What Will the "Pink Zone" Prove?
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Asks R. E. G. Brown, F.C.I.S., NI.Inst.T.
IAGREE with the overall point made by Janus in his article "No Proof" (December 11) that commercialvehicle operators need to be on guard against unwanted consequences of the "pink zone" experiment. I do not agree that it has proved nothing. The danger is that it
will be claimed to have proved things which it has not.
This is largely because most writers have been far from clear as to what has been done. Janus unwittingly added to the confusion when he wrote, "There is no need to demonstrate that congestion will be reduced if cars are not allowed to park and if lorries and vans are kept away for the greater part of the time that the shops are open." There is no doubt that many people imagine that, in the experiment, vans and lorries have been kept away—banned from the zone on a widespread scale. As a result, supporters of loading bans have said to me: "There you are—it does work without all the fearsome consequences you have so persistently forecast." This is so far from the truth that it seems imperative to be absolutely clear about what has been done in the pink zone.
No Waiting: The ordinary "No Waiting" regulations which prohibit the parking of cars have been extended, rather more by time than geographically. To claim that a mass of new regulations has been made is to assume that without them the driver had a right to park where and when he pleased. This has never been so.
Loading Bans: At the major intersections, loading bans already existed from 11.30 a.m. until 1 p.m. and from 3 p.m. until 6.30 p.m. On the theory of " goods " in the morning and shoppers in the afternoon, the "pink zone" scheme altered the period of prohibition to 1 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.—an increase in total time of half an hour.
No Great Interference
Points at which the bans were applied were increased. Without underestimating the extent of these bans, it would be wrong to regard them as affecting more than a small proportion of the kerb space in the large area involved.
What has been proved? To Janus and many of us— nothing that was not known. But to the general public, the lesson is that proper enforcement of existing regulations can clear the streets of much of the strangling effect of indiscriminate parking, to the benefit of everyone. What is more, this improvement can be achieved without extensive bans on loading or unloading. This is not entirely new, because the Westminster parking-meter scheme had already proved it. Rationed parking, adequate facilities for loading and unloading, and strict prohibition of indiscriminate parking have manifestly effected a marked improvement in traffic flow.
In this respect, the "pink zone" has been a wonderful bit of hocus-pocus. It has produced nothing new, but as a piece of publicity it has been masterly. The word " pink " did it . . . " In the Pink" . . . "Strike me Pink" . . . "Blue Prints for Pink Schemes". . . It tickled the Press pink. The result .., has been that, at long last, the whole chronic problem
has become prominent in " Up periscope .
the daily Press and, therefore, in the public eye, as well as in Parliamentary thought. The Minister of Transport has with him public opinion which will enable him to rid us of the pernicious effect of long-term parking.
No commercial-vehicle operator can fail to benefit from more orderly use, of the streets. There is no doubt of this after careful study of the parking-meter zones. In these, goods-vehicle operators have been required to accept some restriction and regulation of the times and places for loading and unloading. In return, they have been substantially guaranteed a place at the kerb and the drivers saved from the undesirable alternatives of "round and round the houses" or " double banking." But the beneficial effects of parking meters or of the "pink zone" have not been secured by widespread prohibition of loading or unloading.
Effects of Changed Times
This is nOt to suggest that we can be insensible to the existence of loading bans in the scheme. Any trader affected directly by them will not be cheered by the knowledge that he is one of a small minority. We shall, of course, have to make a careful study of their effect on 'the shops concerned and their suppliers. For about half of them the bans are not new: the time has merely been altered. We shall need to know th.e results of this change.
We know that it will have called for careful retiming of deliveries, which will not always have been easy. Some adjustments may have been made possible by the temporary earlier opening of some of the larger stores. We know that traders have co-operated. There have doubtless been some difficulties; we shall hear of others. in due course, we Shall hope to have an accurate picture of the overall effect of the experiment on goods vehicles as a whole. Certainly, suppliers need to be on guard to ensure that future proposals do not call for bigger and better bans because of the inaccurate presentation of their significance in the present scheme.
Janus is perfectly right, of course. The scheme will be announced a "pronounced success." One can hear it said in advance. The inherent danger is that it is a freefor-all as to what is claimed "proved." The representatives of commercial-vehicle operators have the job of keeping claims regarding them in proper perspective. If it is accepted that the scheme proves (as I think it does) that, by abolishing long-term parking, traffic conditions can be materially improved without extensive restrictions on necessary commercial-vehicle operations, we shall have no serious cause to regret the "pink zone" experiment.