Parking outside my own house

[murgatt 10]

It's a terrist house so no drive possible and moving ain't possible also

 

If you have terrists in your neighbourhood you should call the police before they blow something up.

[Kevo 10]

I do wish you wouldn't personalise this issue. Do you think I have been responsible for every project which has been built in the city in the past 30 years?

 

I worked in traffic signals when Supertram was being designed and built. I had no direct involvement in it at all. There could be many reasons why P&R was never part of the original plans. I wasn't involved so couldn't tell you why.

 

I didn't personalise it directly at you I said the planners (not planner 1) but you seam to be in the know with most things allegedly but it's people like you who are involved that are now having a massive impact on everyone now..... As regards to parks charging etc why would the local councillors not no???? Why do people have a vote if your councillor is not going to have an impact on things that are carried out or at least not have a clue as to what's been implemented.

[metalman 21]

I can see that Malin Bridge Park and Ride has 104 spaces, and charges £1 a day. I am surprised that £1 a day deters people from using it, so I wonder if people would still park on the streets even if it was free? Also I wonder whether, if it was free, 104 spaces would be enough?

 

Middlewood charges £4.50 a day but that includes tram travel - a tram dayrider is £4 so the 'saving' by parking on the street is only 50p.

 

So actually I don't think making the P&R free would help - I would suggest some factor other than cost is the incentive for people parking on the road instead.

 

Some of the cars might belong to people working or studying in Hillsbrough, I doubt they all belong to tram users.

 

That's assuming that you wanted a Dayrider in the first place. If you just want to go as far as the University stop (for the Uni or the hospitals) it's £1.50 there and the same back again, so effectively you would be paying £1.50 to park as well. Surely the idea is to encourage people to use the park and ride option, rather than charge them extra for the privilege?

 

As to whether 104 spaces would be enough, it would at least be 104 spaces that were fully occupied rather than 104 spaces with not many cars in, thus freeing up some more in the surrounding streets.

[Planner1 438]

I didn't personalise it directly at you I said the planners (not planner 1) but you seam to be in the know with most things allegedly but it's people like you who are involved that are now having a massive impact on everyone now..... As regards to parks charging etc why would the local councillors not no???? Why do people have a vote if your councillor is not going to have an impact on things that are carried out or at least not have a clue as to what's been implemented.

 

It does help people to read your posts better if you use the "quote" button (bottom right of every post) instead of copying the post you are quoting into your new post.

 

Decisions are taken that might have an impact later, but these impacts can often be mitigated later too. Like by putting in park and ride,or permit parking schemes. It would be nice to be able to get all the money up front to do them al at first, but it's often the case that you can't get the funding for the potential mitigations when you get the main project funding (it can affect the businesss case and mean you don't quaify for the funding stream). So, you have to go, or not, with what you can get at the time.

 

Councillors are human, they might have picked up the wrong information. Local Councillors will of course fight the corner of their constituents, but others, who have responsibility for the whole city, like Portfolio Holders (e Cabinet Members) and the Leader are the ones who get to take the real decisions.

 

The decision to charge in parks wasn't just about Hillsborough. It included Millhouses and Graves Park. The needs of the many sometimes have to overrule the needs of the few and parks need all teh extra money they can get as, like everywhere else in the Council, budgets are being slashed because of massive cuts in government funding to Local Authorities. So, we are going to have to pay for things which might have been free before, or services will be reduced or not provided at all. There is no other way when the money you recieve from government is halved.

[Andy 10]

That's assuming that you wanted a Dayrider in the first place. If you just want to go as far as the University stop (for the Uni or the hospitals) it's £1.50 there and the same back again, so effectively you would be paying £1.50 to park as well. Surely the idea is to encourage people to use the park and ride option, rather than charge them extra for the privilege?

 

As to whether 104 spaces would be enough, it would at least be 104 spaces that were fully occupied rather than 104 spaces with not many cars in, thus freeing up some more in the surrounding streets.

 

In an ideal world, it would be free. In an ideal world everything would be free, there would be no traffic jams and the sun would always shine

 

My point remains that Malin Bridge charges £1 per day and people don't use it. I think it's other factors, such as the actual location that are putting people off. I don't think £5 a week is much of a deterrent. What might be a deterrent is having to go through Hillsborough Corner (depending on where you're coming from).

 

Even if Malin Bridge were fully occupied every day, it would only take £600 a week. When you've paid the man to work there, the electricity costs for lighting and occasional repairs to the tarmac, repainting etc, I doubt anyone is making a huge profit.

 

---------- Post added 16-12-2013 at 15:02 ----------

 

I didn't personalise it directly at you I said the planners (not planner 1) but you seam to be in the know with most things allegedly but it's people like you who are involved that are now having a massive impact on everyone now..... As regards to parks charging etc why would the local councillors not no???? Why do people have a vote if your councillor is not going to have an impact on things that are carried out or at least not have a clue as to what's been implemented.

 

Can I just say that whilst I sometimes disagree with Planner1, at least he takes the time to come on here and explain why things are as they are. He obviously isn't responsible for every wrong in the city but he does take the time to try to explain why decisions were made. This is more than many others, including some of our elected representatives. I do hope Planner1 doesn't take some of the comments personally as I think these threads would be a lot less useful without his insight.

[Eater Sundae 12]

It does help people to read your posts better if you use the "quote" button (bottom right of every post) instead of copying the post you are quoting into your new post.

 

Decisions are taken that might have an impact later, but these impacts can often be mitigated later too. Like by putting in park and ride,or permit parking schemes. It would be nice to be able to get all the money up front to do them al at first, but it's often the case that you can't get the funding for the potential mitigations when you get the main project funding (it can affect the businesss case and mean you don't quaify for the funding stream). So, you have to go, or not, with what you can get at the time.

 

Councillors are human, they might have picked up the wrong information. Local Councillors will of course fight the corner of their constituents, but others, who have responsibility for the whole city, like Portfolio Holders (e Cabinet Members) and the Leader are the ones who get to take the real decisions.

 

The decision to charge in parks wasn't just about Hillsborough. It included Millhouses and Graves Park. The needs of the many sometimes have to overrule the needs of the few and parks need all teh extra money they can get as, like everywhere else in the Council, budgets are being slashed because of massive cuts in government funding to Local Authorities. So, we are going to have to pay for things which might have been free before, or services will be reduced or not provided at all. There is no other way when the money you recieve from government is halved.

 

...and I think it is worth noting that there have been three separate threads on SF, one concerning each of Hillborough, Millhouses and Graves Park, each commenting on the negative impact, locally, of the decision to charge in the park's car parks.

 

I realise you are not responsible for these decisions, and I for one am pleased that you do come on here and respond to many planning related issues, but I do not think it is possible to defend the lack of joined up thinking that appears to take place within the council.

 

The Council appeared to have signed up to 3 proposals by the Parks dept to charge for parking. Did they consider the knock on effect on local roads, either parking or traffic movement? If not, then they should have. If they did, then then they made a conscious decision that they knew would be likely to impact negatively on locals in the area. They consult before introducing local permit parking, but do they include any consultation about such as charging for parking and how it may impact locally.

 

---------- Post added 16-12-2013 at 15:20 ----------

 

In an ideal world, it would be free. In an ideal world everything would be free, there would be no traffic jams and the sun would always shine

 

My point remains that Malin Bridge charges £1 per day and people don't use it. I think it's other factors, such as the actual location that are putting people off. I don't think £5 a week is much of a deterrent. What might be a deterrent is having to go through Hillsborough Corner (depending on where you're coming from).

 

Even if Malin Bridge were fully occupied every day, it would only take £600 a week. When you've paid the man to work there, the electricity costs for lighting and occasional repairs to the tarmac, repainting etc, I doubt anyone is making a huge profit.

 

---------- Post added 16-12-2013 at 15:02 ----------

 

 

Can I just say that whilst I sometimes disagree with Planner1, at least he takes the time to come on here and explain why things are as they are. He obviously isn't responsible for every wrong in the city but he does take the time to try to explain why decisions were made. This is more than many others, including some of our elected representatives. I do hope Planner1 doesn't take some of the comments personally as I think these threads would be a lot less useful without his insight.

 

I agree, totally.

[queenswood 10]

Take it you live on Carlton Road??? Its a nightmare for parking, people use it to park for tram.

[Andy 10]

...and I think it is worth noting that there have been three separate threads on SF, one concerning each of Hillborough, Millhouses and Graves Park, each commenting on the negative impact, locally, of the decision to charge in the park's car parks.

 

What surprises me is that at 40p an hour or £2 per day (free after 6:30), these machines are generating any revenue.

 

Consider the capital cost of purchasing the machine, the cost of electricity to run said machine and stationery to print the tickets, and the wages and vehicle costs of having a man drive round emptying them, as well as the cost of counting and banking a load of small change.

 

I appreciate that wages and transport costs may be absorbed by consolidating emptying the machines into the Park Keeper's existing duties but even so, given the low level of charges, relatively small size of the car parks and the fact that in most cases on-street parking is available near by, I am very surprised that these machines are raising any revenue at all.

[metalman 21]

Yes, but just think how much it will be worth when the areas round those parks vote to have a parking permit scheme.

[Planner1 438]

What surprises me is that at 40p an hour or £2 per day (free after 6:30), these machines are generating any revenue.

 

Consider the capital cost of purchasing the machine, the cost of electricity to run said machine and stationery to print the tickets, and the wages and vehicle costs of having a man drive round emptying them, as well as the cost of counting and banking a load of small change.

 

I appreciate that wages and transport costs may be absorbed by consolidating emptying the machines into the Park Keeper's existing duties but even so, given the low level of charges, relatively small size of the car parks and the fact that in most cases on-street parking is available near by, I am very surprised that these machines are raising any revenue at all.

The revenue they generate more than paid for the costs of purchase and installation of the machines within a few months of operation. They produce a healthy income.

 

Machines cost about £3.5k each, installed. There is no electricity cost, they are solar powered. SCC get their paper tickets free in return for the advertising space on the back.

 

Cash collections are done by the Parking Services cash collection team and counting / banking by the Council cashiers, same as any cash income. It isn't a lot of extra work when there are over 500 pay and display machines in the city anyway.

 

---------- Post added 16-12-2013 at 20:44 ----------

 

My point remains that Malin Bridge charges £1 per day and people don't use it. I think it's other factors, such as the actual location that are putting people off. I don't think £5 a week is much of a deterrent. What might be a deterrent is having to go through Hillsborough Corner (depending on where you're coming from).

 

Even if Malin Bridge were fully occupied every day, it would only take £600 a week. When you've paid the man to work there, the electricity costs for lighting and occasional repairs to the tarmac, repainting etc, I doubt anyone is making a huge profit.

Are you saying Malin Bridge isn't well used? It's seemed quite busy when I have gone past. It isn't staffed as far as I know.

 

If you are mentioning all significant costs, there are the business rates too. You have to pay them on car parks.

[Andy 10]

Are you saying Malin Bridge isn't well used? It's seemed quite busy when I have gone past. It isn't staffed as far as I know.

.

 

I was assuming it wasn't being used because people earlier in the thread were saying that the problem of people parking on side streets would be solved by making the Park and Ride sites free. If you're saying it is already well used then making it free obviously won't help - it would probably need an extension.

 

It's rare that I'm in that area during working hours so can't comment on how full it gets. I did used to use Middlewood which seemed reasonably well used, but that was several years ago.

 

---------- Post added 16-12-2013 at 20:52 ----------

 

If you are mentioning all significant costs, there are the business rates too. You have to pay them on car parks.

 

There are probably lots of other costs - I was just making the point that no organisation is going to get rich charging a whole £1 a day to park.

 

Different world but my Park and Ride at the local station costs me £7.50 a day.

[Planner1 438]

...and I think it is worth noting that there have been three separate threads on SF, one concerning each of Hillborough, Millhouses and Graves Park, each commenting on the negative impact, locally, of the decision to charge in the park's car parks.

 

I realise you are not responsible for these decisions, and I for one am pleased that you do come on here and respond to many planning related issues, but I do not think it is possible to defend the lack of joined up thinking that appears to take place within the council.

 

The Council appeared to have signed up to 3 proposals by the Parks dept to charge for parking. Did they consider the knock on effect on local roads, either parking or traffic movement? If not, then they should have. If they did, then then they made a conscious decision that they knew would be likely to impact negatively on locals in the area. They consult before introducing local permit parking, but do they include any consultation about such as charging for parking and how it may impact locally.

 

The people who made the proposal considered the potential negative impacts and discussed them in a report to Councillors. The Councillors accepted the proposal.

 

The traffic regulation orders which make the car park restrictions enforceable were advertised as are all others. No-one objected.

 

Consultation on an area-wide permit parking scheme is not the same thing as introducing charging on a car park. Parks & Countryside consulted those that they had to, like the charitable trust at Graves Park, but you would not normally consult local residents and businesses on something like that as they are not directly affected as such. You also have to ask yourself whether a public consultation would have been more than a tick box exercise and so would it really have been worth the cost, to tell the decision makers something they most likely already knew?