Are we missing the point re parking?

[jith]

Mr Will said:

jith said:

I have absolutely no problem with booking idiots for dangerous parking. I am absolutely opposed to charging for parking at the roadside.

What gives you the right to abandon a large lump of metal on the public highway, taking up space that could otherwise be used for getting people from A to B? If I need a permit to leave a skip in the road, why shouldn't I need one to leave a car there?

I'd be in favour of the Japanese system - if you don't have a space to store it in then you are only allowed a very small car.

Dear, dear me, are you serious? The amount of tax we all pay gives us the right to PARK. I don't abandon my vehicle anywhere; nor do other responsible drivers. Until the powers at be provide car parking facilities for every shop, office and house in the whole country, we have to park in the street.

That is clearly never going to happen, so on street parking is an inevitability. I think most of us would have worked that out for ourselves, mind you.

J

[RobinOakapple]

jith said:

Mr Will said:

jith said:

I have absolutely no problem with booking idiots for dangerous parking. I am absolutely opposed to charging for parking at the roadside.

What gives you the right to abandon a large lump of metal on the public highway, taking up space that could otherwise be used for getting people from A to B? If I need a permit to leave a skip in the road, why shouldn't I need one to leave a car there?

I'd be in favour of the Japanese system - if you don't have a space to store it in then you are only allowed a very small car.

Dear, dear me, are you serious? The amount of tax we all pay gives us the right to PARK. I don't abandon my vehicle anywhere; nor do other responsible drivers. Until the powers at be provide car parking facilities for every shop, office and house in the whole country, we have to park in the street.

That is clearly never going to happen, so on street parking is an inevitability. I think most of us would have worked that out for ourselves, mind you.

J

Parking on the Queen's Highway is not an automatic right, no matter how much tax you pay.

R

[rs1952]

I very rarely pay for parking.

My system wouldn't work for example in much of London's central area and periphery, but it simply involves parking somewhere where on-road parking is free and then legging it into the town centre. I rarely if ever have more than a 15-minute walk.

The only reason that Councils can get away with charging for on-road parking is that many people are too bone idle to take a few minute's walk, and want to park as near to the door of wherever they want to go as is humanly possible. This creates excessive demand which councils can then milk.

[V8 Fettler]

The first parking meters where introduced in London in the late 1950s under the pretence of generating funds to build car parks in London, the declared intention being to remove the meters once the car parks where built. A similar con to the Dartford Crossing then.

[heebeegeetee]

jith said:

Dear, dear me, are you serious? The amount of tax we all pay gives us the right to PARK.

The tax I pay should give me the right to drive on the road where you're parked.

This is off topic, but cars parked on the road can be a real nuisance, greatly increasing congestion while reducing visibility and safety for all. The stop-start it can cause increase costs for those trying to drive along a road impeded by parked cars, so those parking on the road should pay.

Back on topic, I've no idea who is sitting on large tracts of free land, but I do know that if we didn't have traffic wardens, congestion would go up by another order of magnitude, as was proven not too long ago in Aberystwyth.

[photosnob]

alock said:

I live 4 miles away from the middle of Winchester. Apart from for a few evening meals, I haven't been into the city for over two years. The council plan is working, I've stopped driving into Winchester to shop.

I know they really want me to use public transport but what they provide to the nearby villages is woeful. It's easier (and often quicker) for me to drive to Basingstoke 20 miles away. And as time goes by, more and more of my shopping is done on-line anyway.

I live in central Winchester - and can assure you that there are plenty of places you can park for free in the town centre - if you know where.

The park and ride is all of 10 minutes walk to the town if you go along the river. Or there are town parking spaces at cost. You can also use the St Catherines Hill parking spaces and have a 10 minute walk for free... Hey you can even park in the river park leisure centre at cost if you need. And there are plenty of private roads to abandon your car on... By Peter Symonds college you will find loads with a 5 minute walk into town.

I work in Basingstoke and know where I'd rather do my shopping... All the supermarkets have free parking if you need food shopping. Waitrose doesn't even have a time limit that I'm aware off.

[rs1952]

photosnob said:

I live in central Winchester - and can assure you that there are plenty of places you can park for free in the town centre - if you know where.

You can even look around the place in advance with Street View these days so that you don't spend ages driving around trying to find somewhere to park for nothing, which can be a bit financially counter-productive.

But don't tell anybody else about this - lets keep it a secret

[miniman]

Dammit said:

How would you provide ample parking? In many places (Winchester springs to mind here) you would need to bulldoze the town centre to provide enough space for all the people to park in order to visit the town centre.

This is Ham Gardens Car Park in Bath. Or, it was.



It's gone now. Thankfully. Where to, though?

Underground.

That's the solution - dig some fking great holes in the ground, build car park, cover over. Plenty of spaces, nothing to see here.

[RobinOakapple]

And another 'I hate traffic wardens' thread crashes and burns

[supermono]

Street view is definitely your friend here. I have a number of free spots lined up where I normally go shopping or use train stations away from my local one. It's simple especially since I have a folding bike. This morning I'm parked two minutes from a train station on faulty double yellows that were there for no good reason and am harming nobody. That's probably at least 6 quid saved. Last month I got a speculative ticket which I had turned over so maybe I'll get another today but if you know the law it takes seconds to post a standard email.

Sheep who park in paid for carparks must waste hundreds a year, and when you can park without inconveniencing anyone for free and get two or three free tanks of petrol or your annual road tax paid for you'd be daft not to.

However, my point remains about the council causing the issue of selfish parking.

[RobinOakapple]

supermono said:

However, my point remains about the council causing the issue of selfish parking.

And your point remains unproved. It would help if you could suggest a motive for their (on the face of it, according to you) self defeating behaviour.

[AA999]

Collectingbrass said:

1. How else do we ration a scarce resource?

2. How else do we manage a scarce resource where a large minority of the users have shown a continuing disregard for anything but their own needs and convenience?

Parking is blamed for the death of town centres but it is far more complicated than that. My local town centre has three distinct areas in various states of apparent commercial success. All are very well served for parking at a variety of costs, varying from costly NHS parking to chargable multi storey to free weekend parking in the council offices and free on street short stay all week. The worst area is around the free parking, although both of the multistorey supported shopping areas are also poor performers, with units empty for years, many charity shops and other low margin shops.

Parking has got dot one to do with this town centre's performance and everything to do with the retailler's buisness models failure to move with the times. Blaming parking costs enables the retaillers to make it someone else's problem in their mind, meaning that if they were only to get the passing traffic back all would be well. Free, or even uncontrolled parking is not going to change the fact that the small town centre Next will not have the tshirt in my size, that Waterstone's don't stock the books I want, or that HMV want to charge me the cost of a month's Spotify or Netflix subscription for one CD or DVD.

If town centre retaillers want my business then add some value. John Lewis do this with touch & feeel before order, Next do it with overnight delivery to store so what are the rest of them going to do? They have to change or they will die, they cannot return to a time of old maids cycling to evensong past the cricekt team on the village green.

Just to provide some response to this post:

1. The resource (parking) should not be made scarce in the first place; is an answer to that question. So a reversal of council policy to reduce traffic from town centres would be a helpful move.
2. Again it shouldn't be a scarce resource, its mainly become scarce due to the increasing restriction policies by councils.

I would have to disagree with your opinion that parking has got nothing to do with a town centre's 'performance'. I wish I had made note of the TV program that I saw a while back but they gave very convincing evidence to the contrary.
Basically if people are not offered convenient and cheap (even free) parking then simply they turn to the internet or to the outskirts where parking is either free or much more convenient.
The TV program noted comments from a wide section of town centre businesses who all said similar things regarding parking.

Its not a simple case of "moving with the times" as you mention, as many of the town centre businesses that were on the TV program had already set up a website with sales, but still relied heavily on passing trade and local people on foot. And all noted that with ever increasing parking restrictions they see a reduction in local people and passing trade numbers entering their shops.


The "moving with the times" argument should be aimed at the councils and their lack of realisation that as vehicle ownership increases then existing infrastructure should be changed/upgraded to suit. And not take the opposite stance to 'fight' the growth of vehicle numbers entering towns.
I'm thinking that if all the money that councils spend on reduction of traffic in urban areas could have been used to make things easier for motorists then our towns would look a lot healthier than they do now and there would not be as many PPCs making profits from the lack of convenient parking.

[supermono]

RobinOakapple said:

And your point remains unproved. It would help if you could suggest a motive for their (on the face of it, according to you) self defeating behaviour.

Not entirely sure if I care that I've proved it to you or not. But the motivation is to create public sector employment and get cash off the motorist. Two obvious points that all lousey public sector money pits do all the time. It's not self defeating because people are dumb enough to a)park in council run parks and pay through the nose b) fail to challenge speculative tickets on faulty "restrictions" and c) as shop keepers continue to pay huge business rates in the face of council parking restrictions harming their trade.

It's hard to know what to do about c) but I pity hardworking shop keepers who are paying the very employees who's job it is to crucify the high street!

[over_the_hill]

heebeegeetee said:

jith said:

Dear, dear me, are you serious? The amount of tax we all pay gives us the right to PARK.

The tax I pay should give me the right to drive on the road where you're parked.

This is off topic, but cars parked on the road can be a real nuisance, greatly increasing congestion while reducing visibility and safety for all. The stop-start it can cause increase costs for those trying to drive along a road impeded by parked cars, so those parking on the road should pay.

Back on topic, I've no idea who is sitting on large tracts of free land, but I do know that if we didn't have traffic wardens, congestion would go up by another order of magnitude, as was proven not too long ago in Aberystwyth.

If it's unsafe or a congestion causing problem then there should not be any parking in that area at all - paid for or not - so double yellow line the street, make it safe and keep traffic flowing. If it is safe to park there and will not cause congestion then there should not be a charge.

[RobinOakapple]

supermono said:

Not entirely sure if I care that I've proved it to you or not. But the motivation is to create public sector employment and get cash off the motorist. Two obvious points that all lousey public sector money pits do all the time. It's not self defeating because people are dumb enough to a)park in council run parks and pay through the nose b) fail to challenge speculative tickets on faulty "restrictions" and c) as shop keepers continue to pay huge business rates in the face of council parking restrictions harming their trade.

It's hard to know what to do about c) but I pity hardworking shop keepers who are paying the very employees who's job it is to crucify the high street!

It's hard to know where to start when discussing a subject with someone whose view of reality is so utterly different. Probably better to not even try, beyond pointing out that business rates go to central government, not the local council.

[alock]

photosnob said:

I live in central Winchester - and can assure you that there are plenty of places you can park for free in the town centre - if you know where.

I've lived within 20 miles of Winchester all my life (apart from uni). For the last 15 years I've owned a house about 4 miles from Winchester. For 6 years I worked in the centre near. I know Winchester very well.

photosnob said:

The park and ride is all of 10 minutes walk to the town if you go along the river.

It's on the wrong side of Winchester for me. It means a couple of miles south on the A34 which is often a traffic jam on a sunny Saturday morning or a long detour through Easton.

photosnob said:

Or there are town parking spaces at cost.

The few times I visit, that's what we do.

photosnob said:

You can also use the St Catherines Hill parking spaces and have a 10 minute walk for free...

It's really more like 20 minutes though. Fine for a couple of hours out on a sunny Saturday. Not so good for a proper shopping trip in the rain.

photosnob said:

Hey you can even park in the river park leisure centre at cost if you need.

And a little further away it's free at the rugby club. Again though, too far with heavy bags in the rain.

photosnob said:

And there are plenty of private roads to abandon your car on... By Peter Symonds college you will find loads with a 5 minute walk into town.

Which ones are you thinking of? All the ones within 5 minutes that I'm aware of are permit holders only.

photosnob said:

I work in Basingstoke and know where I'd rather do my shopping... All the supermarkets have free parking if you need food shopping. Waitrose doesn't even have a time limit that I'm aware off.

I also work in Basingstoke. We chose Basingstoke over Winchester for high-street shopping because it's almost as fast to get to. You *always* get a parking spot in your preferred car park within a couple of minutes walk of the shops.

Supermarket shopping is always on-line so irrelevant.

[Disastrous]

Mr Will said:

I'd be in favour of the Japanese system - if you don't have a space to store it in then you are only allowed a very small car.

Bizarre. Why?

[Mr Will]

Disastrous said:

Mr Will said:

I'd be in favour of the Japanese system - if you don't have a space to store it in then you are only allowed a very small car.

Bizarre. Why?

Why not? Roads are for getting places on, not leaving big lumps of metal lying around on. The amount of road space that we give up to parking is enormous.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have a car. If need a car you can still have one. The only difference is it won't be larger than necessary.

[Disastrous]

Mr Will said:

Disastrous said:

Mr Will said:

I'd be in favour of the Japanese system - if you don't have a space to store it in then you are only allowed a very small car.

Bizarre. Why?

Why not? Roads are for getting places on, not leaving big lumps of metal lying around on. The amount of road space that we give up to parking is enormous.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have a car. If need a car you can still have one. The only difference is it won't be larger than necessary.

Why not is a bad reason to ban things, I think.

Also, assuming the on-street parking isn't actually affecting traffic flow then why does it matter?

Also also, specifics aside, I utterly hate the idea of living in a society where what I can have is governed entirely by the state's opinion of it's utility to me. It's sometimes nice to have things that aren't entirely necessary without having to justify it.

Would you like to wear state-issued jumpsuits rather than be free to purchase whatever clothes you want? Or should people with outlandish taste be forced to conform? I appreciate your point about congestion but I think freedom is a more pressing issue.

[RobinOakapple]

Disastrous said:

I appreciate your point about congestion but I think freedom is a more pressing issue.

Many of our freedoms are interfered with in order to make things better for everybody rather than the individual, for instance, in this country you aren't free to decide which side of the road to drive on.

So saying freedom is more important than anything else is nonsense in a society of more than one person.