Clifton: premium knives out for the residents

As we said yesterday, the knives are out in Clifton. And when we say knives, we mean the  Messermiester Meridian Elite 9" Kullenschliff Chef’s Knife on a granite kitchen unit, freshly sharpened after its wash in a Miele dishwasher that actually texts your iPhone when the wash is done.

Why? Because the Clifton Business Improvement district's press release on the RPZ contains the phrase "99% of those surveyed feel there should be less residential permit parking in the Village with more pay and display and business permit parking"

The 99% surveyed are the businesses obviously, though they don't give full details about the population size for the survey, number of responses, whether the responses are a representative sample of the population -all the things that we, as a data science organisation, would expect. As the release also says "over 300 business" (sic),  then perhaps that was the population, and the response was over 100, with 1 person saying "no".

This may seem a small detail, but we like defensible data, which is why we like to back up our datasets with photographs, and are prepared to email councillors for the data behind their claims.

Similarly, we like data to justify conclusions, such as "Through BCC’s actions shoppers are more likely to migrate to Cribbs Causeway with free parking and to Cabot Circus where there is sufficient car parking and an efficient bus service."

Note how they avoid noting that Cabot Circus hasn't got any free parking. Because it doesn't -yet there's invariably a queue on the M32/Newfoundland Way approach on a weekend, showing that if people are prepared to drive a distance to the destination, they are prepared to park there for a while. And, if you look at the Cabot Circus pricing, you'll see that it is priced for shoppers not commuters. Because the Cabot Circus operators know that parking is too important to waste on commuters, not when you want revenue-earning shoppers in there. Cribbs Causeway don't have that problem: they have a separate one, namely it is in the middle of nowhere unless you have a car or take the bus.

Anyway, the key issue here is "less residential permit parking in the Village with more pay and display and business permit parking"

If they'd stopped at "less residential permit parking in the Village with more pay and display ". There would have been a nice argument "we need more space for visitors than residents", which could have been a negotiating point -how much for exclusive residents vs shared. Given the residents are (presumably) sacrificing their right to double park in the Mall, unless the Mall Garden Residents Association comes round to approving of echelon parking, instead of saying "please double park instead". they are already sacrificing a lot of the parking capacity of the area.

With a nice tangible "paying customers => money" equation, the BID team would have gone into meetings with the residents with a good negotiating point.

Except they go and spoil it with that final clause "and business permit parking".  That lets the cat out the bag. The reason the Clifton BID want resident parking capacity reduced is not for those customers who would otherwise drive to Cribb's Causeway or go to Cabot Circus. No, it's for commuters into Clifton: the shops and other businesses, such as the soon to be re-opened private hospital whose  management have just discovered that there is nowhere on site for their 100 staff to park and they'd better have a plan here.

This is why the BID is going to go head to head with the residents, and why they have to get the Astroturf out to make it look like the resistance to the RPZ is going to come from residents who will suddenly get hit with bills of "up to" 192 pounds for their car.  It's not about how much residents will have to pay for their #3 car. It's not even about the 0-48 pounds they will have to pay for the #1 car. It's about whether weekday parking space in Clifton should be allocated to residents or to the staff of the businesses in the area.

Which is why this is going to be so much fun to watch it would be worth attending and just asking completely off topic questions like "I only park on zebra crossings -will that still be legal" or "if Bristol Zoo is complaining about staff parking issues, is it because of their history of opposing park and ride to the zoo in favour of letting visitors pay to park on the downs?"

Yes, the wednesday evening event will be entertaining -please attend if you can. Being at Clifton High school there will be free parking for your 4X4 on the school keep clear area -and, as the commuters will have gone, other spaces further up college road if you find yourself forced to walk

Keep Clifton Village Astroturfed!

The knives are out in Clifton, the only bit of the city that has successfully resisted the cycling movement


There's now a movement, Keep Clifton Special, meeting at Clifton High School, 7pm wednesday 13th.





Looks like an Astroturf movement by the Clifton Business Improvement District, who are serving up the full PDF.

The Council proposes to charge residents up to £192 per permit, businesses up to £240 per permit and visitors up to £1 per hour to park

Up to: meaning £192 for your third 4x4. We say 4x4 as there's a discount for the #1 car if it's class A.

We all enjoy and benefit from the thriving mixed community that is Clifton - homes, shops, schools, restaurants, hotels, places of worship and all manner of others from professional firms to the Zoo. But we may lose it forever...

"Mixed". Except poor people and cyclists -which is why we consider it special : the least diverse part of the inner city. It's also why its more boring to sit in a cafe there watching the passers by than it is to sit in the Canteen watching fights break out in Turbo Island.

High streets across Britain are under attack from supermarkets, out of town centres and the internet. Clifton Village is no different. Our shops cannot survive on local trade alone and charging shoppers up to £1 per hour to park would kill them off. There is no benefit to anyone in living close to empty shops!

This  is a fun one. See the "no benefit of living close to empty shops". What that means is the clifton BID are trying to win residents over by saying "all your shops will go away". Whereas the Clifton co-op mini-mart cannot survive on local trade alone.

A recent survey of all Clifton businesses found 100% thought the current proposals would damage their businesses and Clifton as a whole
Several businesses are already preparing to leave Clifton. These businesses currently provide local employment and support our shops. We want to keep Clifton as a special place for people to live, work and spend their leisure time

There's a big jump here from "shops that will go out of businesses if an RPZ comes in" to "businesses already preparing to leave clifton". It's a good attempt to conflate them, but falls down on the "support our shops".

What it means is this: keep Clifton free for shop staff and businesses to park in.

We have no public car park in Clifton and a very limited bus service.

In its favour: no cycle parking either. Not given the council has never rolled out its on-road cycle park. It does have the Clifton Down train station -but that is still a walk from the village, and the number 9 bus meanders there so slowly you would be faster going down Alma Road on a space hopper blindfolded. Yet there is nothing to stop the clifton BID providing a free/discount minibus for staff and shoppers.

Neither is likely to change in the foreseeable future and many people have no realistic transport options

Surely making the area an RPZ will actually free up parking spaces for shoppers that would otherwise be occupied by commuters? Isn't that perceived as a benefit? Of course not! What's being discussed here is staff and commuter parking, not residents or shop customers.

We all want to keep out commuters who use Clifton as a car park and then walk or take the bus to the city centre.

This is the issue. It's not "keep out commuters who use Clifton as a car park" it's "keep out commuters who aren't important enough to work in clifton.

But we can achieve this without spoiling this beautiful conservation area with obtrusive signs, pay and display machines and double yellow lines everywhere

No it is not cluttered by anything right now



All the cars in these photographs are an integral part of the historic landscape -and as they are commuters for the nearby workplaces, essential to the lifeblood of the village



This is where the whole yellow lines and clutter argument is a dangerous one to go near -and why we never do it ourselves. It's too hard to defend. Especially when there is double yellows in the core of the village, near where the bollards for the few tax-dodgers who enter the village go




Clifton is special and deserves a special parking solution. Without it, Clifton will become a shadow of its current self and we all – residents, businesses and visitors – will be the losers.

The knives are out here, and the Clifton BID is the one with the kitchen knife slowly pointing it at the residents. Because it is not after shopper space -not really, not given so little exists on a weekday-. It's after making sure that they get enough commuter space for their staff-and that's only going to happen if the space gets taken away from the residents.

Anyway: wednesday could be entertaining!

Quick -it is not to late to counteract this CPEZ objection

We had hoped that it being the last day to get comments in to the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone proposal, there'd be nobody else complaining about it.

No, instead we get a copy of yet another objection -this one making the fallacious claim that the #8/#9 bus service is any good (he says "best in the city", which is a lower standard, but nothing meanders like the #8 -except if you get on the #9 going in the opposite direction from where you intended).

Please write in with your support for the plan, else these objections may be listened to!


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bill
Date: 14 January 2013 12:54
Subject: Objections to TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815
To: tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk
Cc: barbara.janke@bristol.gov.uk, simon.cook@bristol.gov.uk, Mark Wright <mark.wright@bristol.gov.uk>, Alex Woodman <alex.woodman@bristol.gov.uk>, Jon Rogers <jon.rogers@bristol.gov.uk>, Gus Hoyt <gus.hoyt@bristol.gov.uk>


Dear Sirs

I'm writing to object to aspects of the proposed TROs in Clifton, not in specific terms, but in general regarding the overall approach. The traffic orders appear to have been drawn up without any interaction between the highways and urban design departments, reinforcing the appearance of 'silo' attitudes within separate council departments.

Surely, as a cycling city, we should actively encourage forms of transport other than the private car as a de facto standard across the entire city, and have a 'joined-up' approach to anything which affects the public realm?

Clifton is well served by public transport (with arguably the best bus service in the city, complete with free wi-fi on most buses). Sadly, many people feel that the car is a better alternative. Allowing more parking will only reinforce this impression, and undermine more sustainable forms of transport.

The area is currently badly served for cyclists, with little secure bike parking, which the TRO does nothing to address. The motor vehicle dominated one-way system does nothing for cycle permeability, and the proposed changes to the parking provision will prevent any future contraflow cycling lanes.

The dominance of cars (many just circling round trying to find a parking space), makes the pedestrian experience of using the village particularly unpleasant in what should be a jewel in Bristol's urban landscape. The Boyce's Avenue experiment has been a success, so rather than seeking to find additional parking paces for cars why not be radical and consider extending the scheme to the eastern part of Princess Victoria Street, The Mall and Waterloo Street. This would bring a much needed car-free environment to central Clifton for much of the day, allowing traders to use the pavements, bringing vibrancy and vitality to the area. The 'Village' would then become a village once again, at least between, say, 09:00 and 18:00 every day. This proposal would cost little to implement initially, but in the longer term could be extended to full pedestrianisation of these streets.

As a sop to motorists, proper implementation of 90 degree parking throughout Caledonia Place and West Mall would more than make up for the loss of car parking spaces, but would mean the traffic no longer circulates in the busy shopping area. The down-side would, of course, mean that motorists might have to walk 50 metres or so to get to a shop...

Surely this makes sense?

Outside the village, I have no strong feeling about the proposals, although I welcome the proposed changes to Worcester Road and Pembroke Vale as these seem more logical than the current arrangement.

Regards

Bill

The Bristol Cycling Campaign object too -predictable

Well, it's predictable that the cycling campaign group would write in and object -which is why the council wisely announced this TRO in the most discreet way possible.Well, the tax-dodgers found out -but what you do expect from a group of unemployed people who have nothing better to do but go around the city at 5mph.

Below is the letter in full. Before getting to it, can we point out:

Today, Jan 15 is the last day to write in supporting the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone proposal.

We have prepared sample letters.for people to do this. The more people who write in -the better!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin McDonnell
Date: 14 January 2013 00:15
Subject: Objections to TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815
To: tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk
Cc: John Richfield , Jon Rogers


Re: TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815
Dear Sir/Madam,

The Bristol Cycling Campaign is a campaign group focused on making cycling safer and more popular within the city. We have many members, including those within the BS8 postcode.

We have been strongly supportive of the Cycling City programme - and ongoing work to develop a cycling culture in Bristol. It has focused not just on making commuting by bicycle better - it has also worked to encourage cycling to the local shops and schools. These short journeys when made by car constitute a significant amount of congestion and pollution within the city - yet are some of the easiest to switch to cycling due to their short distance.

With the recent announcements that "obesity is a new epidemic", and that exercise is the key to preventing this, encouraging walking and cycling is a key way to integrate exercise into the daily schedule of the population. Again, the Cycling City programme placed effort into this - and again, cycling and walking to the local shops was a key part of this.

Examples of the actions here include the provisioning of large quantities of cycle parking in the shopping streets, including Gloucester Road, Stokes Croft, Cotham Hill/Clifton Down shopping centre, and Southville. These have helped encourage cycle traffic, and have helped keep these streets vibrant and popular.

If there is one part of the inner-ring of shopping zones that has become a backwater to cycling, it is Clifton Village. A few cycle racks have reluctantly been placed around the outskirts of the village - yet the core area is, apart from a small rack on the Mall, entirely given over to car parking. Illegal parking is commonplace, while Caledonia Place suffers from continious double parking. The sole cycle park on Princess Victoria Street was at Clifton library, yet for reasons not fully explained, the secure "sheffield" racks have been replaced with four "wheel" racks that do nothing but ensure that when your bicycle is stolen, a wheel will remain.

As a result of this inadequate cycle parking, Clifton is a black hole to bicycles. This is despite the fact that the Suspension Bridge is incredibly popular with cycling traffic, both locals and visitors. The failure of Clifton to accomodate the needs of this traffic must have a tangible impact on the revenue of the area - something that appears to have missed the attention of the shops and the councillors.

Having reviewed CAE/NMT/P/815, we are supportive of the proposals to slightly increase the no-parking areas at the corners of junctions, as they improve visibility and so cycling safety. They also make ingress and egress easier, as it is easier to get past traffic coming in the opposite direction. We also support the proposed addition of more Car Club parking bays, as they encourage the use of pay-per-hour driving rather than owning a car. Even if the car club bays merely reduce the ownership of second cars, or discourage students from bringing their cars to the area - they will have a tangible affect in reducing the number of cars parked in the area.

We are, however, utterly opposed to the proposed parking changes on Princess Victoria Street. These changes will make cycling through the village harder and more dangerous - while completely failing to do anything to make shopping in the village by bicycle viable.

This proposal, therefore, violates the "hierarchy of provision" which the council has adopted as one of its core city planning philosophies. It runs counter to the Cycling City vision, and is intended to encourage driving to the shops. Yet the assumption that this will help retail sales is presented unquestioningly - though such a statement is indefensible without valid data.

The 2006 study of Gloucester Road conducted by Bristol City Council and Sustrans showed that shops overestimated the number of customers driving to their shops. The estimates of customer transport options were: car 41%, bus 11%, bicycle 6% and foot 42%. The actual numbers were: car 22%, bus 13%, bicycle 10% and foot 55%. The fact that shops in a nearby Bristol street estimated car use as a majority transport option, rather than a minority activity shows that retailers concerns about the lack of parking can be over 100% out - and that they should be effectively discounted.

Assuming the figures from Gloucester Road apply to Clifton - albeit with less bus traffic - then the focus of transport provisioning should be on pedestrians, with cycling, as 1/4 of the traffic of cars, awarded at least 25% of the parking capacity in the area as that provided for cars.

The Clifton TRO does not do this. Instead it actually proposes to remove a not-yet-imtlemented on-road cycle tarking erea in favour of anothev parking space.$By doing so, the TRO will set beck any ettempt to improve cycle$custom to the slops.

The TRO also proposes removmng the double yellow lined 'no$waiting' area on the north side of Princess Vigtoria Street, in both tle one wey and tle two wey section. The nustificetion fov this iw that tley "are no longer consmdered to be necessary". As cyclists, we consider them very necessary.  

• Adding parking on the N. side of the one-way stretch will make it impossible for any car to safely pass a bicycle, leading to dangerous overtaking attempts and risk to cyclists. 
• This same parking will ensure that there is no part of the road safe from "dooring", and hence safe to cycle even if there is no car behind trying to overtake.  
• The proposed parking additions on the north side of the two-way stretch will be even more dangerous -any cyclist heading west-to-east will be unable to be safely passed by an oncoming car. 

Instead we make the following proposals

1. The north side of the one-way stretch of Princess Victora street should be turned into a contraflow lane -ideally one segregated from traffic. This would permit the whole of the street to be turned into a two way route for bicycle. This will make cycling to and from the shopping area easier -so encouraging custom.

2. The cycle path on the road actually be built.

3. Enforcement of the no-parking area and zebra crossing markings in front of the Tesco Express outlet. The regular parking of HGVs here destroys visibility for bicycles trying turn right from Merchant's Road to Regent road -and then into the village.

4. The addition of cycling contraflows to Portland Street and the entirety of the Mall.

5. Adding more cycle parking build-outs in Caledonia Place -placed in precisely the point where illegal parking makes walking and cycling more dangerous.

6. Adding cycle parking to the western end of Princess Victoria Street, and some on Sion Hill.

7. Enforcement of existing parking restrictions across the village.

These changes will transform the permeability of the village to cycling, and provide more parking to both shoppers and residents.

More subtly, by providing cycle parking in the village, they will encourage more cycling to school by those families whose parents continue on to the village for a morning coffee. We have anecdotal evidence that this is a common occurence.

Even if these changes are not implemented immediately, the incorporation of Clifton into the Cycling City plan will ultimately happen. It is also likely that as the resident parking zones expand to cover the whole of BS6, that they will be adopted in Clifton -initially in Cliftonwood and east Clifton, then later in central and north Clifton.

The addition of extra car parking places will merely make these changes harder to implement. By encouraging ownership and use of cars, they will make the transition to a limited number of cars per household more traumatic. Similarly, the "removal" of parking spaces to make Clifton Village permeable to bicycles will be controversial -not adding these spaces today will reduce the conflict when this happens.

Changes for improving cycling are inevitable, because the new mayor and the new cabinet are expanding their support for cycling as an attempt to address Bristol's congestion and parking problems. These local changes are clearly due to the neighbourhood planning group being encouraged to work against the strategic goals of the city -and, sadly, the acquiescence and support of the council. A number of our members were at the March 2011 meeting where this proposal was initially discussed -and we know that the Clifton councillors voted in favour of it. This was a shortsighted action that may make fixing Clifton's transport and parking problems significantly harder -which will delay their implementation.

For these reasons, we demand that all planned changes to Princess Victoria Street are cancelled -or at least suspended- until they can be discussed with the cycling officers and a cycling plan for Clifton developed.


[1] Shoppers and how they travel: http://bit.ly/ji5hgR

Martin McDonnell

Martin McDonnell, Secretary
Bristol Cycling Campaign
website: www.bristolcyclingcampaign.org.uk
Follow us on Facebook: Bristol Cycling Campaign Group or Twitter: BristolCycling

Who is objecting to the Expanded Parking zone!

We had expected out readers to write in supporting the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone. But instead someone copies us in on an objection they sent in


---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: David Date: 14 January 2013 16:06
Subject: Objections to TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815
To: "tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk" <tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk>
To whom it may concern,

I am a regular visitor to Clifton and would like to write in objecting to the proposed plans to add more car parking in Clifton.

These proposals are at odds with the council's main proposal of hierarchy which should be 'pedestrians, cycles, public-transport first'.

We are supposed to be a cycling city, yet at every turn the good work of that project is being eroded by short term proposals such as this. This change is a missed opportunity to implement some decent segregated infrastructure for bicycle users.

By providing extra residential and short stay car parking in the area, it will make walking and cycling worse and do nothing to improve the quality of life in this lovely area. The proposed intent to reduce anti-social parking should be achieved through better enforcement of existing traffic regulations rather than this expensive and backward step.

I urge you to reject this proposal.

Yours faithfully,

David

-----
This is as shocking as if the proprietor of the daily mail announced he was going to enter a civilian partnership with a muslim refugee on unemployment benefit.

We urge all our readers to write in demanding that the proposal is enacted in full.

The Clifton Expanded Parking Zone: what did Barbara say?

Readers! you have only two more days to email tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk with your praise for the TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815

It's important to do this, as we hear that the cycling troublemakers are going to oppose this, claiming the "unused" double yellow lines on Princess Victoria Street could be turned into  a (segregated) contraflow for cyclists, and that rather than kill plans to add on-street cycle parking -they should extend it!

If there is one thing that should stop the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone being derailed by any cyclists opposing -it is the support of the council staff and the local councillors

We know this -being a data driven organisation- by way of videos taken at the Neighbourhood Partnership meeting in 2011 where this went through



At the beginning, there's "residents have recommended to remove double yellow lines to increase the parking -so your council is fully supportive of these plans"

An initial troublemaker asks about timetables and when they could object to them -she's dismissed with a "later" rather than the secret "it'll be announced on lampposts over christmas and not on the council consultation RSS feed that you tax-dodgers subscribe to"

at 1:45 another troublemaker picks on the parking-for-traffic-calming story

"what amuses me is where it says we will increase the parking as a form of traffic calming -which seems to me, daft- ... the proposals are at odds with the council's main proposal of hierarchy which goes 'pedestrians, cycles, public-transport first'. And I'm curious how you reconcile that with this devolved planning"

That's one of those trick questions, as he's clearly implying that if you devolve planning to residents then they may come up with ideas about parking at the expense of possible cycling routes and parking -and how is the council going to deal with that situation.

At this point (2:24),  Barbara Janke, councillor for Clifton East subtly defects this line of attack not by directly saying "yes, it is utterly inconsistent, so what", but instead implying its such a small amount of money there's no point worrying about it.

"Basically, this is only a vary small part of the total highways and transport budget. There are strategic plans, ... this is a small part of the traffic budget which has been delegated so that we can try and get local people into the -um- various areas that we serve. So previously these things have been decided centrally by the executive member and .. implemented. Now the officers have brought what they would recommend -and there's opportunities for people here to input . But these are not the total budget, there are ... other proposals going on elsewhere, strategically, you know, but very localised subjects ... give an opportunity ...
Strategic considerations are part of a much bigger part...
(interruption by the troublemaker)

I understand that, but I think these tactical engagements are odd with the strategic ones. and also I dont see any involvement of people like Ed Plowden of cycling city in this proposal And finally do you consider walking or cycling to be strategic or not, that's the big question, because major transport was mentioned?

barbara: (deftly) No, we do! There are strategic plans being worked on, there is a walking plan ... ... (some dismission) a  much bigger -this is only a small section, ands its reactive to complaints in the local area. Some of it may not be necessarily long term either.

We know that once parking has been added, the locals will fight the council with sharp knives to have it removed. So does Barbara -but she's not daft enough to say it out loud.

Congratulations Barbara! We are confident that the addition of eight more parking spaces will tip the next election in your favour -as confident we are that none of the people trying to walk or cycling in the area are voters in your wards -or the high value customers the shops need.

Clifton EPZ -councillors vote

Following on from Barbara Janke's superb victory over the cyclist trying to catch her out on the small detail that the Expanded-Parking-Zone is at odds with the council's strategic walking and cycling goals, the meeting came to a vote by the four councillors.



The two Clifton councillors voted -as we hoped- for the extra parking spaces.

Not so loyal were the Cabot Ward councillors, Mark Wright and Alex Woodman.

Alex Woodman voted against this precisely because of the blatant conflict between the council's anti-motoring policy and this pro-parking plan.

Mark Wright? He said it was clearly in conflict, but to respect this Neighbourhood Planning concept, he was going to accept what the locals wanted, and vote for it.

a 3:1 majority was enough to get it through -but it was worrying that two councillors owned up to the fact that the plan -resolving our local parking issues with more spaces- were at odds with the strategic goals of the council. That sets a very bad precedent for the rest of the city.

As for the cyclists, they need to respect  the reality on the ground.

This is why it is so critical for everyone to write in and praise the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone plans.

Clifton Expanded Parking Zone: who objected in our name?

We are strongly in favour of the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone, not for the number of spaces it provides, but because it would set back any attempts to improve permeability for and parking of bicycles, that scourge of the city.

We were therefore horrified to discover that someone -and we have no idea who- appears to have sent an objection to the council in in our name.

To make things worse -they have used our photograph collection to criticise the parking behaviour of clifton residents!

We don't condemn the things people are forced to do to park near their homes, shops or places of work.




No, we, like the Clifton Mayoral Candidate, recognise that these are things we are forced to do in an anti-car city.

But what has happened? Someone has sent an email in our name -which fortunately we got a cc'd copy of, to see the travesty of our raison-d'etre.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bristol Traffic
Date: 6 January 2013 23:36
Subject: Objections to TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815
To: tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk
Cc: barbara.janke@bristol.gov.uk, simon.cook@bristol.gov.uk, alex.woodman@bristol.gov.uk, mark.wright@bristol.gov.uk, jon.rogers@bristol.gov.uk


Please find enclosed our objections to much of the TRO covering proposed new parking restrictions within Clifton and part of Cliftonwood.

As we state -backed up by photographic evidence- providing extra residential and short stay parking in the area, while making walking and cycling worse, will do nothing to improve the quality of life in clifton. It will merely supress walking and cycling -and so make congestion and parking worse.

Based on past experience, we fear that our feedback will be dismissed -despite the fact that our datasets are broader and more defensible than anyone else's in the city. We therefore close with a statement of intent: from the day that this consultation is closed, we will be reporting illegal parking to the police and/or council parking enforcement, depending on the location. This will do more to address Clifton's effective absence from the Cycling City project than anything in this TRO.

The actual document is even worse. It says -to quote one paragraph from the seven page document, 

Overall, our dataset implies that the problems that Clifton have is not "a lack of parking", it is the willingness of residents to park illegally, selfishly and dangerously -usually at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. The near complete lack of enforcement has legitimised such actions.

These are harsh words coming from anyone! To have them come from us, Bristol's documentation of how the war-on-motoring makes our everyday drive to the shops round the corner, makes it even worse.

We have already sent an email denying responsibility for this document. However, we fear it is not enough.

Please, please please, can anyone who has not yet written in supporting the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone do so before the Jan 15 deadline!

Cyclists! Please support the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone!

As stated, the Clifton Expanded Parking Zone will add more car parking to Clifton -not only not adding space in the village for bicycles, but cancelling what appears to be a proposal for an on-road buildout cycle parking area in favour of another car bay.

At lot of cyclists read this blog -and we'd like them to write in supporting this proposal. We have prepared some drafts for residents of Bristol and visitors.



It may seem odd for us to ask cyclists to write in supporting council proposals -but if you look at the photograph above you will see that cyclists are mud-covered and smelly. Your very presence in the village lowers its quality and cachet as Bristol's premier village. Add four more bicycles and it would lose out to that other gem of the region, Avonmouth Village.

For this reason, please, please please can you cyclists write in to the  council, using the email address and subject as listed. You are free to ad-lib your own comments -the key thing to make clear is that tax dodgers do not belong in Clifton, and that you, as a tax-dodger recognise this.

If you submit these letters or others, please cc: barbara.janke@bristol.gov.uk, simon.cook@bristol.gov.uk, alex.woodman@bristol.gov.uk, mark.wright@bristol.gov.uk, jon.rogers@bristol.gov.uk -and of course bristol.traffic at  gmail dot com


Residents

To: tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk

Subject: Objections to TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815

I would like to write in supporting the proposed plans to add more car parking in Clifton, -while continuing to fail to prove anything for local cyclists much as myself.

The failure of the city to allow me to park my bicycle makes it clear that I cannot shop there. This is good, as the very fact that I am cycling around means that I am too poor to afford anything that Clifton has to offer.

The extra car parking you plan to provide will increase the parking opportunities that I will have once I have saved up enough money to buy a car.


Visitors

To: tro.comments@bristol.gov.uk

Subject: Objections to TRO proposal CAE/NMT/P/815

I would like to write in supporting the proposed plans to add more car parking in Clifton, -while continuing to fail to prove anything for cyclists much as myself.

Bristol has been working at hard at creating an image as a Cycling City, yet here this dream falls completely flat on its face due to the short-term thinking of its residents and the blind acquiescence of its councillors.

While some people may object to this, I, as a cycling visitor to the area, recognise that this is the correct approach.

The two main reasons to visit Clifton by bicycle are to see the suspension bridge or to go mountain biking in Ashton Court. Both these activities involve a lot of physical effort, while the mountain biking also includes water, mud and random pieces of vegetation.

Although Clifton could in theory be an ideal place for thirsty and hungry cyclists to stop and rest before continuing their journey, we believe this would have a detrimental effect on the village -as the presence of smelly and (for the MTBers) very, very dirty cyclists would scare away other visitors. This would damage the whole economy of the reason.

Furthermore, an increased presence of bicycles in the area will make it harder to drive in and around Clifton -and may discourage people from driving from their nearby houses to shops in the village. Again, this could damage the economy.

A single car may take up as much space as eight parked bicycles -but the driver of the car will not scare away other people.

For this reason -please consider this letter one of support for the proposed Clifton Expanded Parking Zone

Clifton Expanded Parking Opportunities -consultation

Back in 2011, we looked at the Neighbouhood Partnership proposals for Clifton, adding more parking under a guise which even we were impressed by "to calm traffic". That's a great lie -one to use the next time we get told off for double parking while delivering some of our special adult entertainment products to the Clifton area.

We looked at -and supported- proposals for

• The removal of two bays in Hotwells
• Adding parking in the bottom of Pembroke Road and  further up
• Removing the yellow lines on Clifton Park.
• Adding more parking anywhere it could be found in Princess Victoria Street

It's been nearly two years and we suspected this plan had fallen by the wayside, as the traffic planning officers cornered the councillors and pointed out that the political price of adding eight to ten more parking spaces to the area wasn't worth it. Assuming unrestricted parking on Pembroke road and Hope Chapel Hill, 6 more residents (i.e. voters) would get somewhere to park overnight. If the clifton village parking added an extra four spaces, with a 2h limit, then an eight hour day would add 24 parking opportunities. That's 30 votes overall -max. Yet the political capital spent up on trying to fight the cycling city in one part of the city would be high -because you'd be having to say "we won't spend any money providing safe crossings of Pembroke Road, or the east end of Clifton Park" -issues that also matter to Clifton voters -and potentially more than 30 a day.

Good news! Over Christmas -when the schoolparents would have been away, the consultation for the Traffic Regulation Order to add these spaces has arrived!

Not only that -they propose to add a space by taking away a proposed on-road cycle parking buildout! Finally a part of the city has stood up to this invasion of bicycles, by opting to provide a short stay parking opportunity for a car instead  -leaving cyclists with some insecure bollards that only the foolhardy would use.



To invest in adding 30 parking opportunities a day over making walking and cycling safe is a bold move -one for which we congratulate the two councillors for doing! They must have felt that those thirty votes may keep the two liberal democrat councillors safe, despite the fact that their Westminster colleagues are widely derided as the useless lap-dogs of George Osborne and David Cameron, Presumably they recognised that the people trying to walk or cycle in Clifton are poor people, unlikely to live in the area -or if they do, unlikely to vote.

We in the Bristol Traffic team are overjoyed that in one part the city, the people and the councillors have finally listened to what we have  been saying since 2008; pandering to the cyclists and pedestrians is a mistake!

Looking back at the old days, when the late Chris Hutt was our Clifton Correspondent, what was the third post in our history? Photographic proof that Range Rovers didn't have anywhere to park near the schools except the pavements.


Clifton has always been a special place for us -as much a centre of the driving and parking community as Stokes Croft -albeit with less run-down vehicles-so are excited about this new proposal, part of what we now term, the anticycling-city.

We strongly encourage everyone who supports us, who wants our streets clear of tax-dodging cyclists, for us not to be held up by pedestrians trying to get over zebra crossings, to read the TRO, and respond praising it fully.

We would particularly like for respondents to draw out the proposal "to remove the cycle parking place in Princess Victoria Street (not in force on-site)". This is the best example of how this TRO represents a bold action by the residents and councillors to do something nobody else in the inner city has done -to fight back!

Walthamising Hotwells

One of the Clifton Traffic Calming proposals -voted for, with support from the Waltham Forest Faction of the ruling LibDem party, was to remove some yellow lines from this road "to calm traffic", with a key justification being this is near a school and it would improve safety. This perfect Walthamisation: to improve the facilities for us, the motorists, using the walking and cycling part of the council budget, and claiming it is for "their own good". Waltham Forest excels in this, such as in the downgrading of a route to the Olympics, though we are surprised at how much it cost to make it so easy to PavePark. We in Bristol don't need such help.

This is the road covered. There are some buildouts already, one positioned to protect the wingmirrors of cars, and room on the other side of the road to park. The target area must be further down the hill.

Ah yes, here it is. A narrow stretch, two chicanes and then a wide space -wide enough to get two small cars into.

But here's a question: is this worth spending political capital on? Barbara Janke, Cllr for Clifton (Waltham Forest Ward), is in charge of a minority council that often cites its green foundations as a way of differentiating it. To remove some double yellow lines "to calm traffic" is going to get bad press in the green-troublemaker news outlets (fortunately, not the BBC or Evening Post), and embarrass others in the council. For what? Two parking spaces.

It may seem odd, but we in the Bristol Traffic project are against the proposal for two reasons. One is this: there are more important places to add parking areas that a back road near Hotwells

The other --and this is key-- is this: double yellow lines provide Clifton parents with designated dropoff areas on the school run. Those two parking spaces would be wasted on residents or commuters, as only two people a day will benefit from each new space; four people per day on a weekday, dropping down to one person/day on a weekend. Twelve vehicles a week. Whereas as a short-stay parking area, you could have ten parents a morning queuing up to do dropoffs, push the kids out and carry straight on into the city, without having to get out the car.

It is far more valuable for parental dropoff than for resident and commuter parking, and if the councillors don't realise this, they are talking to the residents and not the school parents. If we sent our kids to this school, we'd be in touch with Barbara Janke and others defending our right to park here, instead of saying "yes, we think two more residents should park here." Who cares about the residents? That's four voters, compared to the possibly twenty that ten families could offer.

The other thing is that traffic calming claim looks, well, weak. You could push it for Pembroke Road -you can get up to speed. But here? Even with a buildout dropped enough to let vans go over it, you can't keep your speed up, you have to give way at the bottom anyway.

For the sake of twelve extra vehicle parking opportunities a week, Barbara and Terry are going to make enemies of everyone in the school, as well as devalue the entire "LibDem are green" brand. Admittedly, their Westminster School and Parliament compatriots are doing the same thing, but if you look at the recent election results, not only did the Green party take a LibDem seat, they came second in a few other wards. The cost of adding two parking spaces here -both financial and political - doesn't justify it. Two happy residents, some commuters who aren't even in the same ward as the councillors, and 40-50 annoyed parents plus the local green troublemakers blogging about it -and maybe even letting the evening post in on the joke, so that Barbara gets laughed at as much as Gary "bus stop" Hopkins did.

This is just political ineptitude.

Clifton: resisting cycling city

Even as we complain for the current and aspiring councillors for their lack of imagination over car parking -compared to the residents, we must praise the area for holding back the cycling in the area. If they didn't you could imagine families happy to cycle over the suspension bridge to get to Ashton Court, to pootle up to the downs, or even nip over to Clifton village for a bit of shopping.

They've managed -without anyone noticing- to get away without adding any bike lanes, contraflows on existing one-way streets, pass-throughs on dead-ended roads, or any of the cycle city innovations intended to make cycling a viable alternative to driving. They have invested in some no cycling signs, but they are discreet and in keeping with the area -while the Keep Clear paintwork is being allowed to fade.

Looking the other way, sadly, three bike stands. But as the area was bollarded off, no parking area is lost, so the car S215BPN can stay happily parked on some more fading keep clear paintwork.

In the village itself, it looks like three people have chosen to cycle in. The provisioning of nothing but bollards to park against does its best to discourage people from attempting this, but still they come and park here on Waterloo Street.

The problem is, despite what cycling city advocates, there isn't room in this narrow street to add any cycling lanes or bicycle parking. There's not enough room for cars to pass each other, and, unlike Montpelier, some of these people are in cars they value, so the road has been made one-way for the safety of the paintwork of expensive vehicles like the BMW HK60CZZ.

We know that people are pushing for the removal of the in-village yellow lines to add parking, but we don't see the point. The yellow lines act as a way of ensuring there is always space for somebody important. Without them, poor people from other parts of the city would take away all the parking spaces.

Pembroke Road parking opportunities

Driving further north on Pembroke Road, we come to an area where all the parking spaces are taken. But it's still a wide road, and you can easily get up to 45 along it. No junctions, no zebra crossings, no mini-roundabouts, nothing to get in your way. Perfect. Admittedly, there's one or two bicycles to swerve past, and few schoolkids sprinting to the safety of the traffic islands, but a quick tap on your horn sorts that out.

Look in the other direction, towards the city. The roads are wide, but now there's a bus stop, a pedestrian, and a cyclist.

And everywhere: double yellow lines.

This leads us to our real metric of "where is there room to remove double yellow lines?" It's obvious, when you think about it.

Wherever there is room for people to cycle without getting in the way of important people in cars, there is space to add more parking.

There you have it. A nice simple metric of where we can put more parking. And its important to do this, because otherwise, the pedalling and walking factions, who are secretly defying the Waltham Forest faction in the council, would love nothing better than to put in bicyle lanes along stretches of road -and in a road this wide, they could even try segregation. Because of the double yellow lines, nobody is going to fight back to say "No! This removes the place where we have parked our car for years!"

This is why we need to Walthamize this stretch of Pembroke Road -because it is the only way we, the important people, can resist the so-called "progress" of those subversives, a progress that is really the continuation of the War On Motorists in a different disguise.

Pembroke Road: where should Barbara Janke remove the yellow lines?

Barbara Janke, leader of the council (at least for the next few days)- has taken on the challenge of ensuring that traffic safety "can be improved" by adding extra car parking in Clifton. Of course, we, the tax-payers, know that this is technically "bollocks", but we also know that anything which discourages walking and cycling does reduce the numbers of Killed and Seriously Injured, so provided you don't actually measure foot and bicycle traffic, you can claim improvements. This is the tactic used by central government to claim that the UK's roads are safer than ever, so there's no reason why the Clifton Councillors can't use it.

First, the bottom end of Pembroke Road as it approaches Queen's Road. Look at that -two wide bits of parking area, almost completely wasted. Only one vehicle has dared to pre-empt the proposed removal by doing a bit of paveparking -and they were only loading up.

In the other direction, a happy family walks over the zebra crossing.

Look how much parking space is being wasted here! Not only is there a zebra crossing -encouraging people to endanger themselves by walking- the zig-zags are taking up space for at least eight cars.

Some readers are thinking "more than eight cars", but this is Clifton, remember. Big cars, for important people, like Ranger Rovers, BMW X-series toys. Some of the students do have smaller cars, but Mini Coopers are acceptable -provided they are the new BMW version, not the old British Leyland editions.

If Barbara wanted to live up to the expectations of her local electorate, especially the Keep Parking Free team, she should remove not just all the yellow lines in these photographs, but the zebra crossing too. This would allow much more parking, and hence more traffic calming

Breaking news: parking restrictions encourage higher vehicle speeds

The new "neighbourhood funding" schemes are great for us, the drivers, as we can use our money to get what we want: parking, without any city-wide initiative like public transport, sustainability or cycling getting in the way. This is why we are delighted to cover the "DEVOLVED TRANSPORT SCHEMES FOR 2011/12" for Clifton and Cliftonwood, which will be up for discussion on Tuesday at 19:00 above Jack's Brasserie behind the waterfront TSB building.

The important people in Clifton have been successful in adding one-way streets by Clifton-college, so making easier to do Range-Rover and Volvo XC60 dropoff, and held up the provisioning of bicycle parking on the grounds that it degrades the listed buildings. However there still aren't enough places to park our important cars. How to add more parking, without appearing blatantly selfish? The answer is obvious: push for it on road safety grounds.

This is the tactic planned for tomorrow, with the following proposals in the set.

• Lay-by at the bottom of Hope Chapel Hill: Existing parking restrictions encourage higher vehicle speeds
• Pembroke Road (St.Pauls Road end). More on-street parking would reduce vehicle speeds.

These claims are far better than the ones for Clifton Park and Princess Victoria Street, both of which just say "existing parking restrictions are too extensive", by which they mean "the bit by the side of the road where people cycle could be used by important people".

We hope all our local supporters turn up for this, and support the proposals and so make sure that we outnumber any cycling/living street troublemakers who sneak in and start calling us selfish gits who are more concerned about having somewhere to park our third car outside our houses than doing something to fundamentally improve Bristol's liveability. Those people don't realise that having somewhere to park our third Landrover -it's more than just a car- does improve Bristol's Liveability. Certainly it makes it easier to walk from the Landrover to our house, and by saving us driving around, reduces pollution and the CO2 emissions from our 3L V8 engines.

Futhermore, once that parking is in, it will be that much harder to put in bike lanes, so any ideas for adding some segregated route up Pembroke Road -our secret high speed alternative to Whiteladies Road- would be killed forever. It's important to do this now, before alternate transport plans progress.

Yes, those troublemakers will say "if we want parking we should have voted for the RPZ", but they miss the point: that would have restricted the number of vehicles we could own. Furthermore, by reducing the number of vehicles parked on the roads on a weekday, vehicle speeds have increased and Clifton is now a more dangerous place to walk. We have a spreadsheet we've just made up to prove it!

Note also that a large number of the other schemes (Ambrose Road, Cliftonwood Road, Alfred Hill, Westbourne Place and Redcliffe hill) are complaints by people about how parking is interfering with pedestrians. It is important to attend to stop this, otherwise the troublemakers will pick up on the complete hypocrisy of pushing for extra parking to calm roads in some parts of the area, while having to introduce bollards and dropped kerbs in other parts. We want parking everywhere, and no RPZ in our way.

Walthamize the planet, and have a nice day.