Parking in Strathbungo

This article was first published in 2019, but we are reproducing it here as the debate on pavement parking has resurfaced due to recent changes in legislation. The Society is actively seeking opinions on how to respond to the pavement parking ban that may (or may not) be applied to Strathbungo.

The adverse effect of traffic on the comfort and safety of the residents in this area has the same root cause as in any other urban area, i.e. too many vehicles in too small a space. However, the problem is aggravated in Strathbungo in that the streets were not designed to carry through traffic or fast traffic, or to be used for parking. The older streets, Regent Park Square, Queen Square, Marywood Square and the northern half of Moray Place were built on a scale adequate for access to the houses by horse and carriage. The result is we have an area which is totally unsuitable for the unrestricted use of motor vehicles, whether belonging to residents or to anyone else.

So said the Strathbungo Society in their fact finding report in 1972. It’s a common theme in Strathbungo that the concerns of today are little different from those of yesterday, but it has been brought into focus by this week’s announcement of legislation to ban pavement parking in Scotland. What effect will this have on Strathbungo? Will we need to ask for an exemption, or is this the very thing we have been waiting for?

In 1972 the Society conducted a survey of the numbers of cars and commercial vehicles parked in Strathbungo overnight, There is nothing like hard data to base a discussion on, and so I couldn’t miss the opportunity to repeat it. This is what they, and I, found.

Parking, then and now

The original survey was conducted in January 1972, early on a Sunday morning, when there was unlikely to be a significant number of visiting vehicles. The survey was repeated on a Sunday morning in January 2019, when additional attention was paid to the nature and legality of the parking.

Vehicles parked overnight in Strathbungo’s Squares and Gardens, by vehicle type, 1972 & 2019. Nithsdale Road not included, as it was not surveyed in 1972.
HCV = Heavy Commercial Vehicle, LCV = Light Commercial Vehicle

The number of vehicles parked in Strathbungo has increased 230% since 1972. On the other hand Strathbungo no longer has an issue with heavy goods vehicles being left in the neighbourhood. This was an issue in the 1970s probably because of the number of boarding houses then present, used by long distance lorry drivers.

Changes in the number of vehicles in each street from 1972 to 2019. No data for Nithsdale Road for 1972.

The same data broken down by street shows the Squares were already busy in the 1970s, possibly reflecting subdivision of houses; this was and is especially so in Marywood Square, where numbers were already high but have increased a little further. The squares have probably reached a maximum – there were very few remaining spaces in 2019.

The biggest rise is in the gardens, presumably reflecting the increasing number of households with cars, and the increasing number per household. The number of light commercial vehicles (small vans, transit vans, etc) has changed little.

Note also the streets were all two way until the 1990s, so presumably there was a need to leave some spaces in each street to allow cars to pass.

Parking standards

The original survey did not review the standard of parking. While we generally accept the large number of vehicles, poor parking is a real issue for pedestrians, and occasionally those trapped at their front gate by a car.

Percentage of vehicles parked with wheels on the kerbstones, or fully onto the pavement itself, by street, 2019

The frequency of parking on the pavement varies quite significantly. All parking on Nithsdale Road is in angled parking bays, and the pavements are wide and clear. In Moray Place parking is on one side only with room for vehicles to pass without parking on the pavement. The exception is outside 1-10, where the road is narrower, and almost all the pavement parking on Moray Place was recorded in that section.

In Regent Park Square and Queen Square it is not an issue, despite the narrow roads. This appears to be due to the high kerb heights, which would risk damage to the vehicle.

Marywood Square has the narrowest roadway, and the kerbs are lower, and fully 46% of vehicles were on the pavement, to varying degrees. 13% had their wheels on the kerbstones, while another 33% were on the pavement tarmac, and in all, 20% were obstructing the pavement to pedestrians.

In the Gardens pavement parking is almost universal in Vennard, and the norm in Thorncliffe and Carswell Gardens, but the pavements are wider, with only three instances of obstruction (1%).

Number of vehicles parked illegally on yellow lines, 2019

Parking on double yellow lines is illegal, and in Strathbungo for good reason – they are painted on street corners where parking is dangerous for both cars and pedestrians due to poor sight lines. Notably many of these also obstructed the pavement itself, forcing pedestrians into the path of poorly sighted turning drivers. They were painted a few years back for this very reason, yet with no enforcement they serve little purpose. In Nithsdale Road the offenders were mostly parked in the marked turning spaces at each end of the street.

The number of vehicles causing obstruction to a single able bodied pedestrian on the pavement, by street

Measuring pavement obstruction is difficult. The ideal is 1.5 m to allow two pedestrians with buggies to pass one another. 1 m is the minimum. Strathbungo’s pavements are narrow, and narrower still due to hedges, another issue. In Marywood Square the pavement is less than 1 m to start with! No pavement in the older part of Strathbungo meets the standard even in the absence of any vehicles, and anyone with a pushchair or wheelchair must use the roadway to make progress. I therefore used a much lesser standard; could a single able-bodied individual pass on the pavement without bumping vehicles or other obstructions, or contorting themselves to pass? This was possible in most locations, with just the occasional inconsiderately parked vehicle, but in Marywood Square there were 16 vehicles not even permitting this. This was most common at the Moray Place end, for no obvious reason. I was obstructed a further 6 times in Queens Square and Regent Park Square, but by hedges and other obstacles, not vehicles.

Well, with one exception in Regent Park Square

What does the law say?

There is no fundamental right in law to park a vehicle on a public road for extended periods, and it was frowned upon though not outlawed, until the 1960s. Roads are primarily for moving about. However parking in the road is an accepted part of modern life.

There is a proposal to make pavement parking illegal in Scotland, but it is currently legal everywhere except London. Oddly it is illegal to drive on a pavement, which is how most of them get there, but this is largely ignored. It is however an offence to obstruct the pavement, and to park on double yellow lines.

The Pedestrian Liberation website has the best summary of the law I have seen, though the law remains a mess.

How much room is there?

Pavements in the Squares are 90-110 cm wide maximum, but frequently much reduced by hedges. The roads vary, 610 cm in Marywood Square, 625 cm in Regent Park Square, 660 cm in Queen Square.

In the Gardens the roads are 625 cm and the pavements 175 cm.

In Moray Place the road is 525 cm, reducing to 410 cm at 1-10. The pavement is 120 cm.

Cars have got bigger; using a Honda Civic and VW Golf as a guide, 20% longer and 15% wider than in 1974. A Golf is 1.8 m wide, a Range Rover Evoque 1.9 m, a transit van 2.0 m, excluding mirrors.

A fire engine requires 3.7 m for access according to building regulations. No road is wide enough to meet this standard; each car would need to be at least 50 cm over the pavement to get close. In practice a typical fire engine is 2.55m wide, and would JUST fit down all roads except Marywood Square and 1-10 Moray Place With cars parked on the road (not pavement) on both sides, but would be blocked by one poorly parked car. Furthermore any car parked on the double yellow lines at junctions will prevent a fire engine turning into a street. There has been just such an occurrence this year, when the fire service could not reach a house fire due to poor parking.

So what’s the answer?

I wish I knew.

There is clearly a compromise to be had between the needs to preserve access for other cars (and emergency vehicles), and protect your car from damage, and that to preserve pavements, protect vulnerable pedestrians, especially the elderly or infirm, and those with buggies, prams or wheelchairs. How far you encroach on the pavement reflects your relative value judgements, I guess.

In the Gardens parking partly on the pavement is the norm, and preserves a decent roadway without impeding pedestrians if done considerately, thanks to the wide pavements.

In Moray Place there is no reason to park on the pavement, except at 1-10, but even here doing so forces pedestrians into the road, which is especially dangerous where vehicles turn in at speed from Nithsdale Road.

In the Squares, high kerbs force vehicles to remain on the road, but the roadway is slightly wider. Hedges cause more obstruction than cars.

The exception is Marywood Square, which has the most vehicles, the narrowest pavements and the narrowest roadway, so it is no surprise the number of obstructions is highest. Most pedestrians don’t even bother using the pavements in this street, but walk in the roadway.

Possible solutions

Before we make any suggestions, we would like to hear what you think. Please leave us comments below, or on facebook.


  1. Jane

    Would it be possible to re-pave the lanes to allow those with a garage at the back to park their cars there? Also, i notice the residents in the sandstone flats from Marywood to queens square, rarely use their back gardens. Might it be possible to use some of this ground for additional parking. Cars parking in a diagonal fashion, allowing more cars in. It would be reciting bin sheds, however this might work.

    • adownie

      People do park round the back already. There is a long history to resurfacing the lanes I won’t go into here, but the lanes belong to the residents, and the cost is high. I doubt anyone would give up their garden to someone else’s cars, and besides parking more cars round the back will not solve the problem, but just encourage higher car ownership – well, my opinion anyway.

      • Valerie Ward

        Totally agree!

    • Valerie Ward

      People in the flats own their gardens and I don’t think they would sell their outside space for others to park.
      Reduction of car ownership is the only solution. The area is well served with public transport so there is no excuse, except selfishness.
      Can I also say that most of the townhouses are now flat conversions and are now classed as tenement flats.

  2. HB

    We need to be discouraging such high car usage (not least because it’s terrible for the environment). We live in an area extremely well-served by public transport (my husband and I sold our car a few weeks after moving here and joined co-wheels for the few instances we need a car), so the amount of cars around boggles the mind.

    Parking on one side of the street, no pavement parking, and a one car per household limit (or a hefty surcharge for each additional vehicle) could all move the neighborhood in the right direction. There are plenty of places in the world where no parking spaces are included with a house/flat purchase—people either have to get rid of their vehicles, or live somewhere else. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    • Valerie Ward

      Just exactly what’s needed! 🙂

  3. Valerie Ward

    I have lived in Marywood Square since 1992. When the road was a two way street, passing was impossible, it involved one car having to reverse, and I often witnessed a Mexican standoff. Over the years parking problems have just snowballed. The original townhouses are mostly conversions and are now correctly classed as tenements. With three flats potentially having six or more cars and limited parking space outside each property this surely is the crux of the problem. I agree with HB, parking on one side only, no pavement parking and parking space limited to one car per household. If people don’t like it then move elsewhere where concern for the environment may not be so prevalent.

  4. Alex

    Really interesting blog and very informative.

    I’d strongly support one car per household with fines implented for extras. The exception being if the residents can prove they need another vehicle e.g. for transporting people unable to walk. And parking on corners should be strongly penalised with fines.

    The revenue generated could be used to subsidise bike purchases!

  5. Caroline Kane

    Imposing a 1 car per house won’t work for all. Some families need cars for work (I couldn’t work without mine!) Not sure what the answer is but agree we should apply the law already there as in can we get regular visits from traffic wardens to fine those on double yellows?

    • HB

      It could absolutely work. People who can prove that they unequivocally *need* a car for work reasons could apply for an exemption (and it would all average out numbers wise, because I’d like to think plenty of people, like my husband and I have already done, would go carless).

  6. Valerie Ward

    Some families need “cars” for work.
    What about car sharing? Okay, maybe someone would arrive at work a little early or leave later, so what, less selfish and kinder to environment. If your car is necessary for carrying out your work, fine, but if it’s just to get you from home to your place of employment then that’s not good.
    My previous employment involved 4 buses and 2 underground trips daily, something I undertook for 18 years despite having mobility difficulties. So there is no excuse other than a self-serving attitude.

  7. SR

    Is permit parking with designated bays an answer ? Also means the limit is enforceable

  8. adownie

    More comments from the facebook pages:

    A possible solution for the Strathbungo houses in those narrow one way streets that bottom out at Moray Place is that they could build a mini multi secure car park over the railway tracks? The trains would run underneath them. Expensive but a possible solution?

    I think it would cost millions of pounds and nobody would willingly pay for it. And it would be an eyesore too.

    That would depend on the architect I’d say? Not sure about millions either? Maybe one tops? They could include a few retail outlets on the main rd side to cover most of if not all the money invested in the lock ups? It could be done with little cost to residents if planned right.

    Why on earth should any public money be spent building private parking for what is already one of Glasgow’s most salubrious neighbourhoods? Ludicrous. Restrict parking to one side of the street only, job done. If you can’t get parked outside your house, park further away. It’s really not difficult. Of course the ‘divine right’ brigade who seem to think they own the space outside their front door won’t like it but so what.

    If residents want to fund a major construction project for the sake of a parking space they can’t take with them, then more power to them. Pigs will fly.

    It would affect me in that I’d have to look at the glorious carbuncle every day. I just think solutions have to be viable. A privately funded and maintained car park building straddling a railway line – and adjacent to a conservation area – is not that.

    Lol…pie in the sky idea. For the last 25 years there has been a sputtering campaign to tarmac back lanes, most folk not interested in parting with their cash, so why would they dig deeper into their pockets to fund a car park building.
    Like I said above! You could incorporate shops into the plans that would pay for it? No public money needed. They could rent the garages to residents? Or the neighbourhood could buy into the plans and make money from the rentals and that would recover any monies spent? Projects like this are not pie in the sky if you put your mind and some effort into it. Things like this happen all over the world 🌎 successfully where there’s limited space!

    Like I said, great public transport…helps the environment and is not selfish…I rest my case

    Not everyone is able to use public transport as not everyone works in town. You make it sound soooo easy when that’s far from the case! Millions of people go to work after and before public transport is running.

    Lol, building a big car park is not the solution to parking and environmental issues…get real!

    Is there a law for the size/width of the hedges? That would be a good place to start. I rarely walk the path, especially when it’s wet.

    That’s certainly one area that needs attention. I’m guilty there myself, despite my best efforts with an electric trimmer.

    yes there is a law. Councillor Anna Richardson was out measuring hedge overhangs in shawlands last year or so. Can’t remember what the maximum protruding allowance was though.

    good memory Judy! I was indeed out with my tape measure. As a result we tightened up our policy and can enforce where residents don’t maintain their hedges. What matters is the width of footway that is kept clear of hedge- any streets that you can’t get past the hedges comfortably, email the addresses to your local councillor and we can get them checked out.

    I’m really interested in this. The Society used to trim hedges for residents, mainly for the elderly, infirm, etc, but I’m curious how one enforces, or facilitates, hedge cutting now. Hedges that have widened over time, including my own, are quite hard to cut back, and the tools I have to hand aren’t up to it. Cutting back all the hedges would be great, but not sure how to organise it.

    Oh that’s a good question! It’s up to residents to maintain their own hedges, but as a community it might be worthwhile to club together and hire a gardener to get them back to a manageable size? As a last resort the council can deal with the hedge and then charge it back but I imagine that’s less cost effective all round. Also something that could have been explored by the South Seeds tool library which is sadly on hiatus due to funding issues.

    If the Society could organise such a thing, where would we stand cutting hedges without permission. Is it only the council that can do that? In which case maybe they should, and then charge it back…Alternatively any of the Bungo gardeners who can advise on the best tools?

    Permit Parking only

    But most cars belong to residents, don’t they, except maybe in Nithsdale Road. Unless you made it one car per household I suppose, or hiked the price for a second.

    I say keep doing what you’re doing. Nobody moves to strathbungo who’s going to be using their car every day surely? Keep parking on the pavement, keep tootling up the roads at 5mph, and keep walking up the middle of the road when you head out. Just ignore the dumb new law

    Ignoring the law is probably dumb as will no doubt lead to a fine to the car owner / in which case that’s their problem. What does need attention is parking on street corners at moray place end & those who can’t park n so have rear ends sticking out. Living in Queen Square after 6pm is a pain because it’s the ‘in road’ all the restaurant n pub attendees park – residents are gubbed till after midnight!

    And the fire engines that can’t get in

    I have lived in Marywood Square since 1992. When the road was a two way street, passing was impossible, it involved one car having to reverse, and I often witnessed a Mexican standoff. Over the years parking problems have just snowballed. The original townhouses are mostly conversions and are now correctly classed as tenements. With three flats potentially having six or more cars and limited parking space outside each property this surely is the crux of the problem. Parking needs to be on one side only, no pavement parking and parking space limited to one car per household. If people don’t like it then move elsewhere where concern for the environment may not be so prevalent.

    You got to laugh at people who suggest that you move out of your lifetime home before suggesting credible alternatives. Get rid of your car and lose your job because someone finds that easy to type as a solution? Lol. I say, Let’s find a solution that works for everyone!

    Limiting vehicles to one per household is perfectly credible, though, and there are plenty of places in the world where a parking space doesn’t come with a flat/house purchase. People with vehicles either have to get rid of them, or go live somewhere with the space to park cars. As a society, we desperately need to reduce our dependance upon cars. Utilising the very good public transport we have, lobbying our MPs to nationalise and invest in transport so more routes can be created, cycling/walking more. Speaking as someone who sold their car when they moved here: living car-free can absolutely be done (you just have to be willing to sacrifice a bit of convenience).

    Thing is limiting households to one car might free up parking but the spaces will just be taken by others. To get cars off pavements down those lanes you need to restrict parking. I still think limiting it to one side of the street only would be an elegant and cost-effective solution.

    Sadly the residents of Strathbungo will need to come to terms with the lack of parking. Its not possible in such a limited space, to have it all. Its a tough message, but its the reality. Those for whom it is possible, should seriously consider getting rid of their cars and joining the car club.

    Back lanes being properly repaired, so that residents can drive down to park in their own ground??? (That would mean undesirable residents wouldn’t have to be told to go away! I’ve been here for 30+ years.) However improved lanes would take getting the council to admit they destroyed the lanes with enormous garbage trucks which forget to empty bins! Sorry just a quick rant. Fed up ringing, even offered joke about they should have gone to spec savers!
    What an excellent piece of comparative work. Thanks.

    Maybe folks could cut hedges back more?? That would be a good start…

    Get rid of the pavements. They are too narrow to be of any use in certain streets anyway.

    And walk where?

    tightropes… and ziplines it’ll be like go ape?

    Even with no cars the pavements are too narrow with big thick hedges. Those streets have so little traffic that it’s possible to walk on the road. What should be kept clearer is access to front gates. Maybe paint parking bays/lines on the road so you know the exact amount of spaces available and make it residents only. Some folk park so far apart that if you shove them closer together you could fit in a few more. People should also consider the amount of cars the need per household.

    The zip line proposal is my favourite so far, but the one above has the most practical appeal, if only the council and residents would buy into shared space.

    When the pavements in the Squares were tarmacked (?mid 80s), the pavements were reduced by about 6″ / 15cm each side. The plan was to ban parking on one side to permit cars to pass. Then out of the blue, the Squares were made one-way. My memory is of far fewer (and much smaller) cars – in the daytime at least. Imo, people should stop viewing cars as status symbols, and start seeing them as planet destroyers. Many thanks to Andrew for the survey.

    The pavements were narrowed? I’ve never heard that before. Explains a lot.

    yes, they used to be formed of large stone slabs which ended up cracked & broken. Some of the paths to the doors might still have these in place

    I know them well. There’s no tarmac left on the path outside my house

    • Stephen Fagan

      I’m not sure what the answer is but I am sure that if you give more space then you will see an increase of cars speeding down the rd, the narrow streets and the cars that are parked on them are already acting as some sort of traffic calming measure (which is a good thing) cars practically move at a snails pace, which adds to the charm of this place. Parking on one side may be the most suitable and subtle solution which in turn creates more space, so more space is good? Nope! more space will mean faster moving traffic. (Keep it as it is and see if some sort of exemption can be made for areas with narrow streets. If traffic is allowed to move more freely then you can guarantee that it won’t be long before some poor soul is hit by a car.

  9. mags

    valerie ward
    there is no tenements in the squares only conversions if they were tenements council tax would lower

    • Valerie

      The definition of “tenement” especially in Scotland, is a room or a set of rooms forming a separate residence within a house or block of flats… conversions fit this criteria, therefore in Scotland they are tenements. If you had done some research you would know that the council tax rates in Strathbungo are mostly within the C band. Which is unfair, as some of the conversion tenements could be fitted twice into the non converted tenements.

      • adownie

        OK both. Points made.

  10. craig thomson

    Can i suggest that the answer is already staring us in the face, the pavements are inadequate even with no cars. So simply get rid of them by introducing shared surface roads. The high kerbs already noted both damage cars and encourage parking away from the kerb hence reducing the roadway width. My thought is change that to a gutter at the side of the roadway and allow cars to park on the pavements increasing the width of the roadway, at the same time introduce either build outs at pedestrian gates or speed reduction measures to ensure safety on the shared surface central section. Shared surfaces are a common development in modern housing areas so why not introduce in Strathbungo. I think the notions of single side parking would be a disaster, there simply isn’t alternative parking in the area.
    Restricting cars to one per household again simply doesn’t work ..what happens to the family with different work places for husband and wife plus young adults all driving to different destinations, and no public transport isn’t good enough.
    Sure i would love a society with less cars but they aren’t going away any time soon so we need to accept them and introduce practical solutions rather than sign up to the “lets ban them brigade”, which just moves the issue on to other areas.
    Getting rid of the kerbs solves many of the issues and complies with the new laws.

    • adownie

      Craig, Thanks for reviving an article from several years ago, but back in the limelight now. I think this is certainly one option for the squares, and indeed one that the Society has proposed already, back in 1979! I worry that the Council wouldn’t have the money to do it properly, but certainly one to suggest.

  11. magnus

    I suggest those with private parking off the lanes use it , giving us with none more space on squares more space

  12. Helen

    Could we get rid of the pavement on one side and slightly extend on the other? And railings/bollards to prevent parking on the top corners with moray place?

    Has there been a recent quotation for properly resurfacing the lanes out of interest?

  13. Ceara

    I think that if the number of cars are restricted people will just park elsewhere, which only moves the problem.

    My main concern is that homeowners will choose to replace their gardens with parking, leading to a loss in biodiversity and further problems with flooding etc. In the Gardens several homeowners have already chosen to do this with their front gardens, losing green space and another parking space on the street.

    I think the society organising/offering help with cutting back hedges is a good idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.