Free Parking for Gatwick in Horley?

[Deleted User]

zagfles said:

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

Westin said:

zagfles said:

It seems people are (perhaps deliberately) conflating the issues of illegal/obstructive parking with perfectly legal, non obstructive but "outsider" parking. Of course any obstructive parking that doesn't allow eg emergency services or bin lorry access is anti social and probably illegal, but that's a different issue to an outsider parking legally and safely without causing an obstruction, they have every much as right to do so wherever in the country they live. If residents have a problem with parking they can always ask the council for residents only bays, as happens in lots of other areas eg town centres, near train stations, near big venues etc.

I've stayed in Horley a few times when flying from Gatwick, it's a nice walk to the airport along the cycle route by the Gatwick stream past the lake. I've noticed most streets are now residents only or have parking restictions at strange hours eg residents only 10-11am presumably to prevent daytime or long term parking. But I usually travel there by PT anyway.

As someone who lives in this area, this is exactly what has happened.  Lots of parking restrictions in local streets.  A shame that this was the outcome of anti-social airport parkers.

No different to lots of other places. My kids both lived near major train stations when they were at uni, their streets and surrounding ones were residents only or double yellows which was a pain when dropping them off with all their stuff as not having cars they didn't even have a residents parking permit.

If you choose to live near any major transportation hub it's the price you pay, you can't have it both ways, either restrict parking eg to residents (usually with visitor permits) or by time. Judging people on their reason for parking won't work, unless you're a vigilante (who as mentioned above often target the "wrong" people anyway)

Living near an airport is rarely a choice.

The issue is that the airport charges rip off prices instead of providing enough affordable parking to prevent it becoming a problem for its neighbours.

What, people are compelled to live a next to an airport?

Airport parking is not usually that expensive compared to other major transport hubs or city centres, usually about £10 a day, the station car park near my son's uni accomodation was £12 a day (I had to park there once).

It does seem people living in leafy villages near an airport have a sense of privilege over those who live in city centres and don't feel they should have to put up with the same parking issues people living near major train stations or city centres do. If you choose to live near a major transport hub, high street, event location, tourist attraction etc you'll likely get roads clogged with motorists from outside the area parking there.

Obstructive parking aside, it doesn't really matter whether it's a few people parking for a week or two, or a constant flow of different people parking for a shorter time. Most residential streets in city centres or near major train stations are far worse than eg Horley, I didn't see cars on practically every available roadside parking location, as I do near most major railway stations or city centres.

Yes, due to house prices, availability of work and so forth. Do you seriously think anyone would choose to live near a source of noise and pollution, with occasional dead bodies falling from the sky?

The obvious difference between the station car park and the airport carpark is that people tend to stay a lot longer in the airport one. £10 per day may seem reasonable, but particularly at Gatwick the cost over a week or two can mount up to more than people paid for the flight. Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

This is one of the reasons why people object to airport expansion. They build another runway and attract more travellers, but they don't do anything about car parking and just externalise that cost onto the local residents.

eskbanker

[Deleted User] said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

zagfles

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

Westin said:

zagfles said:

It seems people are (perhaps deliberately) conflating the issues of illegal/obstructive parking with perfectly legal, non obstructive but "outsider" parking. Of course any obstructive parking that doesn't allow eg emergency services or bin lorry access is anti social and probably illegal, but that's a different issue to an outsider parking legally and safely without causing an obstruction, they have every much as right to do so wherever in the country they live. If residents have a problem with parking they can always ask the council for residents only bays, as happens in lots of other areas eg town centres, near train stations, near big venues etc.

I've stayed in Horley a few times when flying from Gatwick, it's a nice walk to the airport along the cycle route by the Gatwick stream past the lake. I've noticed most streets are now residents only or have parking restictions at strange hours eg residents only 10-11am presumably to prevent daytime or long term parking. But I usually travel there by PT anyway.

As someone who lives in this area, this is exactly what has happened.  Lots of parking restrictions in local streets.  A shame that this was the outcome of anti-social airport parkers.

No different to lots of other places. My kids both lived near major train stations when they were at uni, their streets and surrounding ones were residents only or double yellows which was a pain when dropping them off with all their stuff as not having cars they didn't even have a residents parking permit.

If you choose to live near any major transportation hub it's the price you pay, you can't have it both ways, either restrict parking eg to residents (usually with visitor permits) or by time. Judging people on their reason for parking won't work, unless you're a vigilante (who as mentioned above often target the "wrong" people anyway)

Living near an airport is rarely a choice.

The issue is that the airport charges rip off prices instead of providing enough affordable parking to prevent it becoming a problem for its neighbours.

What, people are compelled to live a next to an airport?

Airport parking is not usually that expensive compared to other major transport hubs or city centres, usually about £10 a day, the station car park near my son's uni accomodation was £12 a day (I had to park there once).

It does seem people living in leafy villages near an airport have a sense of privilege over those who live in city centres and don't feel they should have to put up with the same parking issues people living near major train stations or city centres do. If you choose to live near a major transport hub, high street, event location, tourist attraction etc you'll likely get roads clogged with motorists from outside the area parking there.

Obstructive parking aside, it doesn't really matter whether it's a few people parking for a week or two, or a constant flow of different people parking for a shorter time. Most residential streets in city centres or near major train stations are far worse than eg Horley, I didn't see cars on practically every available roadside parking location, as I do near most major railway stations or city centres.

Yes, due to house prices, availability of work and so forth. Do you seriously think anyone would choose to live near a source of noise and pollution, with occasional dead bodies falling from the sky?

The obvious difference between the station car park and the airport carpark is that people tend to stay a lot longer in the airport one. £10 per day may seem reasonable, but particularly at Gatwick the cost over a week or two can mount up to more than people paid for the flight. Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

This is one of the reasons why people object to airport expansion. They build another runway and attract more travellers, but they don't do anything about car parking and just externalise that cost onto the local residents.

Well obviously people are constrained by affordability and job location, but I doubt most people are specifically compelled to live near an airport! People living on busy roads, city centres etc probably have to put up with far more pollution. I know people who lived close to Heathrow, a much busier airport, they were living under the shadow of the proposed third runway for years, eventually sold and moved, got the best part of a million for their house. I couldn't afford to live next to a London airport.

CKhalvashi

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

Westin said:

zagfles said:

It seems people are (perhaps deliberately) conflating the issues of illegal/obstructive parking with perfectly legal, non obstructive but "outsider" parking. Of course any obstructive parking that doesn't allow eg emergency services or bin lorry access is anti social and probably illegal, but that's a different issue to an outsider parking legally and safely without causing an obstruction, they have every much as right to do so wherever in the country they live. If residents have a problem with parking they can always ask the council for residents only bays, as happens in lots of other areas eg town centres, near train stations, near big venues etc.

I've stayed in Horley a few times when flying from Gatwick, it's a nice walk to the airport along the cycle route by the Gatwick stream past the lake. I've noticed most streets are now residents only or have parking restictions at strange hours eg residents only 10-11am presumably to prevent daytime or long term parking. But I usually travel there by PT anyway.

As someone who lives in this area, this is exactly what has happened.  Lots of parking restrictions in local streets.  A shame that this was the outcome of anti-social airport parkers.

No different to lots of other places. My kids both lived near major train stations when they were at uni, their streets and surrounding ones were residents only or double yellows which was a pain when dropping them off with all their stuff as not having cars they didn't even have a residents parking permit.

If you choose to live near any major transportation hub it's the price you pay, you can't have it both ways, either restrict parking eg to residents (usually with visitor permits) or by time. Judging people on their reason for parking won't work, unless you're a vigilante (who as mentioned above often target the "wrong" people anyway)

Living near an airport is rarely a choice.

The issue is that the airport charges rip off prices instead of providing enough affordable parking to prevent it becoming a problem for its neighbours.

We are happy to live close to an airport. OH is air crew but she doesn't routinely work from the airport we live close to. Convenient access to the motorway network and 2 cities is always good.

The issue comes when residents and their visitors have nowhere to park. This is becoming a problem on many streets. Those streets have voted against a permit parking system as the proposal was put forward as the cost was to be up to £400/year per property to be paid by them, not the company causing the problem (which happens to be MAG).

I do not believe at first glance the charges are reasonable but the public were not given chance to speak at the meeting in question. There was also no discount to be given from fines levied, enabling the council to profit further from residents. This is not an adequate solution in its present form.

The street I live on was not included in this proposal although several homes here are attempting to purchase the land with access to the parking in question behind our property which will be made strictly residents/visitors only with an access system in place to stop the irresponsible from parking in stupid places. Any vehicle blocking this can at that point be removed by the police. For the avoidance of doubt this is already privately owned land although the current owner does not care for the situation.

mattyprice4004

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

Westin said:

zagfles said:

It seems people are (perhaps deliberately) conflating the issues of illegal/obstructive parking with perfectly legal, non obstructive but "outsider" parking. Of course any obstructive parking that doesn't allow eg emergency services or bin lorry access is anti social and probably illegal, but that's a different issue to an outsider parking legally and safely without causing an obstruction, they have every much as right to do so wherever in the country they live. If residents have a problem with parking they can always ask the council for residents only bays, as happens in lots of other areas eg town centres, near train stations, near big venues etc.

I've stayed in Horley a few times when flying from Gatwick, it's a nice walk to the airport along the cycle route by the Gatwick stream past the lake. I've noticed most streets are now residents only or have parking restictions at strange hours eg residents only 10-11am presumably to prevent daytime or long term parking. But I usually travel there by PT anyway.

As someone who lives in this area, this is exactly what has happened.  Lots of parking restrictions in local streets.  A shame that this was the outcome of anti-social airport parkers.

No different to lots of other places. My kids both lived near major train stations when they were at uni, their streets and surrounding ones were residents only or double yellows which was a pain when dropping them off with all their stuff as not having cars they didn't even have a residents parking permit.

If you choose to live near any major transportation hub it's the price you pay, you can't have it both ways, either restrict parking eg to residents (usually with visitor permits) or by time. Judging people on their reason for parking won't work, unless you're a vigilante (who as mentioned above often target the "wrong" people anyway)

Living near an airport is rarely a choice.

The issue is that the airport charges rip off prices instead of providing enough affordable parking to prevent it becoming a problem for its neighbours.

What, people are compelled to live a next to an airport?

Airport parking is not usually that expensive compared to other major transport hubs or city centres, usually about £10 a day, the station car park near my son's uni accomodation was £12 a day (I had to park there once).

It does seem people living in leafy villages near an airport have a sense of privilege over those who live in city centres and don't feel they should have to put up with the same parking issues people living near major train stations or city centres do. If you choose to live near a major transport hub, high street, event location, tourist attraction etc you'll likely get roads clogged with motorists from outside the area parking there.

Obstructive parking aside, it doesn't really matter whether it's a few people parking for a week or two, or a constant flow of different people parking for a shorter time. Most residential streets in city centres or near major train stations are far worse than eg Horley, I didn't see cars on practically every available roadside parking location, as I do near most major railway stations or city centres.

Yes, due to house prices, availability of work and so forth. Do you seriously think anyone would choose to live near a source of noise and pollution, with occasional dead bodies falling from the sky?

The obvious difference between the station car park and the airport carpark is that people tend to stay a lot longer in the airport one. £10 per day may seem reasonable, but particularly at Gatwick the cost over a week or two can mount up to more than people paid for the flight. Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

This is one of the reasons why people object to airport expansion. They build another runway and attract more travellers, but they don't do anything about car parking and just externalise that cost onto the local residents.

That's their choice - living near the airport is a compromise they accepted, and they have to deal with the pollution and other problems it brings. 

I live near a school and have to put up with the 'yummy Mummy' brigade and the slew of terrible driving and parking it inevitably brings - but it was my choice to compromise. 

[Deleted User]

Of course the reality is a lot of these people are complaining about cars being parked on a public road outside their house because they want to be able to park both their cars on the public road outside their house...
Parking free close to airports has got more difficult over the 30 years or so we've been doing it.
But on the other hand online transport technology such as Uber, Google Maps and train and bus timetables has made it much easier to plan in advance.
There's still a side street I use near a tube station in Hounslow for Heathrow that I first parked in a quarter of a century ago and it's still going strong.
He who dares wins Rodders !

[Deleted User]

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

eskbanker

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

Sure, I get all that and wouldn't disagree - I was simply highlighting the absurdity of your apparent expectation that parking companies ought to be charging "what it actually costs to operate those places".

zagfles

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

Well something's going over yours What company are you talking about? Gatwick airport was built in the 1950's, when there probably weren't parking issues in neighbouring locations because families didn't tend to have multiple cars, and on-airport parking was probably sufficient. Or did you expect "the company" to predict parking requirements 65 years into the future?

[Deleted User]

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:
Considering many of the long stay car parks are in a poor state of repair and some are little more than a field with some signs marking bays, they are clearly charging what they can get away with rather than what it actually costs to operate those places.

Hold the front page!  Commercial companies in a capitalist economy making a profit by selling something for more than it cost them.... 😮

That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.

The company wanted to build an international airport. They should have provided for the necessary parking so they didn't cause problems for their neighbours.

Instead they relied on rip off parking companies that drive people to seek out inconvenient but cheaper alternatives.

Sure, I get all that and wouldn't disagree - I was simply highlighting the absurdity of your apparent expectation that parking companies ought to be charging "what it actually costs to operate those places".

Which is not something I actually argued.

Come on, third time's the charm. Do you understand this now?