MSE News: Motorists paying £8 billion a year to park

miller

The tariff could be changed to discourage commuters if that was desired (e.g. £5 all day until 9am). In addition it can also be manipulated if spaces were at a premium. Something more imaginative such as moving away from a per hour rate to a flat rate (e.g. £1 all day after 9am) if resources allowed.

As it stands the local councils generally use parking as a cash cow (arguably to plug holes in their budget from central government) which does not help local traders.

mikey72

miller wrote: »

The tariff could be changed to discourage commuters if that was desired (e.g. £5 all day until 9am). In addition it can also be manipulated if spaces were at a premium. Something more imaginative such as moving away from a per hour rate to a flat rate (e.g. £1 all day after 9am) if resources allowed.

As it stands the local councils generally use parking as a cash cow (arguably to plug holes in their budget from central government) which does not help local traders.

Not that good a cash cow.

"Many councils, particularly in rural areas, actually have to subsidise parking services as the cost is not covered by charges or fines."

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/britons-spending-8bn-parking-060635990.html

I don't fancy paying more tax to subsidise it further either.
Equally, I don't like paying to park, but I do, and I don't see why someone else should have to pay it for me if I don't.

Good example here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-19013056


headline figure of £30 million income from parking over three years.


So who pays it? The motorist, or the local tax payers.

And the area covers Cheltenham, the Cotswolds, etc, so just £10 million a year income from that amount of tourism?

Or a £30 million hole for the locals to fund?

And remember, that's gross income, so building, running and maintaining the car parks has to come out of that as well.

SailorSam

I suppose i'm lucky that the local town centre is only about a mile away, so i'll walk and want buy more than i can carry. That's ok for me living alone but not so easy for someone needing to get a family shop.
The thing that annoys me about all these car parks is the signs that say ...... "parking at owners risk". If they're going to charge me the least i feel should be done is employ staff to make sure our cars are safe.

Wongsky

mikey72 wrote: »

Not that good a cash cow.

"Many councils, particularly in rural areas, actually have to subsidise parking services as the cost is not covered by charges or fines."

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/britons-spending-8bn-parking-060635990.html

I don't fancy paying more tax to subsidise it further either.
Equally, I don't like paying to park, but I do, and I don't see why someone else should have to pay it for me if I don't.

Good example here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-19013056


headline figure of £30 million income from parking over three years.


So who pays it? The motorist, or the local tax payers.

And the area covers Cheltenham, the Cotswolds, etc, so just £10 million a year income from that amount of tourism?

Or a £30 million hole for the locals to fund?

And remember, that's gross income, so building, running and maintaining the car parks has to come out of that as well.

What costs?

Is this a scenario where the creation of an industry can't be sustained in these areas?

Is the parking problem in these rural areas not actually a parking problem, but the costs of some (whether private or council) to monitor / police it, beyond the revenue gathered from those that offend?

In which case, they should work smarter - some of these things don't need such restrictions, they just tend to be applied in a blanket basis, these days.

mikey72

Wongsky wrote: »

What costs?

Is this a scenario where the creation of an industry can't be sustained in these areas?

Is the parking problem in these rural areas not actually a parking problem, but the costs of some (whether private or council) to monitor / police it, beyond the revenue gathered from those that offend?

In which case, they should work smarter - some of these things don't need such restrictions, they just tend to be applied in a blanket basis, these days.

They need to employ you to manage the car parks in Gloucestshire.
The accounts show they spent £6.5 million for every 10 they received.
So they actually only made £3.5 million per year.
You reckon you can triple that for them?

What costs?

Excavating the sites, putting down a stable sub level, tarmacing, marking, barriers, fencing, drainage, rubbish collection, lighting, continual maintenance, re tarmacing, hole filling, re marking, everything that means you park on a clean level decent clear surface, not a field on mud and holes with the local rubbish fly tipped onto it in the dark.

As to multi story car parks, it would be interesting if you just shut the power off, and stopped any work cleaning them. I’d give the stair case about two days before the air becomes unbreathable.
And obviously stopped building any more.

(And rural car parks aren't the local farmer’s field here either)

Wongsky

mikey72 wrote: »

They need to employ you to manage the car parks in Gloucestshire.
The accounts show they spent £6.5 million for every 10 they received.
So they actually only made £3.5 million per year.
You reckon you can triple that for them?

What costs?

Excavating the sites, putting down a stable sub level, tarmacing, marking, barriers, fencing, drainage, rubbish collection, lighting, continual maintenance, re tarmacing, hole filling, re marking, everything that means you park on a clean level decent clear surface, not a field on mud and holes with the local rubbish fly tipped onto it in the dark.

As to multi story car parks, it would be interesting if you just shut the power off, and stopped any work cleaning them. I’d give the stair case about two days before the air becomes unbreathable.
And obviously stopped building any more.

(And rural car parks aren't the local farmer’s field here either)

The initial comment was about rural car parking not cutting the mustard, where balancing the books is concerned.

I think it's fair comment that that will mostly NOT be multi-story.

Yes there are some infrastructure / setup costs for ensuring good car-parking surfaces - but then the break-even on costs should be spread, and most of the cost - in these rural areas - should be capital, not revenue.

If the revenue costs are too high, they're doing it wrong - either too much "policing" of it, that isn't supported by the returns, or an over-engineered solution for the actual demand.

mikey72

Wongsky wrote: »

The initial comment was about rural car parking not cutting the mustard, where balancing the books is concerned.

I think it's fair comment that that will mostly NOT be multi-story.

Yes there are some infrastructure / setup costs for ensuring good car-parking surfaces - but then the break-even on costs should be spread, and most of the cost - in these rural areas - should be capital, not revenue.

If the revenue costs are too high, they're doing it wrong - either too much "policing" of it, that isn't supported by the returns, or an over-engineered solution for the actual demand.

That's the beauty of policing by PPC's, no cost to the land owner.
Makes you wonder how they came to evolve as a business.
If they grew to police car parks, that would suggest there was a niche in the market, and poor parking was a problem to the landowner.
It's unlikely the PPCs were there first, and people started parking badly so they could ticket them.

Wongsky

mikey72 wrote: »

That's the beauty of policing by PPC's, no cost to the land owner.
Makes you wonder how they came to evolve as a business.
If they grew to police car parks, that would suggest there was a niche in the market, and poor parking was a problem to the landowner.
It's unlikely the PPCs were there first, and people started parking badly so they could ticket them.

Thing is, there's always cause and effect.

I look at some of the places where I can see this policing happening where it doesn't seem really needed, yet has sort of happened as a blanket effect. You know, supermarkets and retail parks, that only really seemed to struggle for parking on days (like bank holidays) where they would do anyways, and not likely to be because of people like commuters parking in them.

Then, when people are driving to these places less, you get retailers wringing their hands and complaining - it's all so short-sighted.

Sure, there may be times and instances where parking may be problematic - so address them - but what happens is they effectively carpet-bomb the hell out of the problem - and then complain in the end anyways.

As to their perhaps being a gap in the market - well perhaps only to the cost of somebody else. How much to retailers make out of using these companies (either directly, or indirectly) and long-term, how does that stack up with the effects on drivers attitudes and usage - that's all I'm saying.

Dave_C_2

Why not use a bicycle to get into town. An awful lot of car journeys are under 2 miles which is normally easily done on a bike.

• Costs nothing in fuel
• Costs nothing to park
• Keeps you healthy

Dave

A._Badger

Dave_C wrote: »

Why not use a bicycle to get into town. An awful lot of car journeys are under 2 miles which is normally easily done on a bike.

• Costs nothing in fuel
• Costs nothing to park
• Keeps you healthy

Dave

Here we go- the inevitable saintly cyclist lobby, people who live in a world where
No one buys more than one small bag of shopping
No one goes shopping with children
No one has a demanding work schedule to keep to
No one has arthritis or other disabling, painful conditions
No one gets rained on
No one gets snowed on
No one minds playing 'dodge the bus driver'
No one gets old