Two weeks, and silence from the PR company tasked with selling an eight storey car park in the central bristol "red zone" as a benefit, here is our followup to our initial email.
Hello.
Sadly, we don't seem to have had a reply to our previous email..
Never mind —a polite response would have been nice.
We have a few of questions for our ongoing coverage. While you can opt out of answering them, it will save time compared to filing FOI requests, and give you an opportunity for you to present your arguments.
Terminology
What is a transport hub and how is it different from a normal car park?
If it is because it has secure staff cycle parking, do the existing BRI and St Michael's hill staff car parks qualify for the title "transport hub"?
If not: why not?
Current/Planned capacity
Across the entire UBHT Kingsdown Campus of BRI and St Michael's Hill hospitals, what is the total number of parking spaces?
What is their breakdown into: facilities, staff, disabled and visitor
How was the number of new spaces to build chosen? Was it demand driven, or simply "number of floors times spaces per floor?"
With the proposed multistorey-transport-hub, what will be the new breakdown of facilities, staff, disabled and visitor?
Why was this specific balance chosen?
Demand Modelling
Which tool did you use for modelling demand?
Did you model the pollution impact, and if so on the "we trust the manufacturers" EURO5/6 numbers, or the real world datasets?
Did your model consider that Metrobus promises a step change in Bristol transport? If so, what impact will it be considered to have? If not, why not?
Did any model you explored actually reduce pollution within the central bristol "Red Zone"?
Did you explore different mixes of staff/visitor allocation —and what impact did it have?
Did you explore different sizes of car park —and what impact did it have?
Finally, can we have the model you've built up? We can sort out the software.
Thanks,
The Bristol Traffic Team (data and traffic analysis department)
One recurrent theme repeated by the anti-RPZ people is that you will be "paying to park".
These people are missing the point so badly that they must be cyclists -certainly they don't live in any of the current Bristol RPZ area.
The council is not forcing you to pay to park outside your house -they are saying that for £50 a year, you get the option of using your car on a weekday.
This is Cotham, the new 2013 RPZ. See the spaces?
Before, on any weekday, there would be no space. If your car was parked, it would have to stay there all day -because if you moved it before 1pm, there would be no room to put anywhere when you came back.
Which meant you could not use your car and go home again on a weekday. Parents were forced to walk their children to school, because there was no parking afterwards. It meant if you were at home during the day, you couldn't drive to the supermarket, because there would be nowhere near to unload or park. Instead residents would have to walk to the co-op by the Highbury, or down to Clifton Down. And, without a car load of food, do this two or three times a week. The main alternative: wait until peak evening and weekend hours.
Anyone who did have to drive somewhere, and then needed to come back, would end up having to park on a corner, on yellow lines, or in front of someone else's garage. Or just in the middle of the road:
The problem with this approach is that a couple of times a year you do end up with a parking ticket -and a single parking ticket costs a resident more than a year's RPZ permit.
The RPZ changes that: you can drive, you can park near your house, you can do the school run by car, you can shop at supermarkets on a weekday morning.
To say the RPZ proposal is some council anti-car policy is ridiculous. It may be anti-commuter-from-the Elf Kindom of Somerset, or the Dwarven Plains of S Gloucs, but for inner city residents who own a car it brings something you've never had: the ability to use your car on a weekday.
A lot of claims are made about the "cost" of traffic jams, pricing driver's time above that of pedestrians and cyclists. While we certainly agree that our time should be valued above those people who can't afford to pay road tax, we dispute the naive application of "value of time".
The worth of time of people who are stuck in traffic jams as they drive to work is essentially zero.
Why do we we conclude this?
The commute marks a transition between work time (paid, valuable) and leisure time (no financial cost to society).
The commute time is not part of working hours -it happens after, so is part of the leisure time.
If the peak hour commute takes an extra 15 minutes, you can leave 15 minutes early and still arrive at work at the same time. And in the evening you get home 15 minutes later after leaving work at the scheduled time.
If you have chosen to move to Bradley Stoke or Portishead, your leisure time is an empty void and so worthless regardless of when you travel.
Because commute time is really leisure time, it isn't costing you anything. The people it is costing are google, because you could spend an extra 30-45 minutes online. This is why Google, strategic partners of both us and the NSA, are so fond of self-driving cars. They could get an extra 1h30 of adverts in front of your eyes.
So: commute time: you can get up earlier and leave earlier to compensate -it doesn't cost business or the country anything.
On the other hand:
the worth of time of businesses who need drivers traversing the city is tangible and negatively affected by commuters in two ways.
The congestion they cause adds delays. This isn't just the jams on the A-roads, it is the cars driving round in circles looking for places to park.
The parking spaces -legal and non-legal- that they use up, create problems for the city all day long.
The lack of legal parking bays forces us to park where we can. This can result in parking tickets
This photo was taken on a weekday in Kingsdown -the commuter parking has filled up all the spaces made free by residents, so forcing us to park here. We've also had to waste time driving around until we could find an empty space like this.
The lack of free parking bays costs us time -and hence money
Then there's the double parking. We have to do it whenever we drop off one of our premium entertainment products -especially in Clifton, where there is never any space. We don't mind doing that, don't care about the abuse -but we do care about being held up by other double parking delivery vehicles.
Double parking of short-stay vehicles creates delays that costs us money.
An RPZ provides parking for delivery vehicles, so simplifies our life -and stops us being held up.
Commuter parking can even stop us reaching our destination. Look at this photo of Kingsdown Parade
It's a weekday morning in Kingsdown, and our van is held up by a scaffolding truck that can't get past the parked cars. The crew had to get out, bounce the car out the way. This cost them time, and it cost us time.
Commuter parking narrows roads and eliminates passing places -causing delays and costing us money. Now look at kingsdown post-RPZ:
Can you see the difference: the road is nearly empty. No more struggles to get wider vehicles past too many parked cars. With the passing places, we don't even need to drive aggressively at oncoming cyclists. Which we actually care about -a schoolrunning parent on Cotham Hill this morning actually put their hand up by their head and damaged our wing-mirror this morning. And now that cyclists are starting to wear helmet-cams more, our driving becomes more visible to the police and employers.
This shows how resident parking zones directly save us money
Providing long stay parking close to our destination, eliminating parking tickets and confrontation.
Providing short-stay parking for deliveries, eliminating double parking -and stopping us being held up by other double parked vehicles.
Effectively widening our roads in the narrow inner city.
The roads in our inner city are too valuable to be wasted on commuter parking.
This is why we strongly support the RPZ plans -it delivers direct business value to us.
Monday, 21 January 2013
Further down ninetree hill, there's a red clio SN52BNJ paveparked quite elegantly.
It's only when you get alongside that it's clear that this car wasn't parked -it crashed into a lamp post while sliding backwards down the hill -presumably with all occupants screaming in terror trying to wheelspin their way out of trouble.
It must have been frightening -we hope they are all right.
Even so, as you look up the 1 in 4 hill, seeing more than one vehicle crashed on it, some thoughts spring to mind.
What made the drivers think going up here was a good idea? You can't into kingsdown by car all that is left is the parking on Dove Street.
On a day like friday, all parking restrictions are cancelled.There's no reason to park on Dove St.
The streets were covered in snow and ice, and vehicles couldn't get up less steep roads -some of the main Kingsdown access routes were blocked off, and we saw Cotham Hill earlier -that's a 5-10% gradient maximum.
If you do get to the top of Dove St to park, you'll have to come down this or the other hill-option later -and again, that could be icy.
If your attempt fails, you aren't going to just get stuck. You will slide down backwards until you hit something.
If this hill was a secret rat-run, we could see why someone would want to go up there. But it isn't -and these photos show why you should avoid it after snow unless you have a sledge.
It's as repetitive as the letters that appear in the Daily Mail the same week "how can they claim there's global warming when it snowed?". We suspect the writers and the drivers may be related.
This weekend there's a white van wedged halfway up the street.
That's the street with the 20-25% gradient, something they should have noticed on the way up. Presumably they noticed it on the way down, as it slid backwards into the stone wall of one of the houses.
With the rear in the garden, it may be safe -but as no breakdown van is going to come and retrieve it for days, there's the risk that it may start sliding down the hill again.
Hence the mooring. Somone has wrapped some nylon tape round one of the bollards on Springfield Road, and clipped it to one of the wheels. That may be enough.
For the curious, the van has "A shade greener" on it -this is a company that provides free solar panels to your roof in exchange for getting the feed in tariff back. It seems unlikely that the day where Bristol has had its heaviest snow for at least two years was a priority day for installing solar panels -let alone trying to drive up ninetree hill.
We would love to see the correspondence with the insurers on this one.
Someone has scraped "Doh" in the ice on the windscreen of FG61NXZ. We concur.
we must denounce the people who have a two-child tagalong to tow their children to school
Not only does it start to make the children think that there was an alternative to sitting in a car every morning, their parents are actually permitting the children to sit on the bicycle without putting their helmets on.
Neither of the children are wearing any hi-viz.
We are pretty confident that these kids are in the 47% who pay no tax whatsoever.
The residents of Fremantle Square have complained about its loss, and they have had their place returned,
No longer double yellow lines.
No longer (as it was before), a fading Keep Clear sign -still shown on Google Maps.. Now there is a sign proclaiming that any resident can park here on weekdays; anyone evenings and weekends!
We do note that this is actually marked on the Bristol Cycling Maps as a recommended cycle route, and fear that without formally closing the road the markings are invalid -hence some tax-dodging troublemaker could get cars ticketed for obstructing the highway.
The minor bit of clearance at the corner may be the get-out clause here,
These flats on Cotham Road South opposite the junction of Kingsdown
Parade and Horfield Hill were built only a few years ago with the car in
mind. The ground floor level includes garages with access across the
pavement to the road. However, I wonder if the developers failed to
realise just how useful garages are for keeping other things in apart
from cars ?
Perhaps they did as their clever design hints at the
existence of a driveway in front of the garages. This hint has not been
overlooked by this tax-payer who is presumably pleased that the bus stop
outside the garages gives pedestrians the satisfaction of making good
use of what we all regard as an underused part of the road network.
Indeed we should applaud this as an example of "integrated public
transport". I was unable to stay for long and determine the effect on
pedestrians of an approaching bus.
Yours dearly, "R"
This is a fine example of integrated transport. We also suspect that as this is in the Kingsdown RPZ, such imaginative parking will allow the resident to avoid needing to pay extra anti-motorist tax on their vehicle.
Some people expect us to come out the newspaper's side. Sorry, we're a data driven project which means we drive out to get the data.
1. The RPZ makes it easier for us to get past bicycles as they now keep closer in to the pavement. Result: time saved, and with less fear of dooring, even the underpeople seem happier.
2. The spaces that were normally used by commuters are now free for delivery vehicles.
We don't get held up by vans in our way who don't move until we sound our horn and shout at them.
Our vans can park outside their destination without having to walk or double park and get harassed by people trying to get past.
Kingsdown is one of our popular destinations in the sex-trade-supply-chain, especially as some of the massage parlours use our services to give the punters a lift up the hill again "after you get it up -we get you up", the slogan goes. Having easy parking makes this faster and more discreet.
We suspect the Clifton-faction, the "Keep Parking Free" people will be foaming at the mouth at the expansion plans. Already the Clifton Conservatives are complaining that it has made illegal parking worse in other areas. This is not something our dataset shows, and we have data going back three years now.
We actually look forward to the rollout of an RPZ in Clifton, as that's another popular delivery destination for our products and faster journey and parking times will help our business model. They should get out more -we'll give them a ride home!
What do the Southwell Street changes mean? It'll be hard to tell until next term. Already, though, it seems to create the (false) impression that people on foot are welcome, and the zebra crossings appear to act as traffic calming too.
The restored pavement is in use. This will reduce car/pedestrian conflict, so actually be beneficial
That said, it also reduces bicycle/pedestrian conflict, while increasing bicycle/car conflict. This puts the blame on us, not them. Of course, put a van in front of these bollards "Only 15 minutes, guv", with another van on the pavement, and the old regime will be restored.
You can also see that the bollards are set up for a hard right turn into the pay and display car park. This makes it important to keep people off that pavement. It also makes us suspicious that the bollard placement was explicitly designed to remove the short-stay parking option on that side of the bollards. You can't park there without blocking the car park. Yes, you may be able to park the other side, but it's a ten minute journey round the block to get there.
Overall then, the bollards, the pavement and that deviously moved row of bollard don't appear to help us much. It's interesting to compare this with the original proposal, which was very much van-friendlier. Drive-in/back out parking spaces instead of pavement, room to park for delivery on both sides of the bollards. Assuming they dont' actually enforce parking in front of the bollards in the spaces currently in use, the physical parking capacity has been reduced by four. That's going to create tension, and making the bollards "opaque" to people on foot or pedals will create more. Now they will be upset if we park there, whereas before we could do it and not feel bad.
The key tactic here will be to set everyone's expectations up now. During the university holiday. We can take over the bollard area for parking, nobody will get used to cycling through it, and when term time begins, it will stay that way.
The gate has been removed and replaced by bollards.
Yes, you can still park a van against them, but as they are the people doing the roadworks, that may change.
More shockingly, the "ex-pavement" that was to still have NHS vans echelon-parked over it, has been reinstated as public pavement! This goes against the whole "shared space" theory, or, as we van drivers call it, the "our space" road design. It's all ours, see.
The car exit is as before, except the signs blocking off that pavement have been replaced with less bent ones, and anyone walking down that road gets to get in the way of cars pulling out -as you can just make out here through the windscreen of the beetle.
We think that zebra crossing is new. It's hard to see why they bothered.
Interesting they chose the phrase "hit by a car"; in London they tend to describe the bicycle as hitting the car, before going on to discuss whether they had a helmet on.
The location was describe as the junction of St Michael's Hill and Horfield Road. We've noted how this isn't that much fun in a car. This collision happened at 22:22 on a Friday, so congestion would be minimal -and there is more chance of cars driving around fast.
Judging by the signs, the collision wasn't with Park Row, it was further up the hill. There's no further details yet on what happened.
Some possibilities:
Car and bicycle heading down the St Michaels Hill, collision.
Car and bicycle heading down Horfield Road, collision.
Bicycle heading up St Michaels Hill, collides with car also going up St Michaels Hill
Those are the normal two vehicles in the same-direction incidents. This junction adds some more, all of which tend to lead to side-on collisions:
Bicycle heading down St Michaels Hill, collides with car going down Horfield Road, or up St Michaels Hil.
Bicycle heading down Horfield Road collides with car pulling out St Michaels Hill and heading downhill
Bicycle heading up St Michaels Hill towards Horfield Road, gets hit by a car going straight up St Michaels Hill
Nobody rational turns from St Michaels Hill into Horfield Road; its too tight. There are other options further up the hill.
The highest risk actions on a bicycle are probably
Heading down from St Michaels Hill, where you are exposed to vehicles heading in either direction. Gravity works in the bicycle's favour here, it pulls the bicycle forward and minimises the time side-on to traffic.
Heading up towards Horfield Road, where the bicycle rider is curving right and pushing slowly up something steep -any vehicle heading up St Michaels Hill in a hurry may turn over them. It's like a left hook only without the car making the left turn, it just goes straight on (hence faster), even though the road lanes turn rightwards.
On a bicycle, before the building works started, heading up through the BRI car park (the former Terrell Street) was apparently a lower hassle option. Follow the signs to A&E from Park Row, then head out to Horfield Road, or turn right to Marlborough Hill and a final bit of climbing.
We have no more details than the BBC article -and wish the cyclist a speedy and full recovery.
The tax-dodgers are complaining about Shared Streets this week -that they really mean "streets mostly for cars and vans". Exactly. Given a choice between a pedestrian area and a shared street, we'd go for the shared street. Once you get a hang of the chicanes they can be quite fun.
Southwell Street, our unofficial logo, is being "improved". We know that, as the vans to do it are parked there this week. Expect photos soon. But before that, the plans.
As people will recall, the concerns by the non-drivers about this area were
uphill pavement turned into NHS parking, possibly illegally.
no way for bicycles to get through except on the pavement
the pavement was blocked to give priority to staff cars
both dead ends were used as short stay parking for vans
Overall then a van-and-staff friendly area, with pedestrians as an afterthought, and one of those deliberately created bike/walker conflict zones to divide the opposition, all on the premier walking route from Gloucester Road to Bristol University, and hence full of students. By creating such conflict we could discourage people from trying to do this.
We were initially worried, then, when this draft plan hit our inbox, "a shared space".
Then we saw some emails from Ben Hamilton-Baillie, who we thought would approve of this fusion of walking and driving. Yet he seemed unimpressed
Most residents in Kingsdown feel, as I do, pretty insulted to be presented with a sketch of such pathetically poor quality for Southwell Street.
If the UHB really believes that Southwell Street and other streets in and around Kingsdown can be treated with such contempt, we should not give them any support. I have seen work experience students aged 16 produce more intelligent work than AECOM’s output for UHB. I only hope the hospital trust is not having to pay them fees as well....
Finally, we saw this video from a tax-dodging pavement cyclist who encounters the designers, and provides some feedback.
At 00:10 the Ginster delivery van does a U-turn without indicating, at which the troublemaker engages in discussion with the driver about, that and the fact that it isn't making any beeping noises. Well, the lorry pays more road tax, and isn't of a size where it needs the beeps. That shuts them. Remember that lorry though.
At 1:02 they execute the highly illegal "pavement bypass" option, so endangering pedestrians.
At 1:16 they meet the a hi-viz'd person planning the traffic calming area -and say to them the plan sucks, because painting a bit of pavement, whether it's in coloured paint or some cobbles down the middle of the road is utterly meaningless. They mutter on a bit, and we think their key point is that taking one pavement off for car parking and closing the other off for safe car park access is somehow wrong.
At 1:38 the cyclist, who is standing in the middle of the "person on the road" lane is actually forced to wheel their bike backwards to let a car out of the staff carpark. This shows to us how the "shared space" design will have no effect on our daily lives, so may as well be permitted. There is a risk of some benefit to people trying to cycle here -as they won't be quite so discouraged by having to hop on and off the pavement, but if we block the bollards with vans often enough, they'll be discouraged differently.
At 1:48 the troublemaker demands some of the pavement back. We'd hoped to have some good news there, but based on the building work it looks like these people have got their way. Somewhat. Wait until tomorrow for the specifics there.
At 2:02 they express concern that the dropoff area in front of the hospital is chaotic, and it will remain so. Well, that's why it's called a dropoff area, isn't it? If people were expected to do dropoffs and pickups on St Michael's hill, there'd be an area there instead.
at 2:20 their rant finishes and they finally head off, presumably to the relief of the site team. They then proceed down a road that clearly has room for parking all down one side, yet lacks it. And there are an oddly large number of pedestrians, given the effort the NHS has gone to here to discourage walking.
At 2:43 you can see some people trying to cross Horfield Road. Notice the wide five-junction crossing here. It's a dangerous exposed crossing and people shouldn't attempt it, not when there is a zebra crossing further up the road, as the video shows at 3:07. If people aren't prepared to cross the road where a crossing has been provided, well, it's like people on bicycles not using the bike lanes.
At the zebra crossing they do a U-turn, and at 3:08 show what is paveparked over yellow lines round the corner: Ginster delivery van HN58LVK. Purely because Southwell Street doesn't support through traffic, that van had to do a 180 degree turn in a narrow drop-off street, turn right up St Michael's Hill, right again on to Myrtle Road, then onto Alfred place. One U-turn and two right turns -not just a philosophy for the coalition government, it's costing the company money. The DfT puts a financial cost on critical business motoring, and its clear that closing this road has tangible costs to that key part of the economy: the white van.
Therefore, although the proposals don't take much away from us, they don't deliver what we need, either -the removal of the gate and the re-instatement of Southwell Street as a van-friendly rat-run!
The real issues in the city are surfacing now that Stokes Croft is calming down. Parking in Kingsdown -which is the place you want to be if you want to throw bricks down at the police, or have a quiet lunchtime beverage or two in the Hillgrove.
The good news is that someone is selling day passes on gumtree. 40 days for £50. Not bad, if these are the first fifty of a household -the ones you get free. If not, well, you can get 50 for £50, so you make £10 on each 40 you sell. We congratulate the vendor, Tom, for their entrepreneurial spirit.
update: the ad got deleted, so we've reproduced it except the phone number
40 x Bristol Kingsdown Visitor Parking Permits £50 kingsdown, Bristol
Reply to this ad or tom on (deleted)
Park in the kingsdown areaof bristol for roughly a pound a day.
Bargain. using a machine to payanddisplay would cost you a fortune
What we can't do is praise their information security tactics. Tom lists his phone number. Which, if you search for on google, brings up other references to someone called Tom Arkell, and their facebook page. We hope that he isn't the same Tom Arkell that's listed on the university law department rugby team, as one expectation of people studying law is reading and understanding things like the RPZ regulations which say that one-day passes "However, it cannot be transferred between households and must not be sold on."
Really, that's just incompetent. Tom: invest a couple of quid and get a disposable SIM card just for such transactions -or use a disposable email address. We would -if we had any permits to sell. As it is, we aren't interested, as with a disabled sticker on our van we don't need them.
Amusing view behind a bicycle on Cotham Road South.
As you can see the car, RJ53SPV, coming from Clevedon Terrace pulls out right in front of the bicycle. It's a clear day, no visibility problems, so why do that? Because the bicycle isn't important. It's not just to save five seconds, it's because its only a bicycle you are pulling out in front of, not, say, a bus. So it doesn't matter. The council can put as many "look out for bicycles" signs as it wants, they still won't matter. Same for pedestrians. If you matter, get in car.
Just a few photos here to celebrate Southwell St, by the St Michael's Hill hospital. What was once a road has been successfully turned by the BRI into a useful hospital facility, with lots of staff parking.
The presence of paving stones under the cars above has created some tension with the residents association, especially as no evidence has been found proving the pavement was "given" to the hospital. We say there's nowhere else to park.
We also understand why blocking the pavement and forcing pedestrians onto the road was the right thing to do. It is for their own safety.
Furthermore, painting a little sign of someone walking along what was once a pavement makes them feel grateful -and ensures that if they do get hit by a car and were walking anywhere else, well, they didn't follow the signs.
Like we said, we have heard rumours of change here. We now have the documents and some of the emails -and very interesting they are too.
But before publishing them, consider this: this road will be the first sight of the city for all children born in this hospital. To try and make it friendly to pedestrians and cyclists would be an attempt to redefine our city, not just for the adults, but for these newborn. Therefore we want to be the first to say that we are glad that the hospital is attempting to do the least it can get away with, namely painting the bits where pedestrians are meant to walk in more solid colours. We could call them "walking superhighways".
One amusing consequence of the RPZ is that as the fine for parking without a resident permit in the "permitted parking" area is the as for parking on double yellow lines, if you aren't resident, you may as well park where it is most convenient to you.
Nice, though S826TAW could have pulled forward a bit more. We would have.
Freemantle Square, the council is happily making us pay even more for the right to park near the inner city, and ticketing those who resist!
Fortunately, just down the hill, the zone ends, and on Springfield road, you can double park provided you stay far enough away from the yellow lines as to not infringe them.
Cyclists coming up Ninetree hill should be grateful for this considerate parking by V281MGO
Marlborough Hill is 25% gradient zero visibility at the bottom. When the council was asking for places to put in contraflows for bicycles, this was one where even the tax dodgers consensus was "no, too dangerous" -though as they have ninetree hill as their secret cut-through, they have less need of it than us motorists. Usually.
This rider is brave, and descends at a speed where there would be no opportunity to steer out out the way or stop were something big to come out of a side road.
You can see it in the video -and hear it to; the sound of hign-end knobbly tyres on wet tarmac. tyres which offer less surface area on tarmac that slick tyres, and hence can sustain less braking force in the wet. Mud, they work, but on road, not so useful.
We've covered the rules for aggressive downhill work before: runout, align, commit! This MTBer is aligned, and 100% committed, but the runout looks dubious. All it takes is a vehicle to pull out from the upper of the two road, the one he turned into, and it's game over.
What's also interesting here is the sheer number of people walking up and down this hill. Walking and cycling activists could make the case for downgrading this from a road to a pedestrian/cycle path. We're against that, obviously, because it would eliminate a secret rat-run from Kingsdown to Dighton Street -one used by cars, cyclists and pedestrians alike
Good to see that there are still some parking places hiding away in Kingsdown, like on Fremantle Square.
Although there are double yellow lines on each of the corners with Thomas Street, if you park your car right in the middle of the bollarded route, as BF02FVK has done, you aren't on any. It appears to be legal to park here. Why the bollards? Its a cycling city route, see.
Incidentally, for anyone who thinks that Kingsdown is now upmarket, what with the residents parking, we disagree. The Cotham Porter Stores pub is its very own bit of darkest Somerset, while Thomas Street boasts its very own Banksy. Here it is, framed.
Opposite, on a side of road that will soon apparently get yellow lines, that other sign of city life: someone has broken the window to steal something.
Question is, was it the classic -satnav- or was it one of the new resident permits?
Posts
