Parking permits to double in price

[Tomataheeed 10]

Did you miss this bit,

 

 

The SYLTP partnership is made up of the four Local Authorities in South Yorkshire (Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield) and the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE). The work of the partnership is managed by the SYLTP Central Team. The partnership coordinates and implements South Yorkshire's transport strategy.

 

 

No, I got got that bit....did you miss the signature on everyone of his posts saying he works for an authority outside Yorkshire ?

[metalman 21]

• Who causes the problems that permit schemes are trying to address? Car drivers who park their car all day in places where it is not appropriate.
  

 

Not appropriate in what way? How can it not be appropriate to park your car on a public highway where there are no parking restrictions (which there weren't before the introduction of these schemes)? Surely that's a perfectly legitimate place to park it.

[splodgeyAl 10]

As I have said before, it's becoming increasingly ridiculous for you to keep trotting out the "anti-car" label in relation to permit parking.

 

As has been confirmed by others, the Council spend hundreds of thousands, possibly milions by now, of taxpayers money on installing permit parking schemes.

 

Ask youself some questions about such schemes and who they benefit:

 

• Who causes the problems that permit schemes are trying to address? Car drivers who park their car all day in places where it is not appropriate.
  
• Who asks for permit schemes - residents who can't park their car anywhere near their house at certain times of the day. Businesses whose car using customers / clients can't easily get to them becuse of lack of parking oportunites
  
• Who benefits from permit schemes? Residents have a greater chance of parking their car near to their home. Business clients / cusomers have a better chance of parking their car near to their destination. Businesses whose staff need to park on street near their premises. People who need to visit the area in a vehicle for essential needs (district nurses, health visitors etc) who can then park close to their destination. The Council can derive some income from them, which is spent on highways matters.
  
• Who pays for permit schemes? Local people who live in the area and want to park their car nearby. Businesses who want to park near their premises. Visitors who want to park in the area via pay and display
  
• Who is disadvantaged by permit schemes? Those who want to park all day for free, usually commuters. Residents, businesses and visitors have to pay, but they do get some benefits. There may be some loss of business if people do not want to pay to park, but there may be corresponding increases as people find it easier to park and shop / do business.
  

 

Can you see that the problems are caused by car/vehicle users. Can you see that the people who benefit from the schemes are car/vehicle users?

 

In the modern world, we have become increasingly reliant on car based transport, this has brought with it a range of problems that Local Authorities are asked to do something about. Most of the win/win solutions have already been deployed and the avaiable measures tend to disadvantage someone. In the case of permit parking, several sets of car users get a benefit and one set (commuters) is disadvantaged. Is it not fair that the people who benefit from all of this, ie car users actually pay for it?

 

How is it viable to label the Council as anti-car, when it is spending huge sums responding to requests from car users about problems caused by other car users?

 

There needs to be some recognition that our reliance on the car is not universally beneficial and that accommodating unrestrained growth in car use is not possible. Councils are placed in a very difficult position as they need to manage congestion and address the needs of all road users, whilst also dealing with the detrimental effects of car use, all this on hugely diminished budgets.

I would love to know what those benefits would be. I've not seen any coming from the scheme on my road.

 

It's very difficult to do so. Private companies will not generally give you access to their accounts or footfall figures (if they have any). Also, permit schemes are planned and implemented over quite a long period. Economic and trading conditions change over time, so how do you assess what part of any change is down to any particular factor?

 

My thought is that you would need to spend an awfully large amount of money on research and even then, you might not get a meaningful answer.

 

The Council do before and after parking occupancy surveys, but I believe that is all.

I would love to have been asked before. Maybe then I wouldn't need to be asked after. Even tho I wasn't asked after the scheme was implemented

[Tomataheeed 10]

No, I got got that bit....did you miss the signature on everyone of his posts saying he works for an authority outside Yorkshire ?

 

Actually....I've got this wrong...you're right, its not clear. But I do know from other threads that Planner1 works for Manchster City Council, not Sheffield.

 

I also have to say that he ( i assume its a he...could be wrong) gives a useful insight into how these things operate - he's often not agreeing or disagreeing with a poster - he's telling you how the process works. I've disagreed with him on a couple of topics, in particular the use of the phrase "fly-parking" which really winds me up, but generally he gives us all a view of how these things work from the other side. No point having a personal swipe at him....I'd have given up a while ago with how rude people are to him.

[splodgeyAl 10]

No, I got got that bit....did you miss the signature on everyone of his posts saying he works for an authority outside Yorkshire ?

It doesn't say that!

[Tomataheeed 10]

It doesn't say that!

 

I know...smart arse (me) on internet talks crap....whoda thunk it..

[Cyclone 10]

Did you read my post?

 

I'll recap for you, because after all it's easier for you if I type it all again than expect you to read it in the first place:

 

1) The more people use buses, the less they will use other forms of transport

 

therefore

 

2) Everyone benefits if buses are used because

2a) there is less pollution

2b) congestion is reduced and therefore journey times are decreased

 

Thus, everyone benefits if more people use the bus, even the people who don't use the bus.

That's not true though is it.

Congestion is irrelevant to me today, I'm at home. Pollution matters, but there are better ways to use money to reduce that.

I'd rather not subsidise buses, I don't use them, reduced congestion doesn't benefit me, the people that use them should pay, or maybe the people that benefit.

 

This implies that we should all pay something toward it. As it can't be that expensive to run buses, and there are an awful lot of people, it wouldn't cost a great deal each for us all to chip in to make public transport very cheap indeed.

Except that planner1 has explained how much it would cost. And it's actually quite a lot indeed.

 

I used to live abroad, where people owned cars but went to work on public transport because it was cheap (my city-wide pass was £10 for 3 months as I recall) and ran often and reliably from very early in the morning to late at night. I didn't own a car then, but it would have been ludicrous to use one to commute because the public transport service was so good and so cheap. And of course, because so many people used it, it was quick, because the buses and trams had no cars to get in the way.

 

I think the current financial woes of the country are an ideal time to encourage people to use cheap public transport and change behaviour patterns. But when people have to pay more to use the bus than it costs to use their car, that won't happen.

That's true, but I don't think expecting everyone to subsidise it is the way forward.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Cyclone

[Cyclone 10]

To who?........

 

To Planner1

[Number Six 10]

That's not true though is it.

Congestion is irrellent to me today, I'm at home. Pollution matters, but there are better ways to use money to reduce that.

I'd rather not subsidise buses, I don't use them, reduced congestion doesn't benefit me, the people that use them should pay, or maybe the people that benefit.

 

You would benefit. If you'd care to put a price on the health benefits of cleaner air I'd be interested. You'd benefit because the roads would wear out less, so it would cost less for maintenance, and it'd be nicer for you to drive on them when you did - especially as there would be fewer cars whatever time of day you drove. Planners are always saying that time lost in congestion amounts to billions of pounds a year - your country would benefit from that, and you'd get a share.

 

However, if you insist that you only pay for that which directly benefits you, I suggest you campaign to get 'pay as you go' public services. I've never used the fire service, for example, and I don't think I ever will. Perhaps I should have anything to do with them lopped off my tax bill, and if I ever use them I'll pay per incident?

 

Except that planner1 has explained how much it would cost. And it's actually quite a lot indeed.

That's true, but I don't think expecting everyone to subsidise it is the way forward.

 

No he hasn't - he's just said it costs a lot as you have. He has said nothing about the benefits, nor quantified 'a lot' - I fail to see how driving around what is basically a lorry with seats in can be that expensive. I see hundreds of them going past in a day mostly empty, and apparently the companies involved aren't getting subsidies and are making profits - ergo if we all used them and all paid for them, the cost per head would be minimal.

[pfifes 309]

As I have said before, it's becoming increasingly ridiculous for you to keep trotting out the "anti-car" label in relation to permit parking.

 

As has been confirmed by others, the Council spend hundreds of thousands, possibly milions by now, of taxpayers money on installing permit parking schemes.

 

Ask youself some questions about such schemes and who they benefit:

 

• Who causes the problems that permit schemes are trying to address? Car drivers who park their car all day in places where it is not appropriate.
  
• Who asks for permit schemes - residents who can't park their car anywhere near their house at certain times of the day. Businesses whose car using customers / clients can't easily get to them becuse of lack of parking oportunites
  
• Who benefits from permit schemes? Residents have a greater chance of parking their car near to their home. Business clients / cusomers have a better chance of parking their car near to their destination. Businesses whose staff need to park on street near their premises. People who need to visit the area in a vehicle for essential needs (district nurses, health visitors etc) who can then park close to their destination. The Council can derive some income from them, which is spent on highways matters.
  
• Who pays for permit schemes? Local people who live in the area and want to park their car nearby. Businesses who want to park near their premises. Visitors who want to park in the area via pay and display
  
• Who is disadvantaged by permit schemes? Those who want to park all day for free, usually commuters. Residents, businesses and visitors have to pay, but they do get some benefits. There may be some loss of business if people do not want to pay to park, but there may be corresponding increases as people find it easier to park and shop / do business.
  

 

Can you see that the problems are caused by car/vehicle users. Can you see that the people who benefit from the schemes are car/vehicle users?

 

In the modern world, we have become increasingly reliant on car based transport, this has brought with it a range of problems that Local Authorities are asked to do something about. Most of the win/win solutions have already been deployed and the avaiable measures tend to disadvantage someone. In the case of permit parking, several sets of car users get a benefit and one set (commuters) is disadvantaged. Is it not fair that the people who benefit from all of this, ie car users actually pay for it?

 

How is it viable to label the Council as anti-car, when it is spending huge sums responding to requests from car users about problems caused by other car users?

 

There needs to be some recognition that our reliance on the car is not universally beneficial and that accommodating unrestrained growth in car use is not possible. Councils are placed in a very difficult position as they need to manage congestion and address the needs of all road users, whilst also dealing with the detrimental effects of car use, all this on hugely diminished budgets.

 

The council tried to introduce a parking permit scheme in the Hunter House area of Hunter's Bar. This was for DAYTIME parking during the week. To suggest that that would benefit anyone is ridiculous. There is no daytime parking problem in the area so we would not have benefited from the parking police patrolling the area during the day and this surely was just a revenue generating plan. This went to a vote after so many objections were raised from residents after the council tried to push this through and was thankfully voted out. BTW I don't drive to work so am not reliant on car travel. And I agree that generally people are too reliant on cars - it's been bliss this week walking to work due to the lack car fumes you get on school holidays:). So I agree we should discourage over use of cars but trying to press ahead with a parking scheme where it will not benefit residents doesn't win people over to the council:rant:

[flat333 10]

well said Cyclone!!

[Planner1 437]

The council tried to introduce a parking permit scheme in the Hunter House area of Hunter's Bar. This was for DAYTIME parking during the week. To suggest that that would benefit anyone is ridiculous. There is no daytime parking problem in the area so we would not have benefited from the parking police patrolling the area during the day and this surely was just a revenue generating plan. This went to a vote after so many objections were raised from residents after the council tried to push this through and was thankfully voted out. BTW I don't drive to work so am not reliant on car travel. And I agree that generally people are too reliant on cars - it's been bliss this week walking to work due to the lack car fumes you get on school holidays:). So I agree we should discourage over use of cars but trying to press ahead with a parking scheme where it will not benefit residents doesn't win people over to the council:rant:

 

Perhaps you ough to tell the full story:

 

The permit parking proposal for that area was part of the Sharrow Vale permit parking scheme, which covers a very wide area.

 

As we had done parking occupancy surveys at various times of the day, we knew very well that the streets in question didn't have much in the way of daytime parking problems. However, we also knew that other streets close by certainly did have daytime problems and that if those streets became permit only, there would be parking displacement onto any nearby streets where there were no parking restrictions. So, we included the Hunter House area in the scheme proposals.

 

The consultation on the permit scheme flagged up that there was a significant level of opposition on some streets. Those streets were balloted on whether or not they wanted to be in the scheme. Those who said no were left out.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some of the streets left out subsequently petition the Council to be let back into the scheme, presumably becasue of the very parking displacement problems which we predicted?

 

The Council are not in the business of imposing parking permit schemes on areas that do not want them. There has been ample demonstration of this in the fact that if areas have said they didn't want a scheme (like in Sharrow Vale and Hillsborough), they didn't get one.