Streets are for people

Street space is a public asset. It belongs to us all. In a high density area such as ours, it becomes even more valuable. Setting aside large parts of it for the exclusive benefit of a minority is highly problematic. The physical domination of our streets by cars, whether moving or parked, deprives the community of what was within living memory multi-use space.

• Children are no longer allowed to play in the street.
• Getting about is more difficult and hazardous for everyone.
• Socialising in the street is limited.

When vehicles are stored on-street, people walking and cycling are always worse off as a result. Sight lines are restricted, and parked vehicles present a physical barrier to access. It is common for over half of the width of a street to be taken up with parked vehicles. Particular risks to cyclists come from motorists pulling out carelessly, and from thoughtlessly opened doors, the cause of a large proportion of injuries to cyclists.

Aims of the Controlled Parking Zone

The London Cycling Campaign in Hackney welcomes the introduction of the Hoxton and Haggerston Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), and recognises that it provides opportunities to lessen the negative impact of motor vehicles on our streets.

In addition to the stated aims¹ of the CPZ, we strongly recommend that the implementation of the scheme be guided by the Transport Sustainability Indicators contained in the Hackney Agenda 21 report "Hackney Tomorrow: Shaping a better future", (see appendix) which include:

• increase in proportion of trips by modes other than cars, and
• area of roadspace taken out of use for car parking.

The CPZ proposals still appear to be strongly influenced by:

• compliance with minimum road safety engineering standards, rather than maximum encouragement for people to walk, cycle and use public transport;
• income generation from business permit holders; and
• catering to the demand from the minority for car parking.

The following facts about the area should be kept in mind when deciding on matters which affect access and mobility:

• Two thirds of households in Shoreditch neighbourhood do not have access to a car³. (Shoreditch includes generally more prosperous De Beauvoir, so the figure may be higher still for Hoxton and Haggerston).In households with access to a car, the primary user is generally the main beneficiary, with other members of the household mostly dependent on other modes of travel.
• The population of the CPZ area is around 20,000³, yet CPZ proposals would mean that our streets will continue to be dominated by car parking in order to provide a mere 1270 spaces. The CPZ would nevertheless legitimise all the consequent loss of amenity for the mass of the population.
• There is relatively little public open space in Shoreditch. Apart from the streets, of course.
• The proportion of residents aged 65+, at 13%, is the highest of any neighbourhood in the Borough³.
• 45% of all journeys in Hackney are on foot or by cycle⁴.
• 3 out of every 10 traffic casualties in Hackney are pedestrians⁴.
• Over 10% of people in Hackney are affected by physical disabilities⁴.

Inadequacy of consultation

The scheme has been shaped almost entirely by the views of car owners. The methods of consultation used may be standard practice at present, but they clearly do not comprehensively reflect the views and needs of the whole population. Questionnaires will mostly have been returned by the head of the minority of households which have access to a car. It is likely that women, older people and children will be under-represented among respondents. The same will have been true of people motivated to come and comment at the exhibition.

People in the large majority of households in this area which do not possess motor vehicles will probably have seen the word `parking' in the title and switched off, thinking that the consultation did not apply to them, and not realising that a proposal such as this will have lasting repercussions on their local environment. What was the proportion of non-car owners who made responses? How are their interests reflected in the process? A more inclusive consultation exercise might, for instance, have asked children whether they would like to be able to play and ride bikes safely in their streets.

Policy context

The Road Traffic Reduction Act 1996 obliges local authorities to plan for the reduction of motor traffic, as well as an increase in bicycle usage.

Hackney's Transport Policies and Programme aims include providing safer and more convenient facilities for pedestrians and cyclists; discouraging car commuters; and controlling and limiting parking.

The Government Office for London document `Traffic Management and Parking Guidance - a new approach' will inform new guidance to replace the outdated Circular 5/92. The consultation paper already makes clear that the broad thrust of guidance will be "to make traffic management and parking controls serve a wider set of environmental, social and economic priorities, and to encourage modal shift from car to public transport, cycling and walking."

The Hackney Agenda 21 report `Hackney Tomorrow: Shaping a better future', was adopted by full Council in January of this year. It contains seven Transport Sustainability Indicators, one of which is `total amount of roadspace converted for use by pedestrians, cyclists and buses only', measurable by area of road taken out of use for car parking or through motor traffic.

The Local Cyclists Manifesto⁵ was presented to the Mayor in December 1995 and supported by both local MPs. One of its ten action points is the return of one-way streets to two-way operation for cycle traffic.

Car commuting should be the initial target

Since on-street car parking provides convenience for a minority at the expense of the majority, it would be equitable to reduce the space allotted to residents' parking.

However, the initial target should be to reduce business permit parking, since we believe that much of what is proposed will be used, as it is now, by longer term commuters, whose journeys should be made by other modes. This priority is recognised by the Hackney Agenda 21 report `Hackney Tomorrow: Shaping a better future', which focuses on the role of CPZs in limiting non-local motor traffic. Of course traders and businesses need spaces for vehicles carrying goods, but it is not clear how the scheme distinguishes between such legitimate parking and longer term commuter parking⁶. Business permit spaces should only be provided where it can be shown that they will not encourage commuting by car.

Proposed business permit charges are too cheap

Traffic Management and Parking Guidance - a new approach states (paragraph 2.6) that parking restrictions by local authorities should ensure that on-street space is generally more expensive than off-street space and the cost of public transport alternatives. The proposed charge of £300 per annum for a business permit holder is a bargain compared with the cost of storing vehicles in the private car parks in the area, which charge between £6 per day in predominantly commercial Cremer Street and £3 per day in more residential Crondall Street, and do not have the inherent flexibility of an on-street parking permit. The charge would almost certainly also prove cheaper than public transport alternatives.

Cycle parking should be included in the CPZ

There is no cycle parking proposed in the CPZ plans. Where space has been identified for on-street parking, we believe it should be seriously considered whether some of it can be used for cycle stands. See comments on Hoxton Street below (1.3). If this idea is thought desirable, but money is not available immediately, the likely spaces should be `safeguarded' for this purpose.

The CPZ is just the first stage

GOL says that CPZs should be viewed as the first stage in a programme of favouring the sustainable modes. We agree. That is why the greatest care should be taken to ensure that what we decide to do now will not prove to be in conflict with the further stages in that programme.

Summary of Recommendations

• Implementation of the scheme should be guided by the Transport Sustainability Indicators contained in the Hackney Agenda 21 report "Hackney Tomorrow: Shaping a better future", (see appendix).
• Business permit spaces should only be included in the scheme where it can be shown that they will not encourage commuting by car.
• Cycle parking should be an integral part of planning for parking.
• Consideration should be given to our detailed suggestions (below) on grounds of safety, access and `safeguarding'.
• Methods of consultation should ensure that the views and needs of the whole population are balanced in decisions affecting public space.
• Above all, parking policy should not be treated in isolation from issues such as access, mobility, health, and community development.

Detailed suggestions

1. Hoxton St

1.1 Proposed echelon parking spaces south of junction with Nuttal St.

1.1.1 End-on parking packs in more vehicles over a given length of street than parallel parking. The more car parking, the more car traffic. LCC in Hackney would recommend its avoidance on these grounds alone. Echelon parking also increases the risks to safety of vulnerable road users due to the poor sight lines available to car drivers entering and leaving a parking space. The space between parked cars has in some cases been an attractive play space for young children, unseen by cars quickly pulling into the space. On leaving the space, drivers have a poor view of cyclists and other vehicles in the road, which can easily cause collisions.

1.1.2 Proposed spaces as drawn on both sides of the gates would actually block existing cycle gaps.

1.1.3 Vehicles are currently parked end-on here, and there is a problem of footway overhang. With few exceptions, drivers run their wheels right up to the kerb. The resulting overhang can be up to a metre. Less footway is consequently available for use by pedestrians. If echelon parking is adopted, it should be policy for parking attendants to ticket overhanging vehicles.

1.1.4 Proposed spaces between 196 and 202 Hoxton Street (east side) would actually increase parking from present level, as stalls are currently stored outside 202.

1.2 Parking between Pimlico Walk and Fanshaw Street

1.2.1 Four spaces are proposed each side of Hoxton street for business permit holders and meters. Parking on both sides as at present makes the carriageway very narrow here. Cyclists are at risk of injury from opened car doors here when passing vehicles being driven in the other direction, and many drivers do not exercise sufficient restraint on their speed in this section considering the hazardous conditions. The situation is equally difficult for pedestrians wishing to cross the street. It is recommended spaces are removed from at least one side.

1.3 Lack of cycle parking provision for Hoxton town centre

1.3.1 In view of central and local government policy to increase trips made by cycle, there should be an effort to provide cycle parking in and around Hoxton's busy town centre.

1.3.2 The implementation of the Controlled Parking Scheme presents a useful opportunity for LBH to rectify the absence of cycle parking.

1.3.3 There is suppressed demand for visitor cycle parking in Hoxton Street. There is actually very little street furniture in Hoxton Street suitable for informal cycle parking, but what there is is often used to secure cycles. In Hoxton Hall, which is already a significant generator of cycle trips, bikes are often stored in unsuitable indoor accommodation, e.g. in the stairs, causing a potential hazard in case of fire.

1.3.4 Space for parking on the street has been identified in the proposals, but it has all been earmarked for motor vehicles. It is not easy to find locations for cycle stands in the busiest part of the street, either on the footway or on the street, but we do suggest consideration of the following two on-street locations for cycle parking:

• At least one space proposed for echelon car parking near the Nuttal Street junction could be used for cycle parking on a buildout.
• Similarly, one or more of the pay and display spaces proposed for the west side of Hoxton Street between Falkirk Street and Pimlico Walk could be used for a buildout with cycle parking. This would cater in particular for cycle trips generated by the new Shoreditch Library opposite, and would break up the physical barrier caused by this length of stored vehicles. There are at least two recent precedents in the Borough for pay and display spaces being given over to cycle parking (Gillett Street and Hackney Central car parks).

2. Fanshaw Street

2.1 Fanshaw Street is currently subject to one-way working eastbound. The narrow section east of Aske Street has business permit parking proposed on its south side. This would make the carriageway too narrow to accommodate a contraflow cycle lane to allow westbound cycle movement.

2.2 The Local Cyclists' Manifesto, which has the support of both of Hackney's MPs, was presented to the Council nearly two years ago. One of its ten action points recommends that the Council "provide contraflow cycle lanes along all one-way streets in the borough". The arguments in favour of such provision are widely accepted, and contraflow lanes have recently been introduced in one-way schemes in the borough, notably at Greenwood Road and Navarino Road.

2.3 The tide is generally turning in favour of two-way working throughout the area. A consultants' report recently presented to the Council concluded that the Shoreditch one-way system could in large measure be reclaimed for two-way working. When, as seems likely, this scheme is implemented, it will be difficult to justify cycle traffic being penalised by one-way systems in nearby streets. It has been a long-held ambition to return Hoxton Street south of Fanshaw Street to two-way working for cycles, and the corollary of two-way provision on Pitfield Street south of St John's Church would be equally desirable and practical.

2.4 In view of the probable future implementation of contraflow lanes wherever possible, Fanshaw Street should be safeguarded for this. It is therefore recommended that the proposed business permit parking in question be removed from the plans.

2.5 When a contraflow lane is provided on its narrow section, with cycle slips at both ends, the broad, westerly section of Fanshaw Street could be returned to two-way working for all vehicles. This, in conjunction with traffic calming measures, would result in lower speeds, greater amenity for all road users, and an improved local environment.

2.6 It would be desirable for these improvements to be made in tandem with the implementation of the Controlled Parking Zone, and there would be significant practical advantages in doing so.

3. Falkirk Street

3.1 Pay and display spaces are proposed outside the Community College. There is already off-road parking provided on the Community College site, and it is the College's policy to restrict car parking so as to favour access by sustainable modes. Since the College opened, there has been widespread parking on the south side of Falkirk Street during the day, despite present restrictions. It is recommended that the current parking restrictions on this side of the street be maintained and rigorously enforced.

4. Pitfield Street

4.1 Pitfield Street north of the New North Road junction is a designated cycle route, but it is unpleasant and hazardous for cyclists due to the narrowing of the carriageway by car parking. Cyclists would welcome the modest reduction in car parking envisaged, but would prefer to see it eliminated considering the narrowness of this street and the strategic importance of this route.

4.2 Residents' parking spaces are proposed at the north end of Pitfield Street outside Clinger Court. The northernmost two spaces opposite the entrance to the park would cause particular difficulty for southbound cyclists since they are located on a corner where the carriageway is already fairly narrow.

4.3 Business permit parking spaces are proposed on the east side of Pitfield Street just south of the Youth Centre. Southbound cyclists would be forced out towards the middle of the carriageway just before the road widens. The northernmost three spaces should be removed.

5. Pearson Street

5.1 Parking spaces are proposed in front of the entrance to Apples and Pears play centre. This entrance should be regarded in the same way as a school entrance, with strict restrictions on vehicle parking so as to reduce the risks for children crossing the street to access the play centre.

6. Stanway Street

6.1 The CPZ gives the opportunity to improve the situation for both cyclists and pedestrians on Stanway Street, which has a particularly large amount of pedestrian traffic crossing between Geffrye Court and Hoxton Street. It is noted that all the spaces planned on the west side of the street would be for business permit holders. If the residents are to lose their parking spaces on the west side, the preferable course would be to ban parking on this side of the road entirely, thereby radically improving the street environment.

6.2 Business permit spaces opposite Sara Lane Court are a particularly bad idea, as they would perpetuate the current double-sided parking on this bend, which is hazardous due to poor sight lines and narrow carriageway.

7. Geffrye Street and Ormsby Street

7.1 On these back streets near commercial premises, the aim seems to have been to encourage as much commuting by car as possible. The Council is now required to plan for reduction in car use; just because there is plenty of space available on the street, it should not all be used for car parking.

7.2 The long rows of business permit spaces proposed would mean a potentially unbroken barrier of vehicles facing footway users for up to 150 metres. The serried ranks of stored vehicles would not even be broken opposite junction of Geffrye Street and Dunloe Street, causing difficulties for pedestrians, especially for those with restricted mobility, wishing to cross from the footway on the west of Geffrye Street into Dunloe Street.

7.3 It is recommended that the rows of spaces be broken up opposite the Dunloe Street junction and at other points in both streets to allow easier access between footway and street.

8. Whiston Road

8.1 Currently, parking on both sides of this busy cross-route means that there is not sufficient room for motor vehicles to pass cyclists safely when there is traffic oncoming in the other direction, although many drivers do force their way past cyclists, intimidating them into riding too close to parked vehicles.

8.2 The CPZ proposals do nothing to alleviate this situation. It is noted that a substantial proportion of spaces marked are for business permit holders and meters. If the number of such spaces were reduced considerably, parking could be concentrated on one side of the street for some or all of the length of the street, massively improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

Trevor Parsons, London Cycling Campaign in Hackney, October 1997

Notes

1. "...to reduce the illegal, unregulated and obstructive parking that takes place over a wide area. The intention of the scheme is to regulate parking by designating parking places on the highway with special provision for the needs of residents and businesses whilst discouraging longer term commuter parking that takes place over a large part of the proposed controlled area." Paul Douglass, initial consultation letter, 31/1/97.

2. There would, however, actually be increases on present level in at least two areas: Hoxton Street and Stanway Street - see paragraphs 1.1.4 and 6 above.

3. Statistics taken from Socio-economic and demographic profile of Shoreditch Neighbourhood, published by the Strategic Policy Unit, Chief Executive's Office, London Borough of Hackney.

4. Statistics taken from the Hackney Agenda 21 report, `Hackney Tomorrow: Shaping a better future'. Available at Hackney Council's website.

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/agenda21/contents.htm

5. Available at the LCC in Hackney's website.

http://www.hackney-cyclists.org.uk/manitext.htm

6. The DETR document `Traffic Management and Parking Guidance - a new approach' states that local authorities should "develop explicit priorities for parking `need'."

Appendix

Hackney Agenda 21 Report's Transport Sustainability Indicators

In the borough of Hackney each year: