The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 bans pavement parking, and the Scottish Government is now consulting on the legislation that councils will need to implement this.
The consultation closes on 11 March 2022. Our thoughts on the consultation are below:
We believe the pavement parking legislation is already badly weakened by exemptions to allow loading and deliveries, but part of this secondary legislation will weaken it further by allowing councils to exempt entire streets from the ban. It suggests two reasons why a council may apply for an exemption:
- The footway is wide enough to allow pavement parking while maintaining a 1.5m (down to 1.2m for ‘short’ sections) path.
- The carriageway is too narrow to allow emergency vehicles to pass if vehicles park on the carriageway rather than the footway.
Our position is that neither of these is acceptable. Parking on the pavement should be banned outright and pedestrian space should not be re-allocated for parking vehicles. This includes on both sides of a street. Allowing pavement parking on one side of a street discriminates against those who need to access that side of the street but can’t reliably do so at all times of the day and night.
We oppose pavement parking exemptions for three main reasons:
- The Scottish Government’s own sustainable transport hierarchy puts pedestrians and wheelers (those using mobility aids such as wheelchairs) at the top of the hierarchy. For this hierarchy to work, pavements must be kept clear of clutter, including parked vehicles, at all times. Pavement parking can prevent people using guide dogs, people using mobility aids, and people pushing children in buggies from using the pavements. It is unacceptable to force people out into the street and into moving traffic to get around parked vehicles. Pavement parking prevents people from moving around their neighbourhoods, visiting friends and family, and accessing essential services and leisure activities. In Portobello, Edinburgh, there are some streets where people park on the pavements on both sides of the street. Vehicles are nose to tail and there is not enough space for a person using a mobility aid such as a wheelchair to squeeze between the cars. A person may start up one end of pavement, get blocked by a parked vehicle, not be able to get out onto the street and around it, and have to return. These streets are essentially out of bounds for those already facing significant travel barriers.
- Allowing pavement parking will encourage encroachment and ‘mission creep’. For example, while drivers may be told they have to leave a certain amount of space for pedestrians on a particular pavement, how will this be monitored and enforced? How can we trust drivers to leave this space when many drivers are demonstrating already that they are willing to block access? Visually impaired people, and those using mobility aids, need certainty that pavements will be accessible at all times. Uncertainty creates stress and anxiety and reduces route options for people both in their own neighbourhoods, and areas that they wish to visit.
- Pavement parking damages pavements. The damage can result in trip hazards. The damage also has to be repaired, putting unnecessary financial burdens on councils that are already strapped for cash. These burdens will be passed on to council tax payers.
If there ever were a case where there was sufficient footway space, and where more parking absolutely had to be provided, then the existing TRO process could be used to convert part of the footway to carriageway and the kerb line moved. This retains the distinction between footway and carriageway and maintains a clear ban on pavement parking. However, given the sustainable transport hierarchy, we are generally opposed to the conversion of footway space to road space except in very limited circumstances.
In the second case, if the carriageway is too narrow to allow emergency vehicle access when there are vehicles parked, then parking should not be permitted.
Lastly, the proposal for a separate process to allow councils to apply for exceptions is deeply unfair and biased in favour of parking. Allocation of road space to pedestrian or cycling infrastructure currently requires a TRO, a process which is long winded and not fit for purpose. The proposal for a quicker and simpler, process to allow pedestrian space to be used for parking make it far easier to convert pedestrian space to parking than the other way round.
Spokes Porty will be responding to the consultation on this basis. Do make your views known. We hope the Scottish Government will take our views on board. The sustainable travel hierarchy should not be just words and a diagram in a policy document. It must be implemented on the ground.
I totally agree with the wording and the sentiment of the Spokes Porty response. I can provide umpteen photos like the one shown at the top of this piece.
There are so many benefits from active travel that it is a travesty if the Scottish Government does not uphold the traffic hierarchy which gives priority to the most vulnerable road users, pedestrians and particularly those who need a clear pavement. In the name of health and safety for all, let’s have clear rules that motorists cannot explain away with various exemptions.
Many of our cities, towns and villages are from medieval times and roads can be narrow. In these cases one-way streets can be part of the solution, as can pedestrianisation and rerouting of motorised traffic. Let’s prioritise the healthy option, active travel, which in the longer term will bring a safer and higher quality environment and thereby save money.
I absolutely agree with the above response. Living in Portobello with small children, walking with buggies and shopping, and teaching kids to cycle under the current conditions and the ones proposed is plain impossible to do safely. A radical change is long overdue, and the new Act needs to be properly implemented in practice rather than bypassed by exceptions.
Apart from safety, it is also about quality of life and a pleasant neighbourhood, which is ultimately in the interest of ALL the public and the economic interest of the Portobello community. A more pedestrianised Portobello will ultimately be more attractive to visitors, regardless of the loss of car parking spaces.
I have already responded.
Regulations surrounding yellow lines and paid parking bays, one-way streets, pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings, bus lanes and speed limits have no exceptions.
There is no reason for pavement parking being any different.
If you are charged and you feel there are mitigating circumstances than you write to the court as you do for any of the other offences, and allow the court to make the decision.
No exemptions, no exceptions.
Pavements are for people.
Well said and very relevant points – fully agree that pavement parking must be banned outright, it’s way overdue for Scotland to get this implemented in practice!
agree with spokes position on this.
I am a white cane user and would welcome a ban on parking on pavements for all the reasons mentioned above.
Mobility for myself is challenging enough without pavement parking.
Also as a council tax payer , I strongly object to money being spent on repairing pavements which have been damaged needlessly and avoidably by bad car parking.
There is little enough money available to keep our streets safe, clean and clutter free and there appears to be no money available to rid the promenade of sand mound hazards, causing danger to cyclists and pedestrians like me who cannot see very well!