residents parking as the door shuts behind him, me among them.
But at least we looked forward to an informed debate based on nine months of study, and in the absence of a city-wide parking strategy that has bene promised since 2019.
However, the cabinet report was simply embarrassing. There is no evidence presented whatsoever to justify the price hike. As such it looks like little more than an attempt to polarise the debate given that the mayor had already run out of time to actually enact these changes by the time the report was published.
Worst of all is it that it will probably not have the slightest effect on short car trips; why would it? The fee won’t affect daily decisions and a recent Sustrans survey showed many people would like to drive less but are trapped in car dependency as the alternatives are often poor. But, despite all the conspiracy theories, support for low traffic neighbourhoods remains high across all the cities Sustrans studied.
“Support for low traffic neighbourhoods remains high across all the cities Sustrans studied” – photo: John Wimperis
According to the cabinet report, every other potential change to the schemes– eligibility, numbers of permits and visitor permits, operating hours, zoning and size of areas – still needs “further detailed work” and “data collection”.
Just how long will this take? How can decisions be made without this further evidence on the potential combined effects of each of these? Or the potential effects of installing more schemes.
Has any attempt been made to ask why some households are prepared to pay for three cars, for example? Perhaps because the housing crisis means more adults stay in the family home but are car-dependent for their work?
Good parking management is a need that even profit-motivated developers recognise, as they pay for new RPSs to be installed to mitigate the effects of developments with limited parking – a positive move that recognises parking needs to be managed beyond the development itself.
The outgoing mayor has collected the funds but refuses to uphold the policy that enables him to do this and invest in parking controls, creating what is now an unbalanced and untenable policy position.
Given that transport is consistently ranked as the number one problem the city faces, we need a sober, informed and transparent debate about the balance of different policies we need to reduce congestion, clean the air and reduce emissions. Policies that have that have been proven in cities across the world.
“We need a sober, informed and transparent debate about the balance of different policies we need to reduce congestion, clean the air and reduce emissions” – Ed Plowden – photo: Betty Woolerton
The mayor tells us that residents parking is “old fashioned”, but a recent systematic review of measures found that parking management and charging, combined with other measures, is one of the most effective policy tools.
The mayor may have these views because the debate across Britain has been put to bed, as every other major city has residents’ parking schemes and other parking controls.
The debate has certainly been put to bed in the areas in Bristol that benefit from residents’ parking. The mayor’s review in 2018 showed the vast majority wanted to keep the RPSs in place, with the focus on minor tweaks to the layout or timings.
The next administration, a committee led system, will need to ask some thoughtful questions and make complex and nuanced decisions.
How can the revenue raised from a strategic approach to parking charges, like workplace parking, be used to support the recovery of the bus market?
How can we wean the council off the revenue generated by on-street parking and make year-on-year reductions to its availability, as recommended by the citizen assembly?
How can we make the most of our valuable kerbside space to support micro-mobility, loading and deliveries, alongside storing cars and bikes? As well as making space for hospitality businesses and planting trees.
Do we need a consultation across every area still not covered by RPZs? Some areas desperately want them, some do not, but the current idea by this administration to crank up prices in one area without looking properly at the data or area covered is inadequate.
And most of all, with transport one of the ultimate acts of co-production, but still the most stubborn sector for decarbonisation in Bristol and internationally , what are the fair ways to transition to a cleaner and healthier future?
The city will also need to look at innovative approaches in helping to make these choices. Increasingly, transport experts are wary of the illusory certainty of traditional transport appraisal methods, which are often eye-wateringly complex and expensive (such as the multiple Bristol underground feasibility studies) and which can be based on flimsy, chocolate-seduced survey answers and assumptions.
For example, the government approved tool assumes a core scenario of car use getting cheaper over time and public transport getting more expensive, but that is a political choice, it does not have to be that way.
As even the Treasury recommended in 2020, we need to move on from models that aim to “predict and provide” to models that “decide and provide”, developing a vision for the transport system Bristol needs and purposefully working towards it using all the tools at our disposal. With appraisal a method of deciding between options, not an end in itself to justify pet projects.
The current lack of systems thinking or ambition of the outgoing administration is astounding, so much so that the cabinet member for transport was recently “thrilled” to simply announce repairs to potholes.
It is time for new, innovative ideas as soon as possible. Let’s get moving!
This is an opinion article by Ed Plowden, who is a Green councillor for Windmill Hill
Main photo: Betty Woolerton
Read next:
Our top newsletters emailed directly to you
