Sunday 16 November 2008

Proposed Clifton CPZ


Here's the map of the current draft Clifton/Cliftonwood CPZ. What is most interesting is that the discovery that there is a street on the east side of Jacob's Wells road that isn't in the main CPZ, so its free to park in for the next year. And it's close to the Hope and Anchor pub. Interesting.

This zone's hours are proposed as 8am - 9pm Monday to Saturday, "6x11". Not as harsh as 7x24, but enough to require everyone who lives in the area to get a permit. It is interesting that it doesn't cover the whole of Clifton Wood -that "resident only no through road" area is only half covered, and it goes behind the student's union.

2 comments:

  1. "but enough to require everyone who lives in the area to get a permit."

    You mean "require everyone who lives in the area who owns a car to get a permit."

    Those of us without cars will be unaffected unless it reduces the amount of traffic. Are there figures from the CPZ implementation on the effectiveness of traffic reduction or is it all just displacement?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good point. Actually, those without cars will benefit if they can cross roads more easily, which will come about if parking at dropped corners is now prevented. Similarly, if pavement parking went away, you'd have more pavements.

    The question about displacement is interesting. We have no data, I don't know what data they have. I think we will have to run our own survey to find out -get the email addresses of visitors and follow up some months later with a "what do you do now" survey.

    ReplyDelete

Commenters MUST NOT post spam, MUST NOT post requests for cross linking and MUST NOT post up requests for paid links. Such attempts SHALL result in one or more postings in which we MAY be rude or we MAY make fun of you and MAY include your public email address. Furthermore, we MAY report you to google for attempts at paid linking, who SHALL then punish your site.

Comments are closed after two days -after that they are moderated. You MUST be logged in to post.

This statement follows RFC2119 rules regarding the use of MUST, MUST NOT, MAY, and SHALL and MUST be treated as normative.