On road car parking charges going up.

[Cyclone 10]

So you put the parking fines up to cover their costs...

 

... it's not rocket science!

 

The fines are set by law, the council can't change them.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

The fines are set by law, the council can't change them.

That's all we ever seem to hear on here... can't, can't, can't!

 

Let's think outside the box then...

 

How about introducing a 'congestion' charge (I've heard that's possible)...

 

... but only 'invoice' those people who have overstayed the parking restrictions?

[Berberis 10]

They have plans to roll out the telephone payment system to the whole of the city, which is useful if you don't want to rely on the p&d machine.

 

The surplus income is spent on highway maintenance.

 

Didn't SCC already secure the funding to resurface all the roads already? What are they going to do, resurface them again?

[Planner1 438]

Didn't SCC already secure the funding to resurface all the roads already? What are they going to do, resurface them again?

 

SCC have introduced a PFI contract to cover bringing the roads up to a specified standard within 5 years and maintaining them to a specification for a further 20 years. It's a £2 billion contract.

 

SCC have to make an annual payment to the contractor as part of this contract. The surplus parking income goes to contribute to that payment.

 

Maintaining the highway covers many activites, like gritting, clearing up after road traffic collisions, fixing potholes, fixing / refurbishing traffic signals and street lights and signs, repainting yellow lines etc etc.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2016 at 13:42 ----------

 

This is last years revenue:

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/business/sheffield-council-in-the-money-with-rise-in-parking-fines-1-7048069

 

Revenue from pay and display machines alone up by £1 million after increases in charges.

 

That's a rather old article. The price increases you refer to were in April 2013, more than three years ago. Ther have been none since.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2016 at 13:47 ----------

 

If on-street parking was free but limited to 1 or 2 hours, savings would be made by not having to install and maintain ticket machines.

 

Traffic wardens (remember them?) on pushbikes would then strictly enforce the parking restrictions and parking fines would cover the costs.

 

Simples!

 

Enforcing time limited waiting is a lot more labour intensive than enforcing pay and display.

 

The enforcement officer has to record the valve positions of all the car's wheels on each visit they make. It's much quicker just checking a pay and dsiplay ticket.

 

You'd need a lot more enforcement officers if you wanted to just do limited waiting.

 

The best way to reduce the costs is to move to cashless payment as much as possible. Telephone payment means you don't need the machine. Many authorities including SCC are looking to reduce the numbers of pay and dsiplay machines they have.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2016 at 13:51 ----------

 

If they expect you to use a phone they should pay for your phone use.

 

It actually costs SCC to allow you to use the telephone payment system. The system provider charges a percentage of what they take. The 20p "convenience fee" covers that cost.

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2016 at 13:53 ----------

 

If the council have any surplus anywhere I want It, to offset against our council tax.

 

The uses of parking surpluses are tightly regulated and you can't use it to reduce Council tax.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

Enforcing time limited waiting is a lot more labour intensive than enforcing pay and display.

 

The enforcement officer has to record the valve positions of all the car's wheels on each visit they make. It's much quicker just checking a pay and dsiplay ticket.

 

You'd need a lot more enforcement officers if you wanted to just do limited waiting.

 

The best way to reduce the costs is to move to cashless payment as much as possible. Telephone payment means you don't need the machine. Many authorities including SCC are looking to reduce the numbers of pay and dsiplay machines they have.

I understand that enforcement officers would have to visit a vehicle twice (to record when they first spotted it, and a follow up to issue the ticket, if it's still there), but do they really need to record the valve positions?

 

That seems like a ludicrous job creation scheme to me!

 

If a car is still in the same parking zone it should still be 'fined' no matter where in the zone it's moved to... isn't that the point of the 'no return within x hours' notices?

 

And the fact that you need more enforcement officers has to be a good thing for the local unemployed, surely?

 

This would of course need to be properly costed out by the people at the council who presumably do this sort of thing for a living...

 

... but I'm guessing there would be little public objection to huge fines (and indeed little sympathy for people who despite having had a couple of hours free parking, decide the restrictions don't apply to them and are then presented with a large fine for overstaying), if everyone including local businesses were to benefit from it!

 

The bottom line is the council don't seem to be interested in making life easier for everyone, but just in making life easier for themselves to collect payments!

[Planner1 438]

I understand that enforcement officers would have to visit a vehicle twice (to record when they first spotted it, and a follow up to issue the ticket, if it's still there), but do they really need to record the valve positions?

 

That seems like a ludicrous job creation scheme to me!

 

If a car is still in the same parking zone it should still be 'fined' no matter where in the zone it's moved to... isn't that the point of the 'no return within x hours' notices?

 

And the fact that you need more enforcement officers has to be a good thing for the local unemployed, surely?

 

This would of course need to be properly costed out by the people at the council who presumably do this sort of thing for a living...

 

... but I'm guessing there would be little public objection to huge fines (and indeed little sympathy for people who despite having had a couple of hours free parking, decide the restrictions don't apply to them and are then presented with a large fine for overstaying), if everyone including local businesses were to benefit from it!

 

The bottom line is the council don't seem to be interested in making life easier for everyone, but just in making life easier for themselves to collect payments!

 

Yes. Recording the valve positions is the industry standard way of recordign whether the vehicle has moved, as you need to prove they haven't driven off adn come back later in accordance withthe "no return within" restriction.

 

The cost of employing many more enforcement people is a lot more than the cost of maintaining and operating some pay and display machines and a telephone payment system.

[biotechpete 10]

SCC have introduced a PFI contract to cover bringing the roads up to a specified standard within 5 years and maintaining them to a specification for a further 20 years. It's a £2 billion contract.

 

SCC have to make an annual payment to the contractor as part of this contract. The surplus parking income goes to contribute to that payment.

.....

The uses of parking surpluses are tightly regulated and you can't use it to reduce Council tax.

 

Do you see the contradiction here. If the surplus from parking can go to the PFI (I'm assuming the council had costed the contract and planned how to pay it) then that money (from council taxes), that was committed to paying the PFI, is freed up to be spent on other things including reducing council tax.

Edited August 4, 2016 by biotechpete

[Penistone999 10]

Traffic wardens require paying. The parking charge is supposed to cover the cost of enforcement.

 

Of course it is . so what is their excuse for pocketing the surplus ?

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2016 at 18:12 ----------

 

I suspect the council would argue that fines alone would not be sufficient to cover purchase of required bicycles, required health and safety bicycle riding training for the wardens, high visibility clothing, cycle helmets, puncture repair kits and cycle maintenance....

 

Apart from that, nice idea though.

 

Your having a laugh ,right ?

 

Ive heard it all now.

 

Who the hell needs training to ride a pushbike ?

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2016 at 18:13 ----------

 

Yes. Recording the valve positions is the industry standard way of recordign whether the vehicle has moved, as you need to prove they haven't driven off adn come back later in accordance withthe "no return within" restriction.

 

The cost of employing many more enforcement people is a lot more than the cost of maintaining and operating some pay and display machines and a telephone payment system.

 

Brilliant. The council pay these people to look at peoples tyre valves . You couldnt make it up .

[apelike 10]

The best way to reduce the costs is to move to cashless payment as much as possible. Telephone payment means you don't need the machine. Many authorities including SCC are looking to reduce the numbers of pay and dsiplay machines they have.

 

So basically this is a way to reduce the costs to the council while keeping the parking charges the same thus again maximising profits for them. Now what happens to those people who don't have a mobile and cant pay by telephone? If they cant pay by that method then will they still be given fines?

 

The best way to reduce costs is by not having charges in the first place as its now not about traffic management but how much revenue they can make. Why is it necessary for the council to go to the expense of using expensive specialised ANPR vehicles if it was not about revenue.

[bluecanary 13]

Of course it is . so what is their excuse for pocketing the surplus ?

 

---------- Post added 04-08-2016 at 18:12 ----------

 

 

Your having a laugh ,right ?

 

Ive heard it all now.

 

Who the hell needs training to ride a pushbike ?

 

.

 

Yes, I was indeed attempting to be humorous. Nevermind.

[Planner1 438]

Do you see the contradiction here. If the surplus from parking can go to the PFI (I'm assuming the council had costed the contract and planned how to pay it) then that money (from council taxes), that was committed to paying the PFI, is freed up to be spent on other things including reducing council tax.

There is only so much money, within boundaries you can cut the cake anyway you like. There is nowhere near enough money to satisfy everyone's requests, so there are always difficult decisions to make.

 

The decisions on this are taken by your elected representatives. Tell them if you don't like what they spend the money on.

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 00:04 ----------

 

So basically this is a way to reduce the costs to the council while keeping the parking charges the same thus again maximising profits for them. Now what happens to those people who don't have a mobile and cant pay by telephone? If they cant pay by that method then will they still be given fines?

 

The best way to reduce costs is by not having charges in the first place as its now not about traffic management but how much revenue they can make. Why is it necessary for the council to go to the expense of using expensive specialised ANPR vehicles if it was not about revenue.

There are very few people who don't have a mobile nowadays. Some authorities allow people to pay by cash at Paypoint outlets or suchlike. You can also leave in a few p&d machines for those who insist on paying by cash.

 

Use of ANPR vehicles is more efficient (1) as you can cover more ground with the same number of staff and (2) It also allows you to catch people who would drive off as soon as they see an enforcement officer coming up the road. There are many people who arrive 10-15 minutes early and sit in the car on peak hour bus lane restrictions (Bolsover St for example), until the restriction ends. They drive away as soon as they see the CEO approaching, but the ANPR vehicle will get them. It's also used for enforcing school keep clear markings.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Planner1

[WalkleyIan 10]

There are many people who arrive 10-15 minutes early and sit in the car on peak hour bus lane restrictions (Bolsover St for example), until the restriction ends. They drive away as soon as they see the CEO approaching, but the ANPR vehicle will get them. It's also used for enforcing school keep clear markings.

 

Possibly worse on Clarkehouse road where they park in the cycle lane from as early as 9.10 am and sit and read books. We've had gentle chats with them but they say there’s nowhere else to park. Not entirely true there’s a great big multi story on Durham Rd, what they really mean is there’s nowhere else they can park for free.

 

My OH has a problem with parents from another school in Broomhill parking outside her school on the zig zags, even in the staff parking spaces. They’ve tried taking photos to name and shame but it doesn’t really work since they are from a different school up the road. You can imagine the type, range rover, law doesn’t apply to me. Luckily there’s only been one child run down so far and it wasn’t a serious injury, but it’s only a matter of time.

 

Had similar problems with repeat offenders parking in the University car parks without permits although that one is now heading to court.

 

What happened to Pickles taking away the councils right to use camera cars? I thought the government said they could still be used at Schools? Do we still have them here?