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.