Sharrowvale Parking Scheme - new thread

[Planner1]

TWe just don't believe that wardens do that. I even believe they only ticket cars from owners they think will pay the ticket. It is not unheard of to see wardens ticketing some cars on one stretch of road and not others; why because some of these will never pay. I'm sorry, that's on.

 

I've SEEN personally, parking attendants who go looking for the person who's car is parked illegally to get them to move it, rather than give them a ticket. I've also personally observed them checking cars and giving them 5 mins or more before ticketing.

 

As we've heard on the forum from a parking services "insider", all attendants are given guidelines about observing for 5 mins before giving a ticket. That's national policy. Sheffield Council also directly employ their parking attendants, who DON't have quotas of tickets to hand out.

 

Perhaps it's better to rely on our own observations of what people do, rather than relying on heresay or what you "think" they do.

[Planner1]

There wouldn't be problem if there was enough parking in the first place.

 

Of course that's right, but there isn't and within the current funding regime, it's highly unlikely that a council could get funding to build car parks to accommodate everyone who wants them, wherever they want to park. National policy is to manage demand, restricting parking supply is a demand management measure. Councils won't get funding if outputs don't meet Central Government targets and there aren't any of those relating to building car parks (unless they are for park & ride, which is a different issue).

 

 

Another good point is - where would these car parks go? Which houses & businesses would you have demolished to accommodate them?

[HotPhil]

I don't think he'd have thought it through far enough to get to that kind of detail.

[fritzthecat]

Of course that's right, but there isn't and within the current funding regime, it's highly unlikely that a council could get funding to build car parks to accommodate everyone who wants them, wherever they want to park. National policy is to manage demand, restricting parking supply is a demand management measure. Councils won't get funding if outputs don't meet Central Government targets and there aren't any of those relating to building car parks (unless they are for park & ride, which is a different issue).

 

 

Another good point is - where would these car parks go? Which houses & businesses would you have demolished to accommodate them?

 

Manage demand and restricting demand are 2 completely different things, managing demand is ensuring that people have the capability to park, bit like selling somthing in a shop, you wouldn't manage demand for a product by stopping selling it, good business sence that :loopy:, but no, this council want to restrict demand :loopy:, sums it up really!!!

[HotPhil]

By attempting to stop commuters parking in the PPZ's and providing P&D bays I can see that the length of time a vehcile can remain parked, and hence the turnover of spaces and therefore the "capability" of a shopper being able to park are increased. Not sure quite what you mean by restricting demand? Certainly for shoppers it would appear to be increased. Whether it's right to do so to the detriment of commuters and residents is another matter.

[Captain_Scarlet]

Are you going to magic up bigger and wider roads then?

Or alternatively reducing unnecesasay overusage of cars increasing parking, hmm just like the Sharrowvale scheme attempts to. Though I strongly disagree with how it was implemented, but it certainly does have benefits compared to before. For me anyway, but sadly not for the next street along as they are far worse off.

I take you were looking for 'unnecessary' and 'use'?

The parking scheme was done to limit commuter parking not bad parking, which is a completely different issue.

There would no issues with commuter parking if parking was sufficient in town. People park(ed) in that area before because parking is/was free. People are not going to stop using their cars until public transport becomes an alternative but since 1/ there is no will to do so and 2/ Not every lives in a metropolis people like planner will rejoice and making people's day to day life harder.

Yeah that's almost certainly true as it's sooooo easy to tell who will pay and who won't!

No offence but it is.

Of course that's right, but there isn't and within the current funding regime, it's highly unlikely that a council could get funding to build car parks to accommodate everyone who wants them, wherever they want to park. National policy is to manage demand, restricting parking supply is a demand management measure.

There is funding but no will to use our money adequately. If the Council does not provide parking to all those who want to park then they are not managing the city correctly. Similarly to a knackered bulb in a lamp post, if it's not changed someone isn't doing their job.

Councils won't get funding if outputs don't meet Central Government targets and there aren't any of those relating to building car parks (unless they are for park & ride, which is a different issue).

That's why the country's going to pan, working with 'outputs' 'political goals' 'targets': need parking => make parking. Ditch park and ride and remove it from Britain and replace it with city centre parking like it is meant to be. Don't spend money not building a tram network, don't spend money building an empty car park in the sticks but instead build parking in towns! Brilliant!

Another good point is - where would these car parks go? Which houses & businesses would you have demolished to accommodate them?

Assuming that people like you had the will to plan on building car parks the solution is simple, every new build in town should have its private or a public underground car park. Cities accross the work manage it so should we. Some capital cities even manage to build underground car parks underneath listed buildings just for residential and work use, can you imagine a Britain like this? Examples: Charles St underground parking (for city centre and uni), Union St: underground parking (for council workers), Norfolk St: underground parking (for more council workers and city centre visitors), just a few new developments with no parking included.

I've SEEN personally, parking attendants who go looking for the person who's car is parked illegally to get them to move it, rather than give them a ticket. I've also personally observed them checking cars and giving them 5 mins or more before ticketing.

 

As we've heard on the forum from a parking services "insider", all attendants are given guidelines about observing for 5 mins before giving a ticket. That's national policy. Sheffield Council also directly employ their parking attendants, who DON't have quotas of tickets to hand out.

 

Perhaps it's better to rely on our own observations of what people do, rather than relying on heresay or what you "think" they do.

Because I do not take time to point out I've observed it do not assume I haven't. It is possible for someone to see, observe, study something and just report facts without mentionning the time spent looking at the issue. I appreciate these are guideline, I observed the contrary; straight ticketing, selective ticketing from the illegally parking orange blinking lights white KAs (they are KAs or small Focuses aren't they?).

 

Problem is planner, I've thought of going for a study, then job of town planning so I've looked into it. I've probably started reading about urban planning and observing cities with a different since I was a child. I've collected, petitionned and have a nice collection of books that relate to rebuilding towns, planning and all that and I know that what you do is 1/ morally wrong and 2/ not what is needed to tackle the problems forumers moan about.

I also know that while there are guidelines for your job, if you had no issue in the matter there would be no need for planners such as you and that the Government apparent guidelines would be adhered to by the letter. No, you're a planner and you're presented with a problem, one which you try and solve. Problem is that, reading your posts, you don't solve, you just prevent from happening by restricting liberty of movement. "there are daily jams on this road" "remove the road" Problem is not solved.

Try and tackle climaty thingy bobs hippies are all raving about now, don't prevent car use, make cars not stand still for hours on end, present alternative solutions like a bus that comes to your house when you want it, stops nowhere and goes exactly where you want it to (or just have a car). Reopen railway stations, reinstate quadruple railway lines of yor (for suburban / fast services) to offer something people might WANT to give their cars up for rather than being plagued by more parking meters, parking restrictions, dissapearing city centre dual carriageways...

I don't think he'd have thought it through far enough to get to that kind of detail.

I did but I didn't think it necessary to make a point by typing it and sounding pedantic One is capable of thinking about it and reporting the conclusion.

By attempting to stop commuters parking in the PPZ's and providing P&D bays I can see that the length of time a vehcile can remain parked, and hence the turnover of spaces and therefore the "capability" of a shopper being able to park are increased. Not sure quite what you mean by restricting demand? Certainly for shoppers it would appear to be increased. Whether it's right to do so to the detriment of commuters and residents is another matter.

Implementing pay and display is not increasing parking availability, it just means the same spaces have to be paid for to be parked in. As a shopper I am now unwilling to shop in that entire part of town because of these restrictions: task achieved I no longer hog a parking space, task failed shops no longer get my cash. Conclusion: failure as the wellfare of people, their companies and commerce are more important.

[crookesey]

And don't we just get the same "anti-car" rant from you, with nothing to back it up?

 

Remember, there would be no need for restrictions if there weren't too many cars wanting to be in the same place and drivers didn't park inconsiderately.

 

When did he post an 'anti-car' rant? I certainly missed it.

[HotPhil]

Hard to find in amongst all the "I've got a 3 litre diesel Discovery" posts (each to their own, I'm sure it's a car to be rightly proud of) but here's an example http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=4356616&postcount=30

[jezzyjj]

I've SEEN personally, parking attendants who go looking for the person who's car is parked illegally to get them to move it, rather than give them a ticket. I've also personally observed them checking cars and giving them 5 mins or more before ticketing.

I was in a restaurant in Greenwich a while back and a car was parked illegaly in bay outside. The parking attendent waited a good while 10+ mins, looking around and waiting for the owners to appear. They were actually sitting in same restaurant as I was, being amused by the parking attendent's behaviour. They obviously were not bothered by the fine they were going to incur.

Then if you drive a Bently Continental, the fine is nothing to worry about.

 

But then again in London I was done whilst briefly in a film lab. They are very keen there, so much so that the lab had a camera for customers to spot them.

[jezzyjj]

I take you were looking for 'unnecessary' and 'use'?

Rather than comment on obvious typos, why not address the point in question?

 

There would no issues with commuter parking if parking was sufficient in town.

or if people used their cars less. Sheffield has a very small centre and it cannot cope with lots of cars. Even if there was plentiful free parking

 

 

People are not going to stop using their cars until public transport becomes an alternative but since 1/ there is no will to do so

Actually try blaming Thatcher for destroying a very good public transport system that was in South Yorkshire, that meant less poolution, less congestion due to less cars and more parking.

 

 

Not every lives in a metropolis people like planner will rejoice and making people's day to day life harder.No offence but it is.There is funding but no will to use our money adequately. If the Council does not provide parking to all those who want to park then they are not managing the city correctly.

Funny, I don't recall anything in the Magna Catrta or the Bills of Human rights about everyone having a place to park in town.

 

 

Ditch park and ride and remove it from Britain and replace it with city centre parking like it is meant to be. Don't spend money not building a tram network, don't spend money building an empty car park in the sticks but instead build parking in towns! Brilliant!Assuming that people like you had the will to plan on building car parks the solution is simple, every new build in town should have its private or a public underground car park. Cities accross the work manage it so should we. Some capital cities even manage to build underground car parks underneath listed buildings just for residential and work use, can you imagine a Britain like this? Examples: Charles St underground parking (for city centre and uni), Union St: underground parking (for council workers), Norfolk St: underground parking (for more council workers and city centre visitors), just a few new developments with no parking included.

I cannot work out if you are selfish and lazy or plain naive. Sheffield cannot cope with any more traffic. Adding more parking in centre will make life worse not better. Sheffield is a very small centre for a very big city. Why do you have to use your car?

 

 

Problem is planner, I've thought of going for a study, then job of town planning so I've looked into it. I've probably started reading about urban planning and observing cities with a different since I was a child. I've collected, petitionned and have a nice collection of books that relate to rebuilding towns, planning and all that and I know that what you do is 1/ morally wrong and 2/ not what is needed to tackle the problems forumers moan about.

Were these books written by Jeremy Clarkson?

 

 

I also know that while there are guidelines for your job, if you had no issue in the matter there would be no need for planners such as you and that the Government apparent guidelines would be adhered to by the letter. No, you're a planner and you're presented with a problem, one which you try and solve. Problem is that, reading your posts, you don't solve, you just prevent from happening by restricting liberty of movement. "there are daily jams on this road" "remove the road" Problem is not solved.

Try and tackle climaty thingy bobs hippies are all raving about now, don't prevent car use, make cars not stand still for hours on end, present alternative solutions like a bus that comes to your house when you want it, stops nowhere and goes exactly where you want it to (or just have a car). Reopen railway stations, reinstate quadruple railway lines of yor (for suburban / fast services) to offer something people might WANT to give their cars up for rather than being plagued by more parking meters, parking restrictions, dissapearing city centre dual carriageways...I did but I didn't think it necessary to make a point by typing it and sounding pedantic One is capable of thinking about it and reporting the conclusion.Implementing pay and display is not increasing parking availability, it just means the same spaces have to be paid for to be parked in. As a shopper I am now unwilling to shop in that entire part of town because of these restrictions: task achieved I no longer hog a parking space, task failed shops no longer get my cash. Conclusion: failure as the wellfare of people, their companies and commerce are more important.

And breathe!

You may find you think better with some oxygen going to brain!