As the outreach on an eight-storey car park over staff parking, adjacent to the sole child's playground near Stokes Croft takes place while everyone is out of town, we send a note to the PR team doing their utmost to make this consultation achieve the outcome the hospital wants: support, or at least acquiescence.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: bristol.traffic@gmail.com
Date: 7 August 2018 at 10:53
Subject: Re: hospital parking feedback
To: uhbt@jbp.co.uk

The Bristol Traffic Project

The Bearpit, Bristol BS2

Hello,

Thank you for your letter to residents proposing replacing the multi-storey car park comprising primarily of staff parking with a new, larger car park composing primarily of staff parking.

There appear to be a few other omissions from your letter

1. The claim "it will be a transport hub" fails to consider the existing multi-storey staff car park has staff bicycle parking, as does the Southwell Street facility. If adding secure bike parking to a car park makes it a "Transport Hub", then the existing car park must also qualify for this term.
2. The fact that existing Eugene Street car park is primarily staff parking. We estimate of your quoted 192 spaces, 165 are exclusively for staff.
3. The fact that total parking capacity across the BRI and St Michael's hill area comes to 1.9 miles —and that's without including the three floors of staff-only parking in the existing car park
4. The fact that air quality in inner Bristol is a significant health hazard, and that if that 800 space car park were used for higher turnover visitor parking, there would be many more than the baseline 1600 journeys/day one would expect. This will generate significant congestion in the area, along with the pollution.
5. The "it is set back in the hill" claim misses to note that it will in fact tower over the Dove St children's park behind it —the sole childrens play area within a part of the city whose demographics markers indicate "somewhat deprived".

We like to consider ourselves the purveyors of an ironic perspective of Bristol's many traffic issues, so are tempted to cherish the delicious irony of your proposal, "increase hospital staff and visitor parking at the expense of the health of staff, visitors and residents", along with "improve staff parking by removing staff housing".

However, we've decided instead to stare in disbelief at the disingenuous hypocrisy of claiming to be doing this for the health of patients where it appears to be more of a reaction to the residents parking zone changes, combined with an excel spreadsheet showing the revenue opportunities of high-turnover visitor parking.

We shall cover this topic over the summer. Expect forthcoming FoI requests to explore both the number and purpose of parking spaces across the entire Kingsdown Estate, your modelling of the congestion and health impact of adding six hundred more spaces, any artists impressions you have made of the "View from the Dove Street playground", as well as on your business model —including who is funding the project and whether you've included in your business plans the risk that a labour government will mandate that England follow Scotland and Wales in offering free hospital parking.

Current and future coverage will be appear under the URL http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/search/label/BRI

Thanks.

The Bristol Traffic Team

"Weakly-defensible data-driven traffic analysis since 2008"

bristol.traffic@gmail.com   @bristoltraffic

How much parking does the BRI have? 1.9 miles

One aspect of the greenwash letter on the new BRI multi-storey car park was its claim that the current multi-storey transport hub only had 200 spaces. That was a surprise, as if you ever spend any time in that part of the city you will know that UBHT property can be recognised by the way all garden areas have been converted into some form of parking.

Have the PR consultants forgotten to mention that detail? Hope that locals wouldn't pick up on that any more than they'd be expected to notice that you can't set an 8 floor car park into a hill when there's a child's play area right behind it? Whatever the reason, that failure to list all the parking spaces seems designed to make you feel sorrier for those who can't park -and again, by emphasising patients over staff, going for the maximum sympathy

Sadly, we are a data driven organisation, so set out to count up the spaces ourselves. Attempt 1 was on a Sunday afternoon, it took about an hour to get round and is too boring to share. What's surprising is how many little blocks and crannies they've managed to fit a car into. We estimate that in the combin f BRI and St Michaels hill hospital "campus", there are 400+ spaces, outside the existing multi-storey transport hub. That's not obvious to patients for the following reason: a lot of these spaces are dedicated to staff. As for the disabled? You get into double digits, but really -the majority of dedicated disabled parking is the double-yellow line areas on the council roads.

Here is our second attempt at a tour of the parking areas, starting in Dove St at the children's playground the BRI pretends doesn't exist, finishing off directly above it in Marlborough Hill place. This complete loop of the many transport hubs belonging to UBHT here takes 15 minutes, and covers 1.9 miles. That is not a typo. If you cycle round each bay in the car parks, one by one, the total amount of space comes in at just under two miles. There's a small amount of public road to connect all this together, but there's parking there -free form disabled, paid for visitors. How can the hospital PR team say with a straight face that it doesn't have enough parking when it has 1.9 miles worth?


What they should be doing is looking at the allocation of it: how much to staff parking, does facilities have theirs in the right places, how many people with disabled parking needs come a day -and are they satisfied. Instead, we get a grand plan to poison central Bristol, one which simply puts off addressing the big issue: why does everyone seem to expect unlimited staff and visitor parking at a hospital in the centre of a city?

Anyway, here's the video showing exactly how much parking there is for the UBHT to choose how to allocate. It's taken about 5pm on the first day any light drizzle had fallen from the sky, making the roads a bit skittery; you can hear the back wheel slide out at one point.


(Literal) High point: our (expendable) reporter discovers the base of the St Michael's Chimney. It just comes up out the ground, behind the asbestos waste skip and near the toddlers house. Maybe in future it will get the recognition it deserves as central Bristol's highest structure. We'll need a Banksy or two on it first though.

For those who hate our cyclists (expendable), skip to the end of the video and you can see them getting a "snakebite" puncture just trying to ride down one of the many potholed roads in the city. This is Bristol cycling. You can't even complete a two mile loop of the BRI car parks without getting a puncture on the small amount of council road covered on the ride. Interesting question though: given this is clearly filmed as happening on a council road, are the council billable for the replacement inner tube?

Finally, purists may fault us for not actually covering three of the for floors of the existing multi-storey transport hub. Can't get in there see: staff only. The secret that UBHT press releases dare not mention.

Zoo transport

A late-breaking entry for the antibicycle awards, Bristol Zoo.

At first glance, you would think "what does the zoo do wrong, they have provided lots of bike racks". In fact we have a quote from Chris Hutt who thinks its excellent:

"There are two sets of 6 racks, so parking for 24 bicycles.
Can't complain about that." 

Given that Mr Hutt is the official complainer for the Bristol Cycling Campaign, the fact he isn't complaining about it is so unusual that it makes us suspicious. Was it a bribe? If so, how much?

There are two things odd with this picture. The light controlled pelican crossing of an important commuter route, and the strange cobbles on the pavement, just at the back wheel of the tagalong. Their cobbles' role can be a bit clearer from the other side, especially if we move the sign.

The two marked out rectangles on the pavement are in fact two of the very few disabled parking spaces in the zoo, and as they are the ones closest to the main entrance, very popular and in constant use weekends, bank holidays and throughout the summer. With two motor vehicles parked in these spaces, it is therefore impossible to park a bike with a trailer or a tagalong at any of the bike stands during peak zoo visit hours. If one were actually trying to encourage cycling to the zoo, this would be unfortunate, because nobody in their right minds goes to the zoo except with small children.

Anyone cycling would have to have some means of getting the children there, and by preventing trailers or tagalongs from using the facilities, the zoo can discourage anyone from cycling. All without troublemakers like Chris Hutt even suspecting, which makes it particularly amusing. How can the evening post run a controversy article on the zoo without any good quotes?

Well, this is where it gets fun, and where the real award nomination kicks in. The zoo doesn't want cyclists. In fact, it doesn't want any visitors to the city who don't come and park in the zoo's revenue-earning parking spaces. We know this, as they have written it down in their sustainability report. You see, there are some small problems with the zoo's plan to earn parking revenue from visitors

1. There isn't enough space in the zoo's parking space to make much money
2. The area nearby isn't resident parking, so visitors can and do park for free once the paid parking area is full

These are problems, but not insurmountable. The secret is the large unused wasteland nearby, often known as Durdham Downs. Part managed by the council, part owned by the Merchant Venturers, and somewhere we like because of its strong anti bicycle policy. Every path where a child may cycle has a big sign warning them off.

This leads to large amounts of empty space. Space that can be used. And what better use of open city parkland in the height of summer than providing parking for the zoo? It is a long standing arrangement that  at weekends and summers, currently gets turned into paid parking for the zoo.

There's a small problem with that -it's not clear that this is what was meant when the downs were to be kept for the people of the city "in perpetuity". This is why a year ago the Zoo was told that instead of this right to park here being a permanent feature, they had one year to come up with a plan.

They have had a year, and they have a plan. It is: park on the downs, add some signs.

This has taken some effort to pull off, and we will have to see what happens this week when the planning committee reviews it. What we are impressed by, however, is how the Zoo managed to hire some traffic consultants to produce a transport report which makes the case that allowing people to park on the downs is the most sustainable form of transit, all other options (walking, cycling, public transport) can be dismissed, and that Park and Ride isn't economic.

That's a good report. Read it.

First, they look at visitor traffic on a bank holiday

24%	Drove
67%	Passenger
2.6%	Walked or Cycled
3.8%	Bus
2.8%	Train or Train and bus

When you consider how many visitors they have on a bank holiday (hint, the Downs parking area has room for 600 cars), the fact that 2.6% managed to walk or cycle is pretty impressive. Presumably after the 12 bicycles parked with the child carrier poking into the main road, everyone else walked.

What is more surprising for us that nearly 7% used public transport, despite the surveyors choosing a bank holiday, the day in which all forms of public transport are at their least functional. Yet even by choosing a day when you are most likely to get visitors from outside the city, 7% used "legacy" public transport,  nearly three times the number who walked or cycled. Wow.

The surveyors, Pinnacle Transportation, to give them their credit, used this as evidence that driving was the only viable option, but because most people drove with family, it was sustainable. That's good. That legitimises us driving to school to do the sprog dropoff. Yes, it may only be 500 metres, yes we park on the school keep lines and half the pavement -but it's sustainable! We shall use that to dispute the next tickets we receive.

So, what to do? Pinnacle Transportation, whom we presume were well paid for their troubles, looked at the option for Park and Ride, and decided that it would cost too much as £1750/day. Why? First, P&R doesn't run at weekends, external visitors to the city on weekends are expected to drive in, so the zoo pays all P&R costs. That's £1450 a day. Secondly, the consultants estimate that adding P&R would reduce zoo parking revenue -on the Downs- by £300/day. That is: people choosing not to park on the downs are an expense.

That is beautiful, and it reinforces our beliefs that tax-dodging pedestrians and cyclists should be banned from the city. We've long argued they don't benefit central government's coffers, but this zoo transport report is the first time someone has spelled out that people who don't drive and park their cars on one of the city's parks cost money. If there is one fault, the report doesn't come out and denounce the 2.6% who walked or cycled, those who came by bus or train, or those who -worst of all- parked somewhere where it is free to park.

By marking down all lost parking revenue as an expense on the P+R, the transport plans can then say "too expensive". What they do propose instead is

1. Have a park and ride, but if it proves too expensive, stop it.
2. Provide better (permanent) signage to the Downs parking area for visitors

Option #1 may look good, but because of that offset-expense trick, the zoo knows that it won't be hard to make it look uneconomic, so it will die a death "we tried that, it didn't work". Instead the Downs parking area will remain, and with the better signage get even more visitors, because they won't get lost and accidentally park somewhere like Pembroke Road or College Road where it won't cost them anything. Which will make residents of those roads happy too.

Now, how does the Downs committee react? Let us look at the Nov 2009 meeting minutes. There's a fairly brutal submission from the Ramblers who argue that turning the downs over to parking is a fundamental abuse of the city's parkland, but what do they know? They may think that somewhere they like to walk is denied them -but nobody is stopping them from parking in the zoo parking area either. That leaves the "Friends of the Downs", who come out in favour not just of giving the Zoo the parking area they deserve, but making a rolling five year lease, which effectively means "forever". We are curious as to what the membership of the Friends group is, as one would, if one actually cared about the green stuff, be a bit concerned that they were more "Enemies of the Downs".

This then, is why the zoo is up for an antibicycle award. Not for the bike racks that don't actually work once there are some disabled visitors. But for the way they've managed to get the Downs friends and committee -the same people who spend so much of their paint budget on ensuring there is no safe way to cycle across most of the Downs.- to support the zoo's plans for 600-650 parking spaces there in high summer weekends and bank holidays, the dates when park visitors would be highest. That is, they have got these people to sell out the entire notion of park and replace it with parking. When you then look at the transport report, where the consultants argue, with a completely straight face, that having 600 cars drive to the city and park on the Downs is sustainable, that these people cannot walk or cycle, and that all lost parking revenue must constitute an expense for a park and ride scheme, well, it just rounds it off!

Abbey Wood MOD site parking

10:00 on a weekday morning and the MOD Abbey Wood car parks are full. Really full not as in "I can create a space at the end of a row" but full as in "site security have blocked the entrance and are standing outside, possibly armed."

The non-motoring options to getting to the site are pretty limited

• firstbus buses 
• U1-U5 to UWE and then a walk
• Train to parkway and then a walk
• Train to abbey wood and then a walk
• Cycle along segregated paths

These might seem a lot, but they all involve effort, and they don't substitute for the presence of the A4174 ring road, the A38, which is dualled from the M4/M5 interchange all the way down to the ring road, and the M32 a short distance away. S Gloucs commuting is optimised for cars. Except the haven't provided enough parking, not since the MOD expanded their staff here from January 2010.

Fortunately, there is a bit of space round the corner. Up until December, this was an empty dual lane road leading to the ill-fated "tailspin housing estate", housing for the 21st century, and what's left of HP. Now it has found a new use. Overflow MOD parking.

For those people cycling to HP, this is beneficial as it turns the slow lane into a bike-only lane. Well, until the end of course when the cars turning left are now in the lane to your right.

For people trying to use the bike paths between abbey wood and UWE, not quite so good. The kerb dropoff they used to use is an invaluable parking space that saves the first person to grab it five minutes of walking. It is a premium location, and not double yellowed or anything to imply its use  for parking is somehow forbidden.

We are disappointed, therefore, to hear news that the S Gloucs. Parking Team/MOD police were on this road the very day these photos were taken, ticketing this Saab S904SLK and vehicles further up the hill, the ones parked on the roundabout. Do the parking officers not realise that once these commuters have driven into the area, there is nowhere else for them to go! They had no choice but to park here! They would have liked to use the MOD Abbey Wood Car Park B, but the traffic cones and enforcement staff forced them up this back road, adding time to the journey and now the risk of being ticketed. This is persecution of commuters in the cars-come-first part of the city.

The secret alternative to Park Street

It's not shown on the latest cycling city maps, but as it as the same bicycle-with-a-red-ring logos as spotted on the Portsmouth sea front, it is clear that this is part of the initiative. The lifts at Trenchard Street car park provide a key service to getting new and unfit cyclists around the city -they provide a route from the centre to Park Row that avoids any hill work

Drop down to Trenchard street, go over to the lifts. Floor 8 is the exit level. If you are unsure, aim high, so you have a bit of downhill to do, rather than uphill.

Green and Pleasant Land

Isn't Google Earth Wonderful?

Every day, snaps of pavement parking, stopping in yellow boxes, on yellow lines and other sundry demeanours are recorded by the satellites above us. And some of these images make their way onto Google. But the technology doesn't add to the Database, yet.

However, Google Earth can also help us understand many other things. Like just how much land we give to surface parking north of Bristol.

This is a random screen grab and a totally un-scientific Jackanory-style exercise in colouring the land available for the storage of cars. There's no funny punch-line to this post.

A winner!

Correspondent Q sends in a photo of a range rover.
I'm frustrated that I've been unable to find a winner to your competition this month, despite trying. I did spot one Range Rover in Park Street in a pay and display bay and thought I'd won, but the ticket was well over time, so it disqualified itself.

However, one walking through the Aldi car park in North Street yesterday I watched this one park perfectly legally! 'Nuff said.


This car is actually being very considerate. One reason nobody wants to park near a 4x4 is even if they take up the parking space without infringing on yours, you know their doors will leave another dent in your vehicle when they open them. By parking so as to leave room for the doors to swing wide without bashing anyone, everyone is happy. Q therefore wins the December 2008 Legally Parked Range-Rover award!

Ikea parking

Contributor "Q"posts in this scene from Ikea, a 4x4 with horse box having to use four spaces. As Citizen Q points out: this leaves some lovely bike parking

When you consider how much a horse box + horse weighs, this is actually a valid use for a vehicle with bigger engines and all wheel drive. What is surprising is taking a horse to ikea. Having taken a small child round the shop -indeed, having had a small child run off in that shop- it is clear that taking a small child round is a pretty stressful experience. But doing it with a horse? That is bold!