This is a blog about Preston Transport and the issues I have found that faces the sector. I would be grateful if you could post any comments with the issues I have raised. Enjoy!
Saturday 6 December 2008
ARTICLE 3: CASE STUDY LIVERPOOL AND EVERTON
Residents living near other Football Stadiums within this country, face similar problems with those in Preston.
This article illustrates the methods, other clubs use to tackle the problem.
The home grounds of Liverpool FC and Everton FC are both based in residential areas, which results in football fans parking their cars on the roadside, causing problems for residents on match days.
To reduce this problem Liverpool council set up a Football Match Parking Zone (FMPZ).
The FMPZ is designed to provide parking spaces for residents living close to the City’s two main football grounds, Anfield and Goodison.
Picture by andy munray on flickr
It works by issuing permits to residents within the zone, which they are to display on their cars on match days.
These parking permits only apply on match days and the normal criteria are enforced on other days.
To reduce the amount of traffic like Preston the council also uses designated parking (special parking lots) and Park and Ride. They also produce alternative parking which is one of the reasons being cited, explaining why those stadiums are flourishing.
However when reviewing this success story, keep in mind that both these stadiums are covered by section 106. Therefore they are obliged to give money to the council. Other areas around championship clubs like Leicester FC and Blacpool FC face similar problems to those of Deepdale residents.
Parking Permits are a measure designed to allow car owning residents the opportunity of parking close to their home by restricting the parking of others.
There are over 153 parking zones within Preston with 16 in the areas around the stadium.
PROS
These permits give car owning residents of the zone the opportunity of parking close to their home. It potentially improves the general environmental aspects of the area. Also according to Preston council it generally reduces the number of vehicles in the area.
PERMIT ZONES
In each scheme, a street or a series of streets are called a parking zone. Within each zone a permit holder car park in the bays marked. Permit holders cannot use their permits in other zones.
Below is a map locating the permit zones in Preston where residents can apply for a parking permit. These zones fulfill the criteria set by the council.
key: BLUE P= Permit holders can park anywhere on the street GREEN TIANGLE: Permit holders can only park in ceratin areas along the street.
As you can see on the map apart from the bottom part of St George's there are no permit sites around the stadium and especially around Deepdale stadium.
The zones are particulary situated towards the town centre with fewer and fewer towards the outskirts. CONS
Although widely used parking permits do have their own disadvantages.
Owning a pass does not guarantee a parking space will be available, nor does it guarantee that a resident will be able to park directly outside their house. This in many cases may lead to disputes amongst neighbours.
Russel Rees Head of Engineering for the council at the Central Area Forum elaborated on the problems.
He said: “Another issue is that zones cannot be enforced late into the evening, and some zones have more permits than there are spaces available.”
Mr Rees also explained that with parking schemes: “the number of available spaces might in fact be reduced as there would be a need to create defined parking bays.”
The parking wrangle around streets of Preston North End's ground continues to be a heated debate, in the run up to a crises meeting.
Residents have voiced their anger over fans "stealing their spots." Around the areas surrounding the stadium.
Russell Rees Head of Engineering at the council said: "I don't think we will ever get over the hurdles, it’s not a priority for me." He highlighted that the parking situation is much worse around the Frenchwood area."
One local man at the last central area forum meeting on the 26th of October said: "It's a nuisance. We can't do anything because there's nowhere to park when we get back."
Residents are calling for parking schemes to alleviate their parking problems. These hopes may be dashed.
"Criteria set down for permit areas state that parking must be a problem between8am and 6pm on five or more days." (lep hopes it)
Mr Rees explained that because the problem only occurs on match days for 2 to 3 hours twice a month for half the year, it is not a pressing problem.
"It is an inconvenience not a commuter problem." (REES)
Although Preston is run by two-tier authority the decision to create policy lies with the county council who implements the changes.
Mr Rees said that the problem:
"Is an amenity, partly convenience therefore the county council won't pay for it, they see is a responsibility of a city council."
Mr Rees explains that it is all about the issue with cost. To implement change within the area is estimated to cost £20,000 for a decent scheme.
Preston North End, according to a spokesperson is not obliged to help residents. They provide numerous sites around the stadium where fans can park and there are other locations like schools that provide parking spots.
There is a piece of law called Section 106 which forces football clubs to give money to the local authority to help with transport problems.
However they are only obliged to do this when stadiums reach a capacity of 18500 person’s consistency through the season, and the amount of money are nominal amounts (max £5,000). Since Preston North End at the moment only averages around 10,000 persons they are not obliged to give any money to the council.
Geoff Ollerton from the Preston Supporters Group said: “I don’t think the club can do anymore then they have, they already provide enough parking spaces.”
The football club feels no obligation to alleviate the problem. Matt Morris a spokesperson for the club said: “the conversation is between the council and the residents and not the club.”
“We do encourage fans to use parking projects that we operate and to use public transport.”
The club acts in corporation with stage coach to transport supporters to and fro from the stadium.
A special meeting on the issue is taking place on the 10th of December at Preston District Scope. The argument continues.
SUMMARY
1)T change the parking criteria
2)funding problems
3)forcing Preston North End to take an active role.
As a frequent commuter on northern rail I am now fully aware of the incident that occured this morning. Around 7.15am on Wednesday the 19th November a man was killed by a train at the Mintholme level crossing in Gregson Lane, Hoghton. As a result of this services were cancelled throughout this area and other trains were delayed. On the 7:40am train to Manchester Airport from Blackpool North, arriving in Preston at 8.05am people were clearly getting agitated. The train had been delayed at the junction before the station for 40 minutes. Passengers were kindly told the reason for the delay being a broken point in front of the train.
The whole train then proceeded to develop into a rucus where impaitient passengers started heckling the driver. Naturally a debate about the state of the British railyway system had started with everyone in consenus that it is the worst in Europe.
However the mood quickly changed to a sombre note when a passenger in front of me received a phone-call recalling the earlier events of the day. Whether the delay of the train was in anyway connected to the death of the man I dont know but in my opinion it seemned everyone including myself felt they were in the wrong. At this point, it then preceded a deafening silence till the train eventually got into Preston station.
If the two incidents were connected was it right for the conductor to lie maybe? whats your thoughts?
I recently did a background feature on speed cameras following the comment made by the Transport Minister. In a nutshell he said the current GATSO (fixed-speed) cameras that are used are "arbitary" and "unfair" to the public. He suggested that the new average-speed cameras should be used in their place.
Although I broadly agree with the Minister with them being unfair and that they are mostly a income generated tool for the council (3.4 million generated last year) I disagree with the alternative.
According to Andrew Andrew Head of Road Saftety for the AA he said that these cameras "are a different animal" to each other.
Whereas the GATSO camera compares two photographs, taking a half a second apart to calculate the speed. Average-speed cameras cover a six mile stretch of road and uses the time between the two cameras to work out the speed. Therefore forcing drivers to stick to the speed limit.
These new cameras are suitable for long stretches of roads (motorways) over 10 miles long.
They are not suitable for accident blackspots where the present fixed-speed cameras are located, because these blackspots don't cover the distance needed for average-speed cameras to work.
There is an argument posed by orgainisations like the Association for British Drivers that fixed-speed are a better option than average:
“Average-speed cameras create a constant nervous state on the drivers. They then put themselves on cruise control and then fall asleep, there are a very few places where they are justified.”
Although ABD is against any form of speed cameras they say: “fixed-cameras have some logic behind them, in that they could be used in specific accident blackspots to make dozy drivers think about what they were doing.”
However the AA disagrees with this statement:
Mr Howard argues that:
“they do work well on longer roads; there is a misconception that drivers are wrapped into moron mode, this is not true. They are aware of their surroundings.”
The AA believes that speed cameras of any-type work when they are placed in the right locations:
“With the amount of money they cost, road engineers take care in placing them at the right spots.”
John Davies project manger at the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety says:
“Speed cameras are effective at reducing road casualties in the areas that we have placed them.”
A survey conducted by the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety in September proved speed cameras were the most effective way of ensuring drivers stick to the limit. Roy Peters a spokesperson from the organisation said “we have no intention of scraping the fixed-speed camera’s for the new one’s, but it might be different tomorrow.”
Lancashire has 293 fixed-safety cameras with 30 of them within the city of Preston. We have the third highest number of cameras per population in the country.
Swindon was the first town to ditch speed cameras in October and places like Birmingam and Walsall are thinking of following suit. In my opnion for Preston to do this would be a terrible mistake. With the state of our roads overall I think speed cameras do work when they are used properly.
Unbalanced articles written by the Lancashire Evening Post on the 17th October do not add anything to the debate. By just swapping unsuited technology would be a mistake that could cost lives.
I have noticed on certain trains coming to and to fro-Preston that some trains are overcrowded not because their busy but because there are less carriages. On the otherhand trains that have been known to be quiet have been given extra carriages. My examples include the busy rout to Liverpool Limestreet containg only two carriages, where customers are forced to standup. On the otherhand the frequently quiet trains to Blcakpool North are practicalltically empty with an extra four carriages. This comes in light of the comment by Geoff Hoon that overcrowdwd trains are a good sign that more people are commuting. What do you think?
From my Police Contact who works for the Lancashire Police in Preston. I have learnt that young persons are more vulnerable to bag searches then other demographic. This is because the Police officers carrying out such searches at ports of entry are told to concentrate on people who are in their early twenty's. This power derives from Scetion 44 of The Terrorism Act 2000. This clause gives the police reasonable grounds to search a person if they believe they are a terrorist.
When I notice such searches in operation at Preston train station, I notice a random nature to the operation. In amongst a group of three my friend was the one to be searched where I and my other friend were allowed to leave and catch my train. Why my friend was searched and not me? Is an unanswered question. It gives you the impresson that such Police operations are a deterrance and if so why only search students?
When contacted about the issue the Police denied that such orders are issued and describe the searches as intelligence led.
