|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - parking
At Ball State, freshmen should be able to purchase better parking passes so they do not have to put up with the unnecessary expenses and hassles when the car is parked in the stadium lot.
Dana 22.9.2009. na zagrebačkom kvartu Trnje / Savica postavljeni su znakovi za naplatu parkiranja u 3. zelenoj zoni (Zinke Kunc, Ljerke Šram, Rogozova ...).
Kako se radi o parking prostorima koji su prvenstveno napravljeni kao parking za stanare istih (mjesta je premalo već godinama),
"Dovođenje reda na parkinge" i navodna ponuda povlaštenih mjesečnih karata za stanare nemaju smisla, jer nitko ne garantira da će naplaćeno mjesto uopće postojati.
Dakle, razlog je ubiranje dodatnog "harača", a ne pomoć stanarima Savice
The new Arena will be taking over a parking lot of which City/County employees park to get to work. We will lose 119 spaces and 5 handicap spaces. (Not including the several 1 hour parking spots that were available).
Currently Vanderburgh County employs approximately 850 full time employees and approximately 129 people employed by the City, not including the Police Dept.
Events that take place during weekdays at The Centre sometimes draw numbers in the thousands. When there are daytime events happening during the work week at The Centre, Civic Center employees have a very difficult time finding a parking spot in order to come to work. After the 10,000 seat Arena is built, that situation will only worsen. While they are building the Arena, will there also be a number of construction workers and pieces of equipment using the 'back 40'? There are other people that use the 'back 40', i.e. Signature School students, employees from the walkway and adjacent businesses.
Those of us with a one hour lunch period and need to leave for lunch, have a hard time getting back in an hour. Half of that time is spent on getting to and from our cars and the near impossible feat of finding another parking spot when returning from lunch!
Dave Rector sometimes sends memos informing Civic Center workers that there will be parking problems on certain days because of events at The Centre. If there are problems now, what is it going to be like when the Arena is open? We are told to get to work earlier to accommodate this problem. We do not get paid to come in early, just to make sure we have a parking spot to get to our jobs! We are not guaranteed a parking spot when we come to work. We have no designated spots for only City/County workers.
Possible solutions would be for each employee to have a permit to park in a specific spot. Or a well-patrolled parking garage behind the Civic Center. A walk overpass from that garage to the Civic Center would be ideal. Trolley service would also be a good solution for employees to use when having to park a long distance from the office. We know that walking is healthy but no one should have to walk several blocks in snow and ice and freezing temperatures in order to get to work, especially our handicap employees!
The City of Evansville and Vanderburgh County currently rents space in the Civic Center Complex from the Building Authority. Does this agreement include parking spaces? Businesses are required to have a certain number of parking spaces available for employees and customers. Does the Civic Center meet those requirements?
Είμαστε εντελώς αντίθετοι στην πρόθεση του Δήμου Κερκυραίων να προβεί στην κατασκευή και παραχώρηση εκμετάλλευσης υπόγειου σταθμού αυτοκινήτων στην Πλατεία Σαρόκου.
Οι πόλεις και οι πλατείες κατασκευαστήκαν για τους ανθρώπους και όχι για τα αυτοκίνητα.
Δεν είμαστε πια διατεθειμένοι, όπως και άλλες φορές, να εξακολουθήσουμε να πληρώνουμε, κυριολεκτικά, την προχειρότητα, τη βιασύνη στο σχεδιασμό και την υποεκτίμηση των αναγκών της πόλης από τους τοπικούς αιρετούς. Η απόφαση/επιλογή της δημιουργίας υπόγειου χώρου στάθμευσης στην Πλατεία Σαρόκο δεν δικαιολογείται με την/από την ανάγκη να βρεθούν λύσεις στα οξύτατα προβλήματα στάθμευσης και στο κυκλοφοριακό κομφούζιο που παρατηρείται καθημερινά.
Σήμερα δεν μπορεί η πόλη μας να αναπτύσσεται και αναδιαμορφώνεται με τέτοιον τρόπο ώστε να εξυπηρετεί τα αυτοκίνητα και όχι τους ανθρώπους που την κατοικούν.
Την ίδια στιγμή που συζητάμε για πράσινες πόλεις, που όλη η Ευρώπη προσπαθεί να διώξει τα αυτοκίνητα από τα κέντρα των πόλεων και να δημιουργήσει περισσότερους χώρους για την κίνηση πεζών και ποδηλάτων, ο Δήμος σκέπτεται να πράττει το αντίθετο.
Στην απόφαση A6-0199/01-04-2009 του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου σχετικά με την εκπόνηση σχεδίου δράσης για την αστική κινητικότητα και στα μέτρα που προτείνει η Ε.Ε. δεν αναφέρεται πουθενά ότι η δημιουργία χώρων στάθμευσης εντός των κέντρων των πόλεων είναι χρήσιμη στην ΒΙΩΣΙΜΗ ΑΣΤΙΚΗ ΑΝΑΠΤΥΞΗ. Επισημαίνεται πως η κατασκευή υπόγειων γκαράζ στα κέντρα των πόλεων είναι μια αδιέξοδη λύση, κίνητρο για εντατικότερη χρήση του αυτοκινήτου. Τροφοδοτεί το φαύλο κύκλο του κυκλοφοριακού κορεσμού με αποτέλεσμα περισσότερη ατμοσφαιρική ρύπανση με τις γνωστές επιπτώσεις στην υγεία των πολιτών.
Οι υπόγειοι χώροι στάθμευσης στο κέντρο της πόλης έχουν αποδείξει πια ότι:
1. Δεν εξυπηρετούν τους κατοίκους αλλά μόνο τους τυχών επισκέπτες εξαιτίας των υψηλών τιμών τους (8-12 ευρώ την πρώτη ώρα).
2. Αυξάνουν την ατμοσφαιρική ρύπανση. Υπάρχουν μεγάλες τεχνικές δυσκολίες για την εγκατάσταση πράσινου στην επιφάνεια των υπόγειων πάρκινγκ. Τέτοιες είναι προβλήματα στεγανοποίησης, η ανάγκη εξαερισμού, το πάχος του εδαφικού επιφανειακού καλύμματος, η απαιτούμενη μεγάλη στατική ενίσχυση της κατασκευής κλπ..
3. Λειτουργούν και σαν βιομηχανίες ρύπων βενζολίου και μολύβδου, επιβαρύνοντας έτσι την ήδη επιβαρημένη ατμόσφαιρα της πόλης.
4. Περιορίζουν και υποβαθμίζουν τον ελεύθερο δημόσιο χώρο, λόγω των αναγκαίων επιφανειακών εγκαταστάσεών τους (είσοδοι-έξοδοι, ανελκυστήρες, εξαερισμοί).
5. Δεν λύνουν τελικά τα προβλήματα στάθμευσης και ως εκ τούτου το κυκλοφοριακό πρόβλημα σε μια πόλη. Η δημιουργία τους επιβαρύνει ακόμα περισσότερο την κυκλοφοριακή συμφόρηση πέριξ της πλατείας λόγω της αθρόας προσέγγισης πολλών οχημάτων που επιθυμούν να σταθμεύσουν στο υπόγειο πάρκινγκ.
Τα παραδείγματα για όσες πλατείες στην Αθήνα χρησιμοποιήθηκαν για υπόγειες εγκαταστάσεις είτε σταθμών του Μετρό, είτε υπόγειων χώρων στάθμευσης είναι χαρακτηριστικά και άκρως διαφωτιστικά με πολύ τσιμέντο και ελάχιστο πράσινο (Πλατεία Ομονοίας, Πλατεία Κοτζιά, Πλατεία Κοραή, Πλατεία Κλαυθμώνος, Πλατεία Κάνιγγος, Πλατεία Μοναστηρακίου, κλπ).
Για την λύση του κυκλοφοριακού, από τη στιγμή που η πόλη δεν διαθέτει περιφερειακές αρτηρίες, προτείνουμε αυτό που επιδιώκουν πια όλες οι σύγχρονες πόλεις, την Βιώσιμη Αστική Διαχείριση, που σημαίνει:
Ανάπτυξη περιφερειακών χώρων στάθμευσης με χρήση υβριδικών λεωφορείων για την τακτική μεταφορά των επιβατών σε συγκεκριμένα σημεία της πόλης, γνωστός ως Park & Ride. Οι πιθανοί χώροι που έχουν εντοπισθεί είναι τα εξής: Πλαζ Αγίας Αικατερίνης, οικόπεδο του ΑΣΚ στο εμπορικό, ιδιωτικό οικόπεδο στα Παγκρατέικα, οικόπεδο του Δήμου Κερκυραίων στην οδό Ι. Θεοτόκη, οικόπεδο των Αδελφάτων στις Κουλίνες).
Αποθάρρυνση της άσκοπης χρήσης, έλεγχος και περιορισμός της κυκλοφορίας και στάθμευσης των αυτοκινήτων στις κεντρικές αστικές περιοχές, αλλά και της λειτουργίας των ταξί σαν παρασυγκοινωνία και εφαρμογή κατάλληλης τιμολογιακής πολιτικής στάθμευσης που να προωθεί την μετεπιβίβαση στη δημόσια συγκοινωνία και να απελευθερώνει τον πολύτιμο χώρο των ιστορικών κέντρων ώστε να διατίθεται για πράσινο, περπάτημα, ποδήλατο και δημόσια συγκοινωνία.
Ενίσχυση των μέσων μαζικής συγκοινωνίας.
Απομάκρυνση δημόσιων υπηρεσιών ή καλύτερη αποκέντρωση τους ώστε να μην αυξάνονται τα αυτοκίνητα στο κέντρο της πόλης.
Αξιοποίηση δημόσιων ελεύθερων χώρων για την κίνηση των πολιτών και των επισκεπτών της πόλης.
Ένταξη της μετακίνησης και των μέσων της σε μια λογική εξυπηρέτησης της ζωής της πόλης και όχι το αντίθετο: η ζωή στην πόλη, δηλαδή, να καθορίζεται από τις ανάγκες που γεννά η μετακίνηση και τα μέσα της.
Προστασία και μέριμνα για τους χώρους ελεύθερης χρήσης από τους πολίτες για την βελτίωση της ποιότητα ζωής ως ολιστική συνολική αξία.
Ολοκληρωμένος Αστικός Σχεδιασμός.
Ο Δήμος Κερκυραίων δυστυχώς δεν έχει προωθήσει καμία μελέτη για να απορροφήσει τους κοινοτικούς πόρους από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης για την βελτίωση των υποδομών και μεταφορών της πόλης. Η έλλειψη αυτής της σημαντικής πρωτοβουλίας μαζί την πολύχρονη ανάγκη να ληφθούν ουσιαστικά κυκλοφοριακά μέτρα για την πόλη μας, δεν μπορεί να δικαιολογήσει αυτή την βιαστική απόφαση (δημιουργία υπόγειου πάρκινγκ) η οποία με βάση τα ευρωπαϊκά δεδομένα, εμπειρίες, έρευνες και στατιστικές έχουν πια αποδειχτεί ότι δεν φέρνουν το αναμενόμενο αποτέλεσμα και ταυτόχρονα επιβαρύνουν την ποιότητα ζωής των κατοίκων.
Media Release from Senator Humphries:
Senator Gary Humphries is outraged at yet another attempt by the Stanhope Government to impose paid parking in the parliamentary triangle, calling for him to let the issue die.
Senator Humphries has started a petition through his website, saying that “we have seen increase after increase in parking fees around Canberra from this government with no real improvement in roads, or in public transport.
“Now Mr Stanhope wants to collect parking fees in the parliamentary triangle, with no indication of any improvement in the bus system to help those who might now wish to leave their cars at home.
“All this says to me is that imposing paid parking in the parliamentary triangle would be a plain and simple tax grab, and I won’t stand for it.
“Labor has been chafing at the bit for some time to get paid parking into the triangle.
“Time after time, Jon Stanhope has received clear indications that imposing paid parking in the parliamentary triangle is totally unacceptable, yet he won’t let it die.
“My message to Jon Stanhope is this: fix the buses, then we’ll talk about paid parking!” Senator Humphries concluded.
29 July 2009
Double yellow lines extending 25 metres down Kimberley Road, along with 20 metres and 17 metres on Victoria Avenue will remove vital parking spaces for residents and their friends and families. The detrimental consequence of this will force residents to park further down an already overcrowded Kimberley Road or on the one available side of Victoria Avenue already back-to-back with cars.
Restrictions will intensify parking problems for all local residents and will unlikely control school parking that occurs for just 30 minutes per day, 5 days per week, and only 39 weeks of the year!
Whereas this proposal would affect residents 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 52 weeks a year!
Parking is already problematic and a constant here so why make the situation much worse?
The roads opposite Highgate Woods; Woodland Rise, Woodland Gardens, Onslow Gardens and Cranley Gardens have come under increasing parking and traffic pressure during the last few years.
The streets are increasingly used for car parking by those unable to park close to Highgate station and in Muswell Hill due to the introduction of CPZ schemes in both Highgate and Muswell Hill. In addition a number of trade vehicles from local business currently use the road as a parking facility.
Local residents have found it increasingly impossible to park close to their homes and there is increased traffic flow through these residential areas from non residential traffic. There are also safety concerns from the residents of this area many of which have young families.
We request that Haringay Council consider a CPZ for this area.
This is a notice to request Permit parking on Woodridge Road. Lately, the commuters to NYC have been parking on this street and this has made the driving conditions dangerous due to blind spots.
Additionally, the snow ploughs cannot clear the streets with cars parked on narrow streets.
Enclosed is a petition to be circulated to those affected residents.
If you have further questions, please contact Alok Shah (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Carlos Ramirez (email@example.com)
All classified staff employed by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas will be forced to take a mandatory 1 day a month furlough.
Professional and Faculty State Workers will not be effected by the State Mandatory Furlough.
For years Morrisions supermarkets (previously Safeway) have allowed a "flexible" approach to the use of their store car park that adjoins Reigate High Street. While there has always been a 2 hour parking limit they have not enforced it hard.
From May 27th 2009 they have implemented a camera-based system that records numberplates and automatically tickets people who park for over 2 hours. Parking tickets are issued by post with a 40 to 70 pounds fine.
The key issue is that the parking limit is now enforced 24 hours per day 365 days per year.
We believe that this is unnecessarily restrictive. It will adversely affect local business in the evening (pubs, bars, restaurants, cinema), as well as penalising local residents. It is also in conflict with Morrison's own self- proclaimed social responsibility ethic of "being neighbourly"!
Keep an eye on morrisons-reigate-parking.co.uk for updates and the blog for full feedback on progress - http://morrisonsreigatecarpark.wordpress.com
Our streets usually have ample parking for the local residents. However, we are finding more and more frequently that people who do not live in this area choose to park their cars during the weekdays so they can have easy access to Gants Hill and Redbridge tube stations.
Although this is very convenient for those people, it creates a lack of parking for the residents. On the weekdays we find we are unable to find parking near our homes, and often have to park in neighbouring streets to walk back. If we decide to park momentarily on the yellow lines we risk being given a parking penalty.
This situation is unfair for the local people, and is causing some a lot of distress.
We want Redbridge Council to implement a Controlled Parking Zone so that only local residents can use the available parking bays during the weekdays.
Please sign this petition to support our application.
The City of Los Angeles tried to implement an OPD in Venice, CA. Residents appealed this decision to the Coastal Commission.
An OPD or Overnight Parking District is a special permit parking zone regulated by parking enforcement during the hours between 2AM and 6AM. Residents must pay to obtain a permit.
Anyone that needs to use a public street to park a vehicle between 2AM and 6AM is impacted by Overnight Parking Districts.
Low income individuals and families in Venice, CA would be unduly burdened.
The paediatric (children’s) hospital services will be transferring in stages over the next few years from St James Hospital in Leeds across to the Leeds General Infirmary which is based in central Leeds.
The city centre location will mean that parking will be extremely limited.
Parents/carers currently have good parking and access at the current hospital site, but so far no dedicated parking provision at the new site has been agreed by Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.
One example of a service which will be affected by the move is young patients who have Cystic Fibrosis (CF). CF is a long term condition which affects primarily the lungs and digestive system making it hard to breathe and digest food.
This group of patients will typically visit the Regional CF Unit every 6-8 weeks for outpatient’s appointment and have frequent inpatient stays as often as every 3 months.
Therefore, parking accessibility and cost are extremely important to the parents /carers of these children who travel from across the region to access specialist care.
Ideally this would include concessionary parking, which is accessible and close by to the CF Unit to combat the expense of travel.
The Hospital Trust should also ensure that there is adequate parking provision and agree a fair level of designated spaces to be set aside for parents/carers.
In recent years, parking restrictions in Paddington and Darlinghurst have been reduced to a one hour limit, seriously impacting on the ability of guests to visit and enjoy the area.
No longer can guests visit multiple businesses in the area in a single trip.
This petition covers what the city of Corning, NY refers to as the "Odd Even Alternate" parking regulation. This regulation requires residents and visitors to park on different sides of the street during particular hours of the day, and it changes every day.
Signs detailing this regulation are not posted on streets where it is enforced. Residents and Visitors are expected to somehow know about this regulation before parking in our city or noticed the sign as you enter town detailing which side of the street, during what hours, on which days you can park.
This wordy sign is located under another sign along a four-lane highway coming into town. The petition calls for the ending of the "Odd Even Alternate" regulation.
Current laws in many cities and towns, as well as local homeowner association bylaws, forbid citizens from parking their operable and licensed vehicles in their own driveways.
The discrimination arises solely by the type of vehicle citizens find appealing but may not appeal to the arbitrary eye of the city or homeowner association. Residents and visitors must conceal these vehicles in the garage and in some cases park outside the community altogether.
Imagine, if you will, purchasing a brand new 2009 passenger car or truck, drive it home and park it in the driveway. Within days of your purchase you receive a notice that you are in violation of the communities parking restriction. Not because your vehicle is illegally parked nor that it is a commercial vehicle, because the model you chose is substandard in the opinion of those in authority.
The selective enforcement and ambiguity of these rules do nothing to promote the aesthetics of the community but only serve to discriminate against the individual’s expression as it regards his or her taste in automobiles. District and appellate court cases have ruled that subject laws are over-broad, unreasonable and unconstitutional when applied to passenger vehicles.
However, these bylaws and ordinances persist to flourish despite court rulings. It is time legislators get involved to put and end to this discriminatory practice.
I propose an amendment to all City and Homeowner Association related statutes, to include language that will give a resident the right to park a noncommercial passenger car or passenger truck in the driveway of their home regardless of the model they have chosen to own.
If the median between lots H and I gets taken out, a parking structure can be centered in the middle of the lot. There will be enough room for traffic to go in one side and out the other.
This central location will benefit Phases 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as well as the new Residence Hall and people working coming to campus specifically for buildings BE, ECSN, CBW, HH, and CN.
At the end of August, the TTC hastily passed a motion to eliminate the
"free" metropass parking in favour of charging all riders to park at any of
the lots. However, upon doing the math, none of what the TTC says adds up.
Let's start with the 6.3 million dollars the TTC says it costs to operate
the lots and the 2.7 million dollars they actually generate from those who
pay to park in them. Without any other information, we’ll take these
figures at face value. This results in a 3.6 million dollar short fall that
the TTC must cover, which is what TTC chair Adam Giambrone wants to
First off, he stated in an interview, "It's not appropriate for the average
TTC rider to be subsidizing between 10 and 15 cents out of their fare for
parking lots." Let's take a moment and focus on his numbers: 10 to 15 cents
per fare to subsidize parking. Now let's do the math: in 2007 the TTC had
459,769,000 passenger trips (according to their website) and if 10 cents
were taken from every fare, the result would be nearly 46 million dollars!
In fact, if only 1 cent were taken from each fare, the result would be a
little over 4.5 million dollars, which more than covers the 3.6 million
dollar parking gap. Clearly TTC chair Giambrone did not check his facts and
figures on that one!
Second, let's think about that "free" parking concept. The majority of
riders who use metropass parking are ones who use the TTC on workdays only
(they park and then take the subway to work downtown). Now, if these riders
purchased tokens for their workday only trips, it would average out to a
cost of about $94 per month over the year (taking into account holidays,
vacation, etc), which is $15 less than a metropass. So those 10,000+
metropass holders who use parking are paying on average a $15 premium to
park in the TTC lots, which translates into about 1.8 million dollars.
Taking this into account, the parking cost gap is really only 1.8 million
dollars, which makes the numbers above even more incorrect.
In fact, it the TTC wanted to see the parking lots break even; they could
introduce a “premium” metropass that includes parking for only $125 per
month. That’s an increase of only $16 per month shouldered only by those
who use parking. Considering that, it is more than likely most people would
continue to use the TTC as they do now, so it’s more than possible for the
TTC to stop losing money on their parking lots while keeping almost all
their riders. This approach also would not have the negative aspects of Mr.
Giambrone’s, such as increased pollution and traffic congestion in Toronto
from those who would no longer be able to afford the TTC and would drive
into the core instead. Even if one took the arguably incorrect figures and
said parking costs the TTC 3.6 million dollars a year, a $139 premium
metropass would eliminate that. An extra $30 per month, or an extra $1.5
per day is not too unreasonable when all things are considered. So why was
this never considered?
Moreover, if the appropriate time were taken to fully examine the plan to
charge for all parking, they would surely have been able to come up with
more accurate numbers when it comes to how many riders will be lost, how
many will stop paying that $15 premium, etc. Those debates would have
brought to light that the best overall financial results of this plan would
be to break even, just like the proposal above (this takes into account many
estimates, such as what happens when many people who pay for parking go on
vacation, or a snow storm hits and they decide to stay home or take the
bus). One big problem with switching from a subscription based payment
system to a pay per use system is that each day is different and overall
revenue is subject to the whims of the users. In the end this move may
actually see the TTC lose money (remember, the cost of operating the TTC
parking lots must now include all the lost revenue this plan results in,
putting the operating costs of the parking lots over 10 million dollars
annually using the TTC's own figures).
Now getting back to Mr. Giambrone's comments about users not subsidizing
parking, the bottom line is that everybody subsidizes hundreds of services
they never use through their taxes. Just look at the TTC for an example.
People who take a bus or the subway just 2 or 3 stops are subsidizing the
cost of the people who travel for 10 or 20 sotps. The cost of a metropass
translates into just under 49 rides if paid by tokens. How many metropass
holders take more than 49 rides a month? How many hand their pass to a
friend or family member so that the pass itself is used for more than 49
rides in a month? How many rides over 49 per metropass are taken each
month? Each year? All those free rides get subsidized by all the other TTC
riders. Does that mean we should eliminate the metropass program? No, of
course not, just as this shouldn't mean the end to metropass parking.
Actually, if one follows the logic of Mr. Giambrone and those TTC
Commissioners who voted to pass this motion, all TTC riders should be
required to pay one fare to ride the bus and one to ride the subway. After
all, why should the people who only never ride the bus have their subway
fare go to support the bus system, or why should the people who never ride
the subway have their fares go towards supporting the subway system?
Perhaps that’s a snapshot of what’s to come with the TTC.
While no official figures exist, many of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) subway station parking lots used by commuters are unsafe and cars parked there during the day are often broken into, vandalized, or stolen. According to TTC personnel, off the record, a car is stolen from Finch station every day and 2 per week on average from Kipling.
On August 27th, 2008 the TTC approved a recommendation to discontinue the policy of allowing Metropass holders to park for free at TTC commuter parking lots. According to the TTC, the 14,000 parking spaces generate $2.7 million per year. However, with an operating budget of $6.3 million per year, the TTC loses money on its parking lots, as 80% of all parking spaces are occupied by Metropass users. The new policy begins in the second quarter of 2009. (http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Meetings/August_27_2008.jsp)
PLEASE JOIN THE FACEBOOK GROUP IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN GETTING INVOLVED! PLEASE FORWARD THIS PETITION SO THAT WE MAY GET AS MANY SIGNATURES AS POSSIBLE. ONCE COMPLETED, THIS PETITION WILL BE SENT TO THE TTC AS WELL AS THE MUNICIPAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT.
It has been proposed by Portsmouth City Council to introduce a residential parking scheme in the following roads: ANGERSTEIN ROAD, CARDIFF ROAD, KING EDWARD CRESCENT, LONDON AVENUE, MONMOUTH ROAD, NELSON AVENUE, NORTH END AVENUE, NORTH END GROVE, STAMSHAW ROAD, WEYMOUTH ROAD.
The anticipation of costs are as follows: The first resident permit is free to all residents with a vehicle. The second resident permit costs £50 and additional permits, if approved, cost £100 each.
The first business permit costs £100. The second business permit costs £200 and additional permits, if approved, cost £300each.
Permits for visitors can be purchased for 24 hours, or 4 or 7 consecutive days, costing £1.50, £5 and £9 respectively.
Initially the second resident permit was £25 but increased to £50 in February this year at the Council Budget review.Unfortunately the residents are unable to oppose this increase.
I am starting this petition to formally voice to the council the weight of opposition to this proposal. I feel strongly that the council have enough schemes in place to generate money from us, such as road tax, parking fines etc and I feel this an example of a generic scheme being put into place without any substantial thought or consideration of the residents, and feel emphasis and effort should be put on improving the substandard public transport system in the city instead of creating a new tax for the residents.
I also feel that as the Council often promotes the city as a great place to visit, I think it is ridiculous to further charge friends and relatives when they want to do just that.
Please see firstname.lastname@example.org
FINANCES: based on LAST years enrollment rates and the cost per drug test for the school it did cost the school around $11,520 for the testing of students. $15 per test, 8 times a year, 10% of the enrolled students in the drug testing were tested in each round of testing(96 students tested every month).
In athletics last year there were 201 students 201x15=$3,015
so the school spent $14,535 on drug testing last year please remember that all these numbers are from last year. Now that the program is mandatory the cost per year is expected to double.
PRIVACY: why does the school think its there job to know what everyone does in there own free time.
PARENTS DECISION: if our parents sign to have us NOT in the program then the school tells us that we still have to join the drug testing program just for a parking spot at the school.
*There is currently a new "Municipal Parking Lots" ordinance that will be in effect starting September 1, 2008.
*This ordinance will require Pitman residents who do not have parking at their homes, to purchase a parking permit to park in a public lot. Without purchasing this overnight parking permit for $100 per year, overnight parking in a public lot is prohibited. (For more information please see the flyer or go to www.pitman.org)
*Parking is difficult already for most residents who reside near the historial Pitman Grove. Most houses do not have driveways for parking to begin with. Some houses only have partially paved alley ways to park in. With these alley ways only partially paved, it makes getting in and out very difficult especially during winter months when it snows.
*We are also not allowed to park infront of our houses between the hours of 2:00 am to 6:00 am without being ticketed. They allow us to "call" our cars in if we do have to park outside. However, if you call too many times you abuse your parking priviledge and they put you on a reject list.
*Pitman recently expanded the baseball field on Lincoln and Cleveland Ave which took away ample parking for Pitman residents. That field is rarely used for anything.
*The ordinance states that even if we buy these $100 parking permits they can not guarantee parking spots. What do we do then? Where do we park? This ordinance is already creating more problems then we presently have.
*Why are the residents near the Grove being penalized because we do not have ample parking like other areas of Pitman? It is not justifiable that the residents who don't have sufficient parking have to pay $100 a year just to park their car.
Please sign the following petition to help us to oppose this ordinance.
B&NES Council has brought in a new evening charging regime in Bath's public car parks, meaning motorists will have to pay until 8pm, rather than 7pm. This change was not widely publicised and there appears to have been no consultation with the business community.
The move will force people to pay up to £4 for less than an hour's parking.
It may be too late for restaurants and pubs already suffering from the tightening of purse-strings resulting from the credit crunch.
But it's not just businesses and tourism that will be hit. The changes will affect people attending a host of events starting at 7.30pm or 8pm - theatre performances, concerts, meetings, club evenings, rehearsals, charity galas and film shows.
Park and ride is not an option at that time of day, and there will be many people who won't feel safe walking. The council has paid constant lip service to the idea of boosting the evening economy - of developing a Continental-style cafe society where the city comes alive at night.
The danger is that the responsible, community-minded people we want to visit the city centre of a summer's evening are turned off the idea, leaving the heart of Bath as a playground for drunken yobs.
We at the Chronicle like to look forward. But in this case, it really is time to turn the clock back.
THE CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE CHAOS, AND SAY ‘YES’ TO CPZ CONTINUES...
Do we have a parking problem? Some of the residents certainly think so! There is nowhere left to park, especially during term-time, cars are parked so far up the pavement there is no space for pedestrians, and junctions are dangerous for cyclists and people wanting to cross the street, particularly with small children.
After a successful campaign last year by local Residents Associations, the County Council agreed to install a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the Divinity Road, Magdalen Road, and Iffley Fields area at the same time to make the streets in East Oxford safer and less congested.
NEW CONSULTATION – ROUND 4?
The County Council has now gone through several rounds of consultations, and detailed consultations with both Residents Associations and local traders. The County Council has listened and each new proposal has included amendments that have improved the scheme.
The County Council have now agreed to remove the Iffley Fields area from the proposed CPZ – so there has to be another round of consultation. The proposal is now that CPZs are introduced to the Magdalen Road and Divinity Road area at the same time (end of 2010).
The County Council has distributed new consultation packs. The deadline for responses is 18th December and the final decision will be made at The Transport Decisions Committee in early 2010.
HOW WILL THE CPZ BENEFIT YOU?
We want East Oxford to continue to support a diverse and vibrant community, with local shops and businesses and universities. We want residents, their visitors, local businesses, shoppers and trades people to be able park. We want to be able to use our pavements and our roads safely, and to encourage cycling and a general reduction in car use (for the environment and to reduce congestion). The CPZ can help to achieve this vision.
The traffic and parking situation in East Oxford is worse than ever with an increase in illegal parking at corners leading to dangerous parking, congestion and several accidents recently. We want to support the CPZ in this area for safety, fairness and less street congestion.
• No corner parking
• Better access for emergency vehicles
• Double yellow lines at passing places
• Marked lines on pavement leaving room for buggies & wheelchairs)
• Local residents only
• No ‘park and ride’ commuters
• Free permits for visitors
• Enforced by wardens (paid out of fees)
• Adequate parking for shoppers in Magdalen Road (new 2 hr only parking bays)
The most recent proposal includes amendments specifically to address the concerns of local traders, with more ‘2 hour only parking bays’ on Magdalen Road, and more shared spaces. Some local traders are still against the CPZ even though they don’t live in the area.
The CPZ in Divinity Road area is well supported and will go ahead. If the Magdalen Road area is excluded, the situation in our area will get worse as more cars are parked on our streets.
LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!
The proposed CPZ aims to balance the needs of residents’ (own cars and visitors) with those of shoppers and businesses. It offers a better solution than the chaos we have now. So support the campaign to say ‘yes’ to make our streets safer to walk, cross, park, drive and cycle.
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP:
1. Please reply to the County Council questionnaire by post or online at:
All you need to do is register online (using an email address and password). You will only be able to reply once, but you can leave the questionnaire if you are unsure of anything, and come back to it later.
2. Please display the poster / leaflet to ‘Say YES to CPZ’ in the front window of your house or in your car to show your support!
3. Sign the petition online here or in local shops the CPZ
You can also:
1. Email the Transport Cabinet Member email@example.com
2. Talk to your neighbours and make sure they are aware of the issues and what is at risk.
3. Add comments or any photos that show the problems we are living with to our blog http://eastoxfordsafestreets.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/the-campaign-has-to-go-on/
4. Join our Facebook Group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=10913483857
Hambleton District Council are planning to bring in parking charges for Thirsk, Northallerton and Bedale.
This will seriously damage the local economy of all three towns as visitors and shoppers will be pushed towards out of town shopping centres and the supermarkets at the expense of local traders.
It will also be an extra expense for those who have no option but to drive to work. And it will also encourage people to park on streets with out yellow lines posing a danger to pedestrians and blocking up roads.
Po gotovo cijelom Zagrebu uvodi se naplata parkinga ili otvaranje novih naplatnih parking zona. Kao dva glavna razloga takve odluke gradsko poglavarstvo ističe sljedeće:
1) sređivanje općeg “kaosa“ u gradskom prometu te veće korištenje javnog prijevoza
2) pomaganje stanarima koji žive u zonama nove naplate parkinga
Prema našem mišljenju oba dva razloga su u potpunosti pogrešna.
S jedne strane davanjem mogućnosti kupovine povlaštene karte stanarima koji žive u zonama novog sustava naplate parkinga građani Republike Hrvatske dovode se u neravnopravni položaj.Veliki broj građana koji žive u zgradama nikada nije kupio parkirno mjesto ispred svoje zgrade i kao takvi nemaju nikakvo veće pravo od nas “drugih“ građana na njega.
Pojedinci (a to je slučaj s novosagrađenim zgradama) jesu kupili parkirno mjesto i bez ikakvog zakonskog problema mogu staviti rampu koja samo njima omogućava parkiranje na tom mjestu – cijena takve rampe je jeftinija od kupovine godišnje povlaštene parking karte ZG parkinga i nije im potrebna “pomoć“ gradskog poglavarstva.
S druge strane, prema našem mišljenju javni prijevoz Grada Zagreba nije adekvatno opremljen da može obaviti funkciju koju mu je namijenilo gradsko poglavarstvo svojim odlukama o novom sustavu naplaćivanju parkiranja u Gradu Zagrebu.
ZET nema dovoljan broj autobusa i tramvaja da bi mogao prevoziti sve ljude koji su po novom sustavu naplate parkinga prisiljeni koristiti usluge javnog prijevoza. Nadalje, tehnološko stanje voznog parka ZET-a nije zadovoljavajuće te kao takvo ne pruža građanima sigurnost da će stići na željeno mjesto u željeno vrijeme.
Također, Zagreb nema niti metro kao glavni oblik javnog prijevoza svih većih gradova. Smatramo da je u potpunosti neprimjereno kopirati praksu nekih europskih gradova, koji su slične veličine kao Zagreb, ali koji imaju višestruko bolje razvijenu strukturu javnog prijevoza te svojim građanima omogućuju sigurno i lagodno putovanje.
It is intended to ask the KLCC Management to revise their current parking rate, and to show to them that many concerned members of the public are aware and agree that the current rate is just too expensive, if not unreasonable.
The Town of Fergus states that the parking lot is private property and belongs to the Hasty Market and Royal Cleaners.
We have been talking about this issue with both the owners and the township and they say there is nothing they can do about fixing the pot hole.
This is a huge irritant to not only us but our customers as well.
We would like this dealt with.
Two existing farmers markets current operate on down town levee area of Davenport, Iowa.
RiverCity Farmers Market, operates on the westside of the parking lot, which is headed by Luann Cedillo and a board of three others.
Mississippi Valley Growers Association, operating on the eastside of said parking lot, wich is headed by Jane Weber and a board of seven others that is self-perpetuated.
Neither of these markets allow their vendors to vote on issues that affect them or to even be at meetings that pertain to them.
Vendors are only notified of any said rules of change until board feel it necessary to let them know.
The use of UNBC parking passes is prohibited and results in ticketing at the new
UNBC Northern Sports Center. The NSC is paid for by school tuition, as is a school
facility that is available to UNBC students, so why is parking to be used under a
different program. Parking passes available at the university cost students in
excess of $200.00 a year, and now it is told that people have to pay to go to our
own school's gym. Also with sporting events and intramurals, they expect
students to come and support our sports programs, when our sports center won't