I am responsible for the recent closure of high street shops...

macaque_2

stephen163 wrote: »

First, I would recommend anyone looking into this issue to read the ABD website. See for yourself how the arguments they use are ill-founded, absurd and sensationalist. Boil it down and what you're left with is a blind denial of traffic congestion problems crippling the road networks, the chronic shortage of parking spaces in town/city centres and the requirement to adapt to achieve new environment targets.

The ABD are in the privileged position of not having to worry about these issues. Unfortunately, the government are.

Let us assess the net effect of adopting ABD policies, i.e., abolishment of car parking charges. First, traffic congestion would increase. Second, a grossly unfair system of first come first serve for parking spaces would now be in place.

I agree that the future of the town centre is precarious. However, how can we proceed with free parking when the roads are gridlocked? How can it be fair when it is well known that there aren't enough spaces to go around? I do feel sorry for local traders who did provide a convinient place to shop in the 80's and 90's, and to some extend in the 2000's. Now, unfortunately, they must adapt or die.

Or maybe the ABD does have a viable solution to save town centres? How about elevated roads?, Roads in tunnels? A device that makes your car disappear into thin air once it has parked?

I cannot agree with this. Imposing charges does not increase the number of parking spaces available. It simply offers a way for councils to exploit problems arising from their own (and central government's) missmanagement. Public transport is in a shambles. We have one of the most expensive rail services in the world and yet people have to stand in the train corridors. In many areas, local bus services are poor or non existant. UK roads are a death trap for cyclists. Operating in cahoots with super markets local councils have used bad planning decisions to prevent new shops from opening. This forces people into their cars.

nickmason

macaque wrote: »

In many areas, local bus services are poor or non existant.

my neck of the woods - bus subsidy is about £3 per resident.
In london - where there are all sorts of alternatives; tube etc - bus subsidy alone is £100 per resident.

UK roads are a death trap for cyclists. Operating in cahoots with super markets local councils have used bad planning decisions to prevent new shops from opening.

On of the problems with the instructions and targets from central government is that councils often have relatively little bargaining power combined with developers/supermarkets. The - the private sector - can often come in and say "we know you need to deliver on this target; here's our plan, take it or leave it". Not always, but more often than you'd hope.

This forces people into their cars.

Much of this debate has been skewed by the huge differences between rural, semi-rural/small-town and large-urban/metropolitan environments. "The high street" is not really a concept in the metropolitan environment in the way it is for small towns. (Typically "the council" means different things in those environments too).
The problem at the moment is that most people would seem to like to get in the car to save a 5 minute walk. I don't really think they're being "forced" into their cars. Obviously, as just mentioned, one size doesn't fit all; while a car is vital in most rural areas, it's so difficult in a city such as Oxford (for example) that people are forced out of the cars.

115K

skap7309 wrote: »

Also, it is so much more convenient to shop online. You can find something you like, read reviews from both professionals and consumers, place the order from your desk at lunchtime, place an order at 11pm before you go to bed, compare prices, forget about ques, forget about parking, forget about leaving the comfort of your front room etc and as a result i never go shopping in the high street anymore.

Same here. I can't stand shopping anyway. It's so much easier to do it from home online and not have someone standing behind you or next to you looking like they want to grab whatever you are holding at the time. Some shoppers are like vultures!:p

jyonda

Obviously the internet beats the cr*p out of the dreary old high street full of discount stores and hoodies loitering outside fast food outlets but how do folks cope with the whole being at home when the man comes?
I mean aren't like most people at work or school or something? Parents with young kids often leave the house too so what's the solution? Can a neighbour always be relied upon to be at home when the man comes then again when you get back from whatever it is that you were doing? Perhaps we should all have dropboxes instead of letterboxes?

lynzpower

As for the 'controlling congestion' argument, we have seen that disproved both in London - where all penalising motorists has achieved is to raise money for a profligate authority - and in Manchester, where a wise electorate threw the proposal out.

I drive in London every day for my living. I will tell you right now that the congestion charge has made a tremendous impact in the ability to drive through zone 1- I can go from the farthest corner to corner of the zone now in about 45 mins any time of the day.

Some parking charges are barely worth collecting in my view ( near my mums place there is 30p for 2 hours). It of course reduces congestion for parking spaces, but also do the free for 2 hours" - which is much better for smaller town centres etc) car parks that exist but they have to pay a person to collect and monitor- increase in tax burden for that employee)

If i need a hot drink when Im driving around then I have to stop at the services- or Mcds. I cannot buy from an independent, which Id prefer, as parking usually costs more for the parking than it does for the drink!

A._Badger

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors about the London Congestion Charge (not least in the fiddling with the traffic flows that went on before its introduction).

Once again, the ABD (I am not connected with them) has some interesting things to say: http://www.abd.org.uk/london_congestion_charge_report2007.htm

nickmason

A._Badger wrote: »

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors about the London Congestion Charge (not least in the fiddling with the traffic flows that went on before its introduction).

What really gets me about the congestion charge is that they could have made it so much easier to avoid being fined. Another day's grace to pay would help, as would the ability to see online or through a helpline whether you have entered the zone (I have twice now entered into the zone without realising, possibly because I'm concentrating on driving) Even a subscription scheme, or an email notification if you've registered your car

It has always seemed that the fine for not paying was designed as a revenue scheme.

Oh well, maybe Boris will change things - I understand he was fined the other day!!

stephen163

Transport for London (TfL) have recently published their fifth annual monitoring report. Its 265 pages of dense prose attempts to justify the scheme, but is in reality a minefield of obfuscation and misleading statistics..., Both reports can be obtained from TfL if you have the time to read them. Otherwise the following highlights some of the salient points.

I have taken the time to read this 'damning report'.

I'll start by pointing out that there is an avalanche of evidence suggesting that the charge has reduced congestion in inner city London. However, this is just one example of the kind of gross misrepresentation of the facts the ABD always employ to back up their views.
Traffic Volumes and Speeds.
ABD say:

The above graph, taken from the report which shows the "excess delays", is particularly revealing. Just look at the peak in Nov/Dec 2007, where congestion is back to where it was before the charge was introduced. This backs up our personal experience of driving in central London at that time when congestion seemed to be worse than ever.

To take another statistic, average road network traffic speeds in 2002 were about 14 km per hour. To quote from page 47 of the report: "Since 2003, average observed charging hours speeds have progressively fallen back, to about 16 km per hour in 2005 and 15 km per hour in 2006". Of course they allege that speeds would have fallen even further if congestion charging had not been introduced, but they provide no substantive evidence to support that claim.

Now, here is what the report says in full (i.e., without the ABD's selectively picking and choosing the odd statistic that in isolation support their arguments)

The trend for street works (by utilities in particular) shows a very steep rise between 2005 and 2006 (over 90 percent). This reflected the need to replace
ageing infrastructure, and corresponded to the sharp deterioration in congestion observed during that year. More disaggregate analysis of these data show a remarkably close correspondence between the total duration of street works and the observed delay values for successive moving car observer surveys during 2006. There is therefore a close statistical correlation between the increased volume of streetworks and the level of
congestion in 2005 and 2006.

If you read the graphs in the report, you'll see that roadworks are obviously responsible for the increase in congestion. After all, The number of cars entering the zone decreases slightly between 2005 and 2007. Why doesn't the ABD mention this? Glaringly obvious to anyone taking the time to read the report.

But what do you expect from an organisation that says this....(quote from wikipedia)

In the same press release their environment spokesman Ben Adams is quoted as saying:

"The debate about man made global warming is not settled. There is no consensus that emission of carbon dioxide is the force that drives climate change"[19]

"Any self-proclaimed environmentalists who really believe their own propaganda should set an example and refuse to use energy inefficient and polluting public transport. Also as more carbon dioxide is emitted by buildings than cars, one would expect these people who want to force austere changes on our lifestyles to live in very modest energy efficient houses and desist from journeys except for the most critical and fundamental reasons."

fc123

I don't get wound up about the parking thing anymore as it is an unsolvable problem.

The parking scheme in SE London (in 92/93) initially made the residents very happy as they could park outside their homes on Sundays (the problem day) but then they got a bit peeved as visitors to them would have to have a permit...and they had to purchase books of coupons.
Then the local shops that they loved (it was once a character area...not so much now as it has the ubiquitous Subway and Costa) started to shut down through a drop in trade. It took a few years to settle down.

Brightons parking is unsolveable (is that a proper word?) in the summer.
You would have to tarmac over a swathe of beach or knock down a few squares of regency buildings to create enough parking space for the demand.

Visitors moan about it all the time..but wouldn't be too pleased if the above spaces were converted to carparks. There is NO space to build any ugly multi storey carparks in the town centre or along the seafront.

One can't expect to drive into a Regency town and park up in the middle of it with no problem.

My sister didn't do trains as she frets about the 3 kids (a toddler being the stress factor as the 7 yr old wanders off to peer over the edge of the platform as the 10 yr old forgets to keep an eye on his sister as something more exciting catches his attention) but she wanted to visit, couldn't face driving and it turned out fine ;People helped her with buggy and the kids plus they thought it was all a great adventure. It was cheaper than driving too as she got a family ticket.


Parts of town centres will morph into local ''pleasure / service'' areas. You can't get a wax, a cut and colour, experiment with cosmetic products online.

A._Badger

stephen163 wrote: »

I have taken the time to read this 'damning report'.

<snipped for space>

But what do you expect from an organisation that says this....(quote from wikipedia)

That is precisely the sort of attack one has come to expect from the eco-Left. You attempt to call into question the ABD's interpretation of TFL's (almost certainly heavily massaged) figures by creating a straw man argument about the ABD's attutude to supposed anthropogenic global warming.

The only connection I can see is that it shows a mind willing to question the shiboleths of the eco-Left - but I doubt that was the inference you were drawing.