Car parking

When I organise car parking for an event, I try to arrange parking spaces at a 45 degree angle to the incoming flows. This seems to allow more vehicles into a given space, and certainly makes it easier for drivers to get in and out.

The other day I heard an interesting item on radio from a mathematician. He had worked on optimising the use of car park space, and had concluded that you can fit in 23% more cars in a typical surface car park if you organise one way flow into and out of the park, and use Angled spaces. It reduces the amount of spare space you need to allow cars to turn into spaces, and improve the flow of vehicles in and out. If you add more exits than entrances it reduces delays from traffic even more.

We are short of car parking in many places in the UK. Getting cars off the highway and into parks is good for cutting congestion, good for reducing emissions, and good for drivers trying to get to work, the shops, schools or wherever they need to go. I think Councils should look at this suggestion and see if they can improve the flows in their parks and raise capacity. The only cost is a bit of new line painting in most cases. It should raise them more revenue as more cars get to use the parks, and more are enticed in away from more contentious parking on the highway. Indeed, expanding car park places could be allied to some reduction in on highway parking where that causes obstacles and delays.

I have suggested to my local Council that they take a look at this.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Lifelogic
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    Oh no John, the whole agenda from the state sector is that if you provide more car parking spaces and wider roads you just encourage more driving and more cars, that would never do. After all people would just love to drive round for 24 hours a day given more roads. People love driving round in endless circles trying to find somewhere to park.

    The main aim of the UK state run road management industry (for 30 odd years) has been to block roads, restrict parking (and mug the owners), delay and inconvenience motorists with anti-car traffic lights, bus and bike lanes, speed humps, no right and left turns and “environmental” areas. This while taxing and mugging them for straying onto a box junction, getting back a minute late, or allowing one wheel to stray into an empty bus lane.

    The people must never be allowed to get to work, the shops, hospitals, doctors or their leisure activities quickly and conveniently park there. That would simply never do. They must be forced onto bikes (to help the organ donor shortage) or trains/buses that are usually less energy efficient, far more expensive and take far longer A to B as they go via C D E and F on route and need endless staff, ticketing and often dedicated track to operate (when they are not on strike that is).

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 5:54 am | Permalink

      Meanwhile we have the NHS denying operation to obese people. Well they are not the only ones being denied or treated badly. At least the NHS in North Yorkshire is being honest for once about the huge rationing, incompetence and delays that the NHS runs.

      Perhaps if these patients stop eating so much they could save the money and pay to go privately.

      I was once rather ill and ate nothing for six days and lost a stone, it is not that hard. Presumably eating half as much for 2 weeks would be about the same but a rather better method.

  2. eeyore
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    I like this – a practical approach to a practical problem. There are a great many practical problems, large and small, in government, but too often the sort of down-to-earth ingenuity needed to solve them appears unavailable.

    Some trades encourage ingenuity more than others. Were I to make up a Cabinet (no, I’m not waiting by the phone) I’d wish to include an engineer, a mathematician, a farmer and ideally a digger driver. Digger drivers have long struck me as unusually responsible and capable chaps who can be relied on to sort you out.

    I hold it as an article of faith that for any problem, no matter how intractable, someone out there has a clever wheeze that will nail it. But that leads to yet another problem: how do you put those who need the wheezes in touch with those who provide them?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 7:24 am | Permalink

      Meanwhile at the top of government we get lawyers, PPE graduates and the likes. Few that are numerate, scientific or engineers. Cameron even gave us Amber Rudd, an Edinburgh history graduate, in charge of energy and climate change!

    • bigneil
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

      Those who need the wheezes are only concerned about building their own little empires. I did not go to uni or anywhere after leaving school – yet have saved the
      ( working ) lives of several who were my boss/gaffer/manager by giving them the solution to problems they had. It says a lot that 40 years after starting at that company I retired – still in the same job/position – at the bottom. Nothing wrong with my work – but wasn’t a yes man nor brown noser. If I thought something wasn’t going to work, I said so. I was proven right many times – but the boss who had been proven wrong didn’t like it, and therefore didn’t like me. Just because people have been promoted doesn’t mean they are intelligent and will get the best results. Nepotism isn’t productive. This is shown by the mess the recent PMs have caused to this country. None have left poor – -and all have thrown billions away. They haven’t cared one bit for the working class – only as a cash cow.

  3. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    Does door opening smack the vehicle(s) adjacent under such critical spacing? Very low or no road tax means more cars and many of them lay around on roads…barely used. A further nuisance related to climate change theory! If you use the public highways pay your part please.

    BBC R4 this am (Something Understood) delivered relentless climate change drivel. Presented by a female Irish UN rep..a so called high person who really isn’t. BBC winding up for Obama and China ratification of nothing. Very noticeable and common BBC behaviour and as usual very one sided.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:09 am | Permalink

      Indeed the BBC bias on climate alarmism is as blatant as their bias over the EU, magic money tree economics, their anti landlord position, their lets over regulate everything, their fake enforced “equality” agenda or any of their other daft agendas.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:12 am | Permalink

        As an example of bias I see the BBC announced that Oliver was the most popular name in 2015 the other day. But was it really Mohammed (under its different spellings) as it was last year I understand. I have no problem at all with this, just with the BBC’s dishonest & slanted approach to clear facts.

        Not something you are ever likely to hear from the BBC?

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      Dear Colin–The effect does not arise by reason of closer spacing, which would indeed cause extra door smacking, but from the lower width requirement of the empty and wasted space in the access roadways between the serried ranks of cars. If the cars are at the usual right angles to the roadways they, the roadways, have to be wide because of the necessary (full quarter) turning circles to get in to a space. If one can slide in (and best of all out as well) at an angle the roadways can be much narrower and the extra space used to take more cars. For this effect to amount to much the car park has to be sufficiently large. A disadvantage is that reversing in becomes impossible.

  4. Lifelogic
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    I see the BBC is getting very excited about the China and US “legally binding” climate agreement. The reality is rather different as C Booker points out today.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:43 am | Permalink
      • Richard1
        Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:25 am | Permalink

        Yes joining EFTA seems a sensible first step – we can always change it later if it doesn’t work. This would solve at a stroke all the bleating about not being in the single market. Instead of making a contribution to the EU budget we should offer to contribute to development in non-euro former communist countries (as Norway does). This should come under overseas aid (and other wasteful aid not in the interest of the UK should be stopped). On immigration I would have thought we want to keep out criminals terrorists and welfare scroungers. Anyone who can support themselves or get a job should by and large be welcome. Such a deal should be capable of quick agreement with the EU

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 6, 2016 at 6:59 am | Permalink

          Lost of people who get jobs can pay less than say £3000 net in NI and income tax but come with demands for schools, housing, the NHS, elderly relative care, policing, roads, in work benefits and the rest of up to 60 times this level. Having a low paid job is not sufficient.

      • Hope
        Posted September 4, 2016 at 9:07 am | Permalink

        Institutionalised corruption at Westminster where rule of law and procedure is different to everyone else in society. We have scandal after scandal and yet still no major investigation of MPs who abuse their position, make themselves subject to different rules for investigation internally and externally and always claim it was in the rules they made! True independence is required for rules governing MPs conduct and expenses, serious criminal allegations need an open transparent oversight. Whether the allegation is of a serious sexual nature, business interest, undeserved title. May has promised a fair one nation society, is she going to start by Mking MPs subject to the same rule and procedure of law, internal discipline and conduct as everyone else and in line with the Nolan standards on public life? We were promised Westminster would be cleaned up by all major parties seven years agon, when is it going to happen? Today ore scandal. Any chance of an appropriate fair investigation?

    • Mark
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 10:17 am | Permalink

      I rather like this summary of the Paris agreement:

      We hereby commit to being uncommitted, but promise to be very good, to help each other and to meet every year, forever.

  5. Mark B
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    I bet they do not have a problem with car parking in the wilds of Scotland ? Not as many people there as in London and the South East. Distribute the population more evenly and you won’t have to worry about this or any similar sort of thing ever again.

    The moral of this story is: Try to find the root cause of the problem rather than try and be clever an just paper over the cracks.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:30 am | Permalink

      Mark B. You consider putting all these extra people in Scotland. Why? What for? There is nothing much here to attract anyone and in fact because of the constant drivel from the SNP about independence many want to get out and move into England. Businesses are not sure what is going on and many are threatening to move into England too. It is ok having more people if you have the political will to move your country on to a better place economically, are not socialists depending on others for the money to give to just about anyone and enough jobs to support everyone. Business in Scotland is not doing as well as the rest of the UK and there is a simple reason for that – the SNP. If people are coming to work and be an asset then fine, but if they are more freeloaders wanting hand outs and particularly if they are illegal immigrants who Sturgeon seems to want to welcome with open arms then NO, we don’t want or need them. The whole thing about more people coming to live in the UK is one of the main reasons many of us voted OUT of the EU. Border control is the best way forward. Also driving around many towns and cities one cannot help noticing the large number of brown sites looking an absolute eyesore and protected buildings which look like ruins. These are wasted spaces which could be put to better use.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      There may be reasons why the wilds of Scotland are still wild!

      Good for red squirrels and pine martens and ospreys, though.

      Still, Glasgow could once claim to be the second city of the Empire.

    • Bert Young
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 9:17 am | Permalink

      Mark B . I agree . Congestion is primarily caused by over population and poor public transport . If we were able to control numbers it would go a long way to solving many problems like parking . I have no doubt that 45 degree parking can create more spaces and the cost of a little “paint job” – as John puts it , is a small cost to pay . A 45 degree space is not a practical possibility alongside a brick wall ; too much space is required or reversing impossible ; try designing it on paper !.

    • Dennis
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

      Yes, quite agree with Mark B.

      That problem and all others would be solved if UK population is reduced to 10-15 million, still larger than many rich countries.

    • Ronald Olden
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

      ‘Distribute the population more evenly’ ? How exactly does Mark B propose to do that?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 6, 2016 at 7:02 am | Permalink

        Exactly they will go where they want to go.

      • Mark B
        Posted September 9, 2016 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

        You create wealth. Or at least, let the Wealth creators create it and not government.

    • Treacle
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

      I live in the wilds of Scotland, and there is no pay parking within 50 miles. I doubt the Council will be re-drawing the white lines for the parking spaces. It’s just as well the immigrants don’t on the whole venture north of the M62.

    • Gary
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

      Hi Mark B!

      I can’t work out if you’re joking or serious?

      Yeah, let’s build loads of new housing at huge expense in the countryside and forcibly move people to help with parking availability. Great idea.

      • Mark B
        Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Permalink


        A bit of both 😉

        My last paragraph rather explains what I am actually talking about. The first was just to set the stage.

      • Mark B
        Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:43 pm | Permalink


        A bit of both 😉

        My last paragraph rather explains what I am actually talking about. The first was just to set the stage.

        Getting duplicate comments thing again – Mr ‘R’ have a word with the IT bods, cheers !

  6. Richard1
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    I tiny fraction of 1% of the money saved by not going ahead with Hs2 could be used for this. Other uses of much more productive infrastructure could include: more capacity on rail commuter lines; much improved east-west road communication, particularly roads such as the A14, roll out of real high speed broadband (which should happen by putting providers in competition not by simply bunting money to BT Openreach).

  7. Iain gill
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    Mostly the mandarin’s are doing everything they can to discourage car use, thinning roads etc. So this doesn’t fit the agenda. Except the immigration floodgates are wide open having the opposite affect.

  8. agricola
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    Sounds like an excellent solution for the UK. Here in Spain you park where and how you can. If you want certainty of a space go to a to be paid for parking space because the Spanish have a mental blockage when it comes to paying for parking. No one, including the police, gets too excited providing you are not causing a real hazard. In support of Spanish female drivers, they are particularly skilled at backing into a space little longer than the vehicle. This somewhat casual anarchic approach seems to work very well in Spain, but we are too wedded to order for it to work in the UK.

    • agricola
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 9:21 am | Permalink

      You should perhaps also ask why the cost of it has managed to blight so many of our town and city centres. Do councils not realise that they are in completion with out of town shopping centres at no parking cost. Again why are our airports so ridiculously expensive to park at. I would like to see a cost benefit analysis of parking charges in the UK because I suspect that the cost of all the meters attendants and traffic wardens exceeds the income derived from parking, or is so close as to render it a doubtful exercise.

  9. Jerry
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    “spaces at a 45 degree angle”

    In each row there will be at least two lost spaces, so the only way more spaces can be achieved is by a one way system with narrow lanes and even narrower parking spaces [1], the problem is far to many drivers can not reverse, can not park in a straight line. Far to many car drivers have/still never learn to use (nor the limitation of) the external mirrors fitted to their vehicles in the same way as drivers of panel vans and lorries do, hence why so many drivers and riders place themselves into bland spots etc.

    Car park design is not rocket science but nor is it building sandcastles on a damp day! More importantly though nor is it an exercise in pure (mathematical) theory which is why so many modern car parks designed on architects computer aided design software quickly become the major failures we are now seeing repeated up and down the UK -the same problem is also affecting highway junction designs etc, to the point were pedestrians, cyclists and motorists all start wondering if the the DfT designers and bureaucrats ever use roads!

    Slightly off on a tangent, we used to have a very congested ‘big name’ supermarket car park locally, many schemes were put forward over the years to ease the many issues (one of which was the major clogging the public highways at certain times of day and year), the solution wasn’t a one way system or more parking spaces, nor was it one of your beloved roundabouts, but a set of traffic lights, now everyone simply has to await their turn and everything runs sweetly…

    [1] meaning that anything over the ‘average car’ length and/or width uses up two or more spaces to park one vehicle

    Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    Had this system been in operation since 1950, it would have allowed more local Councillors to gain easier access to Town Hall car parks, increase their attendance, and they would now have been regretting not having enough of them in attendance prior to 1950 in order to get sufficient brains together to have thought through the problem without use of someone who could add up in an extremely complicated and some would say needless complexity like a mathematician. Putting uniform sizes of items in a given space is an educational toy, first using wooden blocks and then a revolution in thinking came after 1950 by using colourful plastic cubes and cuboids. Toddlers however, if one thinks deeply about it or more about it like a mathematician, are actually calculating the “car-parking” question in 3D rather than in a purely linear way as in surface carparks. Local Councillors will make the jump into toddler “hyperspace” (3D contemplation ) perhaps in the next century. In the meantime cut their numbers in Town Halls by at least 50% and the salaries and benefits by two thirds to dissuade them from being in existence and when they are in existence from having sufficient monies to be able to afford a car and clog up their towns. Also give them a free box of plastic cubes and cuboids for something to interest, amuse and keep them out of trouble m their retirement.
    #The real answer is of course is that such car parks have been operating for decades in the UK and less cars and less people on this island full of Councillors is necessary.

  11. BrighterDay
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    If we cut and paste this to our own local council car park dept. it spreads knowledge and only takes a minute.
    ( oily V hahaha )

  12. Ronald Olden
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    I rarely disagree with JR on anything but I’m not so sure about this 45 Degree scheme.

    I parked my long wheelbase 4×4 at a local election count not realising that this arrangement was going. Upon reversing out in the pitch dark at 3am, I crashed into one of the Lib Dem Candidates much smaller vehicle, which had been parked next to me at an unexpected angle. The air was simultaneously both ‘blue’ and ‘orange’. No coalition for us.

    Perhaps we need an EU Directive on the Subject

  13. Anonymous
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    In a square plot 45 degree parking results in two lost spaces – one at either end.

    I’m all for it though. If you create more space for traffic there will only be more traffic. Just as if we keep building houses and towns more people will come from around the world to fill them.

    The sooner we reach crunch point the sooner The People will be serious about what is actually happening – that our country is being lost under a vast slab of concrete and our culture taken over.

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 9:05 am | Permalink

      The improvement in capacity would have to recover four lost spaces on a square plot before we can start to enjoy improvement. I’m not convinced. And around fifty percent of the population have difficulty reversing into square parking spaces, let alone angled ones !

    Posted September 4, 2016 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    There is a blindspot (s ) in cars. Also the positioning of the corner frame upward struts of back and front windows. Also the behavioural positioning of cars simultaneously exiting from diagonal positions within a line. Also the need for anticipation of recognised known historical behaviour of car drivers and their manoeuvring in set sequencing. Also local car parks and their clientele automatically develop in accordance with car parking patterning and entrance/exit possibilities ” accepted conventions” in which part of the car park to enter; hence, an associate once told one driver off in a car park by saying: “Why didn’t you observer the convention and not enter the car park at that place and then drive around in the opposite direction to everyone else????!”
    I guess it is a question in part of the devil you know.

  15. Antisthenes
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Oblique parking is an interesting idea. Perhaps the mathematician stole the idea from politicians, bureaucrats and vested interests as they do like oblique. As they love to use oblique in most things they say. It is noticeable that to gain a straight answer from any of them is considerably difficult. BBC presenters find it hard to give straight news they have to put a biased slant on most of it.

    They all also like opaque and misdirection so perhaps the best parking is to put vehicles on a slant, out of sight and not where they should be so they can never be used again. Thereby cutting down congestion completely, increasing jobs because the need for replacements will be great.

    Or we could do away with politicians, the BBC and the like and just have an oblique free life. Where free will, endeavour and enterprise find solutions to the most convoluted problems which are straight forward in application.

  16. Mark
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    This isn’t quite so easy to do in some multi storey car parks, especially those with frequent pillars supporting upper floors, but it certainly makes sense in open air spaces. However, a little architectural redesign for future buildings may help. Next, car manufacturers will need to adapt their automated parking algorithms to cope with angled spaces. Perhaps they need a zigzag fence at the ends of the spaces to work out their alignments.

  17. petermartin2001
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    If we just look at the number of cars that can fit in a single row then right angle parking is the most space efficient. But the benefit of angled parking is that maneuvering in and out is easier.

    If we have multiple short rows then right angle parking is still more space efficient. For long rows angled parking works better because it allows the rows to be placed closer together. Not as much space is needed for the parking maneuvers.

    The disadvantage is that the closer row spacing may not allow the passage of larger vehicles. So, for instance, if a car catches fire there may be insufficient space to allow a fire engine to gain access.

    • MikeP
      Posted September 5, 2016 at 7:46 am | Permalink

      The key point made by the mathematician was that right-angle parking requires widet arrival and departure lanes, due to the average (sometimes poor) turning circle. Parking at a 30 or 45 degree angle off the approach lane requires much less steering to get in and out so the lanes can be narrower. Hence more cars per car park, even when each parking bay is the same width as now.

  18. Oggy
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    I wonder how Dr. Beeching would have approached the problem ?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 5, 2016 at 8:20 am | Permalink

      He got a first in physics at Imperial, so doubtless he would have dealt with it very efficiently and rationally. Just as he did with all those under used uneconomic rail lines saving the nation a fortune which could be invested more sensibly elsewhere. Unlike most politicians with their history, PPE, Geography, Law, English degrees and the likes who generally lack numeracy and much understanding of logic, maths, reason, science or engineering.

  19. Ian Wragg
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    MoS running a story by the ……..Soubry woman. The paper backed the wrong horse but continues with negative reporting.
    Let’s worry about the car parking when we’ve sorted the EU.
    Cost me £30 yesterday to get a small supermarket dent out of passenger door.
    Car going to new owner this afternoon before I get my post Brexit Swindon made Honda.

  20. JohnF
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Talking of cars what should we make of the Japanese threat to pull car production (and banking) out of the UK?

    Reply They will not do so.

    • Jerry
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

      @JR reply; That is an opinion, most likely personal, one which you (and all Brexiteers) dearly hope is correct!…

    • Alexis
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

      They made the same argument when we didn’t join the euro. You can find the story in the BBC archives.

      They are just angling for the ‘usual facilities’ to be made available, I think.

    Posted September 4, 2016 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    off topic:

    Keith Vaz, still the MP for Leicester East led a march in 1989 of several thousand Muslims in Leicester calling for Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses to be banned. Apparently he is not keen on the Sunday Mirror either.

  22. English Pensioner
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    It might work OK for open air car parks, but our main car park has pillars supporting the upper story, and even there change would be difficult due to the location of the ramps. Nevertheless, it should be looked at, it would make life at the local Tesco and Waitrose easier, but that is presumably for the companies concerned not the council.

    • bigneil
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

      There is one in Nottingham that is just a spiral – the gaps are just about big enough for a Smart car and enough space between cars for an anorexic skeleton to squeeze between if they manage to get a space.

  23. Roy Grainger
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    I live in London. No point asking my Labour council to do this as they are not I the slightest bit interested in doing anything to help drivers. Anything that is pointless and will inconvenience drivers they will implement though, like 20mph speed limit on all roads and dedicated cycle lanes across their busiest junctions.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 6, 2016 at 7:08 am | Permalink


  24. Lifelogic
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    Listening to Mrs May in her Andrew Marr interview this morning she was competent but very tedious and pedestrian. She basically answered nothing at all and set no positive direction at all.

    Tackling “burning injustice” as per her no 10 speech – no answer
    Grammar schools – no answer.
    What does Brexit mean – no answer
    When will article 50 be triggered – no answer
    Will the UK be remaining in the single market – no answer
    Will we have to accept freedom of movement – no answer
    Was the remain campaign and (Osborne’s DIY recession) all scaremongering – no answer
    She did say there would be no snap election and some waffle about how we can start to “scope out” a trade deal, not plain sailing an independent Britain forging out way in the World! Nation security is a key issue for us she said! Did anyone think otherwise?

    What was the point of the interview at all? Needless to say Marr’s line of questioning was pathetically lefty wet and he did not even try to pin her down on anything.

    He should have been attacking her from the right as she is essentially a lefty, why are you not doing this, this and this now? Why are you mucking about with workers on boards, gender pay reporting, why no decisions on Heathwick, HS2, energy, Hinkley C, Grammar schools, cutting tax levels, the bonfire of red tape, the central pay controls, the pensions, savers and landlord muggings and all the rest?

  25. ferdin
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    You are right. Angled parking eases parking and speeds up flow, but the key issue is that people don’t have to back into a bay as when they reverse they are not getting close to other cars. I hope you piece is well read.

  26. stred
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    It’s called echelon parking. Often used in Switzerland. UK councils will no be interested as they want to minimise parking.

    • bigneil
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

      “minimise parking” – minimise LEGAL parking – which means more tickets can be handed out. – -And why is the glue on the back of those peel-off tickets from machines so weak ( in the hope of falling off and getting fined ) – but the glue on the sticky pocket that the fine is in is like superglue?

  27. JJE
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    I’m beginning to think that the more lurid the day’s headlines about the behaviour of your fellow MP’s the more mundane the item you post.
    You’re right about the car parking, but whatever do you have stored up for the next time there’s a press expose?

    reply It is not my job to tell you what is in the papers, and I do not encourage personal stories about anyone on these pages as I have no wish for my bloggers to face libel actions etc.

    • farewell
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

      Fear of those in authority, fear of libel action, fear of speaking the truth, that’s not how us Brexit voters won against the corrupt, oily opposition.

  28. Don Dutta
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Excellent idea! The ONLY shopping area where I found this type of angled car-parking is Cosco in Harrow – and it makes a huge difference in parking. I often thought why car-parks were not organized in this way in the first place! Right angled car parking spaces are definitely NOT the optimized way of parking whether you are in Brent Cross, London or in the wilds of Scotland.

    • bigneil
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

      One supermarket up here had angled parking – it was brilliant – -then some idiot had it repainted to “normal”.

    • Alexis
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

      I agree – it’s much easier to park, and to leave.

      The idea of adding more exits than entrances, and its effect on traffic flow, is intriguing. I can think of a very busy car park near me that needs streamlining like this.

  29. BOF
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    ‘It should raise them more revenue as more cars get to use the parks’

    With 23% more cars, I bet they would not think about a price reduction!

  30. Anonymous
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    The secret is smaller cars.

    I drive a Suzuki Alto (older style) which fits in the smallest gap. It has four seats and a decent boot. It converts into a small van by folding down the back seats. It has an 11o0cc engine and goes like a rocket up to 70 and cruises well there.

    It has four doors and seats four (comfortably) Most people do not need any bigger. It’s wheelbase is about the size of an old mini but somehow they’ve managed to get more in. Unfortunately the new model is a lot bigger.

    Why ???

    OK. The crumple zone is small but this is better than a motorbike and makes you drive better.

    We not only need incentives for consumption but for size.

  31. David L
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    A common solution to parking in Wokingham (and many other towns, too) is: park on the side streets and verges as close as possible to the shops and station without having to pay! Commuter parking causes great inconvenience to residents in my road; tradesmen have to block the lane otherwise they cannot work, and we always hope that emergency services don’t have to attend in our area during working hours.

  32. getahead
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Just to let you know John, that my sister-in-law lives in Froghall Drive.
    So if you ever need a hand……………..

  33. Raymond Greenwood
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    Maybe, depends on the circumstances and configuration of the space. One thing to be careful of is having the parking spaces arranged so drivers (those who do not take sufficient care) reverse blind, particularly where there are likely to be pedestrians, and even more particularly where there are vulnerable pedestrians. Its horses for courses. I am sure your council traffic/parking section will be aware of this and more.

  34. Cheshire Girl
    Posted September 4, 2016 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    Thirty years ago, I lived in the USA. Their car parking was at an angle then. Much easier to get in and out. I cant think why we havent done the same already!

    • MikeP
      Posted September 5, 2016 at 7:49 am | Permalink

      Not enough mathematicians in Council Planning departments I suspect ?

  35. Ronald Olden
    Posted September 5, 2016 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    I’m surprised we don’t have more Parking Meters in High Streets. Many of the essential trips we make to these locations are for short, but essential, trips. Parking Meters which charge a high hourly rate, but in 15 minutes or less units, would still be excellent value for money for many of us, and raise large sums of money for the Council. Hourly charges could vary depending on the time of day.

    Paying as much as (say) £2 for units of fifteen minutes, so I could visit the bank and one or two other destinations, perhaps where I have to carry something back to the car, would be much more time and cost efficient, than driving around looking for spaces in a Car Park, paying for longer than I need, and having to walk further to my destination.

    It would also enable to the Council to sweep away all these confusing rules regarding where, and for how long you can park at various times of the day, and whether you have to show that you are ‘loading’ or not.

    As ever, the ‘market solution’ is best.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page