Search
Generic filters

Explore and implement sustainable parking initiatives to enable city centre development

Summary

  • Respondents aged 35-54, males and those living outside PO1-PO6 are most likely to disagree with policy B (explore and implement sustainable parking initiatives to enable city centre development)
  • The main reason for disagreeing with policy B (24% of respondents who disagree) is that the city centre is already an unattractive place to visit, and implementing these initiatives will drive more visitors away
  • Other things are more important for 18% such as resident parking, controlling housing/population growth, reducing commercial vehicles in residential areas, and reviving local commercial centres
  • 12% think that parking will become more expensive whilst they would like it to be cheaper

Who disagrees with policy B?

Base: (top to bottom) | Total sample: 1,494 | Age: 108, 152, 216, 286, 247, 91 | Sex: 563, 507 | Postcode: 114, 266, 131, 311, 159, 124, 58 | Disability: 230, 817

This chart shows the proportion of respondents who disagree with policy B (Explore and implement sustainable parking initiatives to enable city centre development):
7% of the total sample.
4% of those aged under 34,
10% of those aged 35-44,
10% of those aged 45-54,
7% of those aged 55-64,
2% of those aged 65-74, and
4% of those aged 75 and over.
9% of males and 3% of females.
5% of those in PO1,
7% of those in PO2,
8% of those in PO3,
7% of those in PO4,
8% of those in PO5,
6% of those in PO6 and
10% of those living external to PO1-PO6.
7% of those with a disability and 6% of those without a disability.

Why do you disagree with policy B?

Base: Respondents who disagree with policy B (98)
wdt_ID Key themes Percentage (%)
1 City centre is dead / no one wants to visit / will put off visitors 24
2 Other things are more important e.g. residents parking, getting rid of HMOs, controlling new developments, reducing commercial vehicles, reviving local commercial centres 18
3 Parking will be more expensive / make parking cheaper 12
4 Vague / confusing 11
5 Waste of money / won't work 10
6 Will mean fewer spaces 9
7 Need better public transport 8
8 Anti-motorist / restrictive 6
9 Doesn't address the need to reduce number of cars / journeys 4
10 Other e.g. re-purpose Sainsbury's and Tricorn sites as multi-storey car parks 7
11 No relevant comment / no comment 14