motorcycle parking locations

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please supply me with a list of all motorcycle parking bays being
sure to include the following information.

In the case of underground car parks:
- The name of the car park
- The level of the car park
- Number of painted bays
- Capacity of each bay
- Dimensions of the bay to the nearest cm with measurements in cm
(not to include the width of the painted lines)
- Security features offered

For example if underground car park "Alpha" had 3 levels with 10
bays of 1 meter by 2 meters designed for single occupancy on level
1, another 10 bays of the same type on level 2 with plus 2 bays of
0.9 meter by 2 meters for single occupancy and 2 bays of 2 meters
by 2 meters for double occupancy then the results would be
presented in the following format using a spreadsheet.

Facility | Level | No. of bays | capacity of bay | dimensions |
Security |

Alpha | 1 | 10 | 1 | 100x200 | CCTV

Alpha | 2 | 10 | 1 | 100x200 | CCTV

Alpha | 2 | 2 | 1 | 90x200 | CCTV

Alpha | 2 | 2 | 2 | 200x200 | CCTV

Alpha | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0x0 | none

in the case motorcycle parking that is on street level
- The name of the road the bays are located in including the full
postcode so multiple bays on streets are more easily identified.
- Capacity of the bay
- Dimensions of the bay to the nearest cm with measurements in cm
(not to include the width of the painted lines)
- Security features offered
- Nearest public phone measured in meters to the nearest 5 meters

If there are multiple bays in the same street & postcode please put
(#) on the end to show this was not a duplication with #
representing a number, the numbers may be assigned in the order of
your choice but should start at 1 and increase by values of 1, for
example if street A in postcode SW1 1AB has 3 bays these should be
marked as:

street A (1) - SW1 1AB
street A (2) - SW1 1AB
street A (3) - SW1 1AB

Should Street B however have 2 bays in SW1 2AB & because street B
is quite long a further 2 bays in SW1 2AC then that should be
represented at

Street B (1) - SW1 2AB
Street B (2) - SW1 2AB
Street B (1) - SW1 2AC
Street B (2) - SW1 2AC

so the street and postcode column should be unique for every row.

the full format should be as follows & again should be in the form
of a spreed sheet.

street & postcode | capacity | dimensions | Security | Nearest
phone

street A (1) - SW1 1AB | 5 | 183x300 | none | 300

street A (2) - SW1 1AB | 4 | 186x250 | none | 290

street A (3) - SW1 1AB | 6 | 190x480 | none | 270

Street B (1) - SW1 2AB | 4 | 180x280 | none | 200

Street B (2) - SW1 2AB | 4 | 185x260 | none | 230

Street B (1) - SW1 2AC | 8 | 200x600 | none | 5

Street B (2) - SW1 2AC | 7 | 200x550 | none | 20

In addition can you include information on what the total cost to
me of using your parking system would be if I were to need to park
my motorcycle for 2 hours. Please highlight the cost of any
optional features.

In the case that you feel there are multiple interpretations of a
question I have asked, please supply answers to ALL possible
interpretations of the question.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Creed

The following are numbered in relation to the numbering of the
response I received.

1) I think you’ll find that the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulation and
General Directions has nothing to do with anything these days as it
was updated in 2002 so you should be checking Traffic Signs
Regulation and General Directions 2002 if anything, so quite why
I’m being quoted a defunct statutory instrument is beyond me. Still
at least you are now quoting stuff from the UK law books as in
previous FOIs you decided to quote the 2002 road traffic act which
is on the Irish law books.

The work of painting out the bays in car-parks however has only
recently been undertaken and in doing so Westminster would have
needed to supply specifications of the dimensions of the bays to
who ever the work was awarded, as such you SHOULD have a record of
it, and your refusal under section 17 of the FOI is invalid so I am
requesting that information if however you are telling me you do
not then I want the name of the person(s) who issued & authorised
the work as they are guilty of gross incompetence.

2) I didn’t ask for a map I asked for a list. Further more your
link
“http://www2.westminster.gov.uk/services/...
Tells me that the page is not found!

I would assume that when supplied with the correct link (assuming
one actually exists) that your map is driven by a database so you
should have exported that data out of your database and into a list
for the purpose of my requests!

As for post codes I’ve yet to see a map that actually displays full
postcodes for all areas so I find your claim that this map will
hard to believe.

Actually the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2002
do set measurements for motorcycle bays, these are defined under
section 6 and classed in the same grouping as doctors bays, the
fact that you are not aware of this alone shows a worrying trend of
incompetence. This response however fails to answer what I asked
for, that being the overall dimensions of the bay & of the number
of bikes you feel are able to park in each bay.

Westminster has made claims about the number of parking spaces they
have made available to bikes but there is at no point a break down
of where all these spaces are which you must surely know to be able
to tell us how many bays you have. So yet again your attempts to
fob me off by telling me this isn’t covered by the FOI Act are
wrong!

As for the Sheffield stands it was admitted in the scrutiny meeting
at the end of March that Sheffield stands were a failure and was
also shown that other councils had already drawn that conclusion
before Westminster had even begun the installation of these stands.
As for the ground anchors I’ve yet to see one. I would ask what the
rate of roll out for these features has been but technically I
already did as I could have used the information I’d requested to
work it out as was my intention so that’s another question you
failed to answer

I find that you hold no information on the location of public
phones in relation to the bays to be most interesting. Given that
in the previously mentioned scrutiny meeting at the end of March it
was admitted that it was not practical to attach a ticket to a
motorcycle and so paying by phone was the only option. Given this
before the system was rolled out you should have conducted a survey
to find out how near pay phones were to each bay as:

i) Not everyone owns a mobile

ii) A mobile phone requires battery power to run and sometimes they
run out when you didn’t expect them to leaving you without a phone
and suddenly unable to pay.

iii) Mobile phones like every other piece of electronic equipment
are not perfect and can break leaving the motorcycle user unable to
pay.

The fact that you do not have this information suggests to me that
you were negligent in your research for this project and that the
system was put in place without due care and consideration being
taken!

3) First 4p per hour is not only misleading but a lie as no
motorcycle parking bay run by WCC has charged hours of operation
that run for 24 hours. As a result any pro-rata break down would
need to use the hours of operation for which charging is enforced.

Or perhaps your telling me that £1 gets me 24 hours and so as I
only want to use 2 of the hours the other 22 hours are there for me
to use as any other time of my choosing be that a week a month or a
year later rather than 24 sequential hours.

The fact that I can draw so many different interpretations from
this single statement is actually quite worrying, you do realise
that “freedom” in the Freedom of Information Act doesn’t mean you
can play it free and fast with the truth?

Infact the only thing I seem able to actually be sure of from this
response is that I get 24 hours of parking so if I pay at 14:00
today I’m free to park in any motorcycle bay in Westminster till
13:59 the next day.

I have done my due diligence on your website looking for the free
phone number to pay for my parking but I can’t seem to find it. You
are quite clear here that the only additional costs I’d incur as a
result of paying for my parking are optional text message reminders
& confirmations of 10p so the call/text which are required as a
direct result of paying for the parking must be free. Also given
you start your comments on these text messages start with “If you
wanted” I assume I’m not automatically opted in to receive these
then, and that anyone who has been can contact you for a full
refund as a result of your error.

4)Further as an additional point I would like to ask the internal
review board to find out why it took 19 working days to respond to
my inquiry given the individual responding believed that all they
needed to do was point me at some articles posted on the web? The
FOI Act calls for a prompt response of no more than 20 working
days. Given the nature of the reply the time frame for this
response can by no means be classed as ‘prompt’ I only hope the
review board hold themselves to higher standards.

I await your PROMPT reply

Regards

Mr Creed

Dear Sir or Madam,

I've yet to receive receipt of acknowledgement so I re-submit the
following.

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Westminster City
Council's handling of my FOI request 'motorcycle parking
locations'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mo...

The following are numbered in relation to the numbering of the
response I received.

1) I think you’ll find that the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulation and
General Directions has nothing to do with anything these days as it
was updated in 2002 so you should be checking Traffic Signs
Regulation and General Directions 2002 if anything, so quite why
I’m being quoted a defunct statutory instrument is beyond me. Still
at least you are now quoting stuff from the UK law books as in
previous FOIs you decided to quote the 2002 road traffic act which
is on the Irish law books.

The work of painting out the bays in car-parks however has only
recently been undertaken and in doing so Westminster would have
needed to supply specifications of the dimensions of the bays to
who ever the work was awarded, as such you SHOULD have a record of
it, and your refusal under section 17 of the FOI is invalid so I am
requesting that information if however you are telling me you do
not then I want the name of the person(s) who issued & authorised
the work as they are guilty of gross incompetence.

2) I didn’t ask for a map I asked for a list. Further more your
link
“http://www2.westminster.gov.uk/services/...
Tells me that the page is not found!

I would assume that when supplied with the correct link (assuming
one actually exists) that your map is driven by a database so you
should have exported that data out of your database and into a list
for the purpose of my requests!

As for post codes I’ve yet to see a map that actually displays full
postcodes for all areas so I find your claim that this map will
hard to believe.

Actually the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2002
do set measurements for motorcycle bays, these are defined under
section 6 and classed in the same grouping as doctors bays, the
fact that you are not aware of this alone shows a worrying trend of
incompetence. This response however fails to answer what I asked
for, that being the overall dimensions of the bay & of the number
of bikes you feel are able to park in each bay.

Westminster has made claims about the number of parking spaces they
have made available to bikes but there is at no point a break down
of where all these spaces are which you must surely know to be able
to tell us how many bays you have. So yet again your attempts to
fob me off by telling me this isn’t covered by the FOI Act are
wrong!

As for the Sheffield stands it was admitted in the scrutiny meeting
at the end of March that Sheffield stands were a failure and was
also shown that other councils had already drawn that conclusion
before Westminster had even begun the installation of these stands.
As for the ground anchors I’ve yet to see one. I would ask what the
rate of roll out for these features has been but technically I
already did as I could have used the information I’d requested to
work it out as was my intention so that’s another question you
failed to answer

I find that you hold no information on the location of public
phones in relation to the bays to be most interesting. Given that
in the previously mentioned scrutiny meeting at the end of March it
was admitted that it was not practical to attach a ticket to a
motorcycle and so paying by phone was the only option. Given this
before the system was rolled out you should have conducted a survey
to find out how near pay phones were to each bay as:

i) Not everyone owns a mobile

ii) A mobile phone requires battery power to run and sometimes they
run out when you didn’t expect them to leaving you without a phone
and suddenly unable to pay.

iii) Mobile phones like every other piece of electronic equipment
are not perfect and can break leaving the motorcycle user unable to
pay.

The fact that you do not have this information suggests to me that
you were negligent in your research for this project and that the
system was put in place without due care and consideration being
taken!

3) First 4p per hour is not only misleading but a lie as no
motorcycle parking bay run by WCC has charged hours of operation
that run for 24 hours. As a result any pro-rata break down would
need to use the hours of operation for which charging is enforced.

Or perhaps your telling me that £1 gets me 24 hours and so as I
only want to use 2 of the hours the other 22 hours are there for me
to use as any other time of my choosing be that a week a month or a
year later rather than 24 sequential hours.

The fact that I can draw so many different interpretations from
this single statement is actually quite worrying, you do realise
that “freedom” in the Freedom of Information Act doesn’t mean you
can play it free and fast with the truth?

Infact the only thing I seem able to actually be sure of from this
response is that I get 24 hours of parking so if I pay at 14:00
today I’m free to park in any motorcycle bay in Westminster till
13:59 the next day.

I have done my due diligence on your website looking for the free
phone number to pay for my parking but I can’t seem to find it. You
are quite clear here that the only additional costs I’d incur as a
result of paying for my parking are optional text message reminders
& confirmations of 10p so the call/text which are required as a
direct result of paying for the parking must be free. Also given
you start your comments on these text messages start with “If you
wanted” I assume I’m not automatically opted in to receive these
then, and that anyone who has been can contact you for a full
refund as a result of your error.

4)Further as an additional point I would like to ask the internal
review board to find out why it took 19 working days to respond to
my inquiry given the individual responding believed that all they
needed to do was point me at some articles posted on the web? The
FOI Act calls for a prompt response of no more than 20 working
days. Given the nature of the reply the time frame for this
response can by no means be classed as ‘prompt’ I only hope the
review board hold themselves to higher standards.

I await your PROMPT reply

Yours faithfully,

Mr Creed

Dear Customer Relations,

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mo...

in reference to the above FOI I've yet to receive an
acknowledgement of receipt for the internal review. If I do not
receive one by close of business Monday 5th of October 2009 then I
will be taking the matter direct to the information commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Creed

Dear Customer Relations,

Just a reminder, I should have a response from the Internal Review
board by close of business Monday 19 October 2009 (which as you
read this should be today).

As part of that review I would expect all questions I have raised
to be answered.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Creed