Revised On Street Parking Charges

[Planner1 428]

3 hours ago, Bigal1 said:

One would hope that there was some evidence that offering free parking after 15.00 was successful otherwise the council would be guilty of basically reducing much needed revenue that could be spent on............................................... new cycle lanes?

 

could be as simple as loss of revenue is less than the cost of employing the wardens to enforce

Surplus income from parking (ie profit) can be spent on highway improvements or maintenance

 

In Sheffield the surplus is put towards the paying the cost of the Amey contract.

 

It isn't as simple as you make out. The civil enforcement officers (CEO's) are paid anyway, so there is no real reduction in cost arising from a free parking offer.

 

In somewhere like Sheffield, where there is actually,  if anything, too much parking, my thought is that free parking in council spaces just means that those spaces tend to fill up first, so people might park in a council space instead of the private sector one they might normally have used. It might influence some people to come when the parking is free instead of the time they'd normally come , but I doubt very much whether many people come specifically because the parking is free (on a free after three initiative you are only saving a couple of quid).

 

You would struggle to find any meaningful data about how effective fee parking initiatives are, because there are many factors which influence when/if someone comes into town, so it's quite difficult to glean meaningful data. Also it's difficult to get accurate footfall data or the occupancy data from private sector car parks or bus / tram ridership numbers, never mind getting all the businesses in town to share details of how much they took in the free period compared to normal. So, calculating the real effect of a free parking initiative would be very time consuming and difficult.

 

You will get lots of people "welcoming" these initiatives and labelling it as "successful" but the truth is, there is a lack of hard evidence. Businesses are prone to grossly over-estimating the number of their customers who come to them by car, so they tend to think that anything that brings more people to town by car is good for trade. However, research has shown that in fact, more come by other means than by car and those who walk and cycle to the shops actually spend more money overall than the car drivers.

[Parkside 0]

15 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Surplus income from parking (ie profit) can be spent on highway improvements or maintenance

 

In Sheffield the surplus is put towards the paying the cost of the Amey contract.

 

It isn't as simple as you make out. The civil enforcement officers (CEO's) are paid anyway, so there is no real reduction in cost arising from a free parking offer.

 

In somewhere like Sheffield, where there is actually,  if anything, too much parking, my thought is that free parking in council spaces just means that those spaces tend to fill up first, so people might park in a council space instead of the private sector one they might normally have used. It might influence some people to come when the parking is free instead of the time they'd normally come , but I doubt very much whether many people come specifically because the parking is free (on a free after three initiative you are only saving a couple of quid).

 

You would struggle to find any meaningful data about how effective fee parking initiatives are, because there are many factors which influence when/if someone comes into town, so it's quite difficult to glean meaningful data. Also it's difficult to get accurate footfall data or the occupancy data from private sector car parks or bus / tram ridership numbers, never mind getting all the businesses in town to share details of how much they took in the free period compared to normal. So, calculating the real effect of a free parking initiative would be very time consuming and difficult.

 

You will get lots of people "welcoming" these initiatives and labelling it as "successful" but the truth is, there is a lack of hard evidence. Businesses are prone to grossly over-estimating the number of their customers who come to them by car, so they tend to think that anything that brings more people to town by car is good for trade. However, research has shown that in fact, more come by other means than by car and those who walk and cycle to the shops actually spend more money overall than the car drivers.

Thats a load of codswallop do you  mean to say that all these large stores in Town actually make more money from people who cycle  or walk into town? .

 

[BigAl1 143]

21 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

 

It isn't as simple as you make out. The civil enforcement officers (CEO's) are paid anyway, so there is no real reduction in cost arising from a free parking offer.

 

 

Ever heard of reducing the number employed or reducing overtime or the hours worked

[Planner1 428]

1 hour ago, Bigal1 said:

Ever heard of reducing the number employed or reducing overtime or the hours worked

What we are discussing are time limited free parking initiatives like they have at Chistmas. They tend to be for a few days only. The CEO's are full time employees, you can't just lay them off when it suits you.

 

The CEO's don't just enforce overstays or non-payment on pay and display spaces, they do a lot more than that. They would still be needed even if parking was completely free.

[Planner1 428]

1 hour ago, Parkside said:

Thats a load of codswallop do you  mean to say that all these large stores in Town actually make more money from people who cycle  or walk into town? .

 

The evidence is in several studies, carried out by large organisations like Transport for London: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-benefits-summary-pack.pdf

and Sustrans: http://www.tut.fi/verne/wp-content/uploads/Shoppers-and-how-they-travel.pdf

 

I had the Sustrans study repeated when I worked in Barnsley and the findings mirrored those in Bristol to an even higher degree.

[Parkside 0]

48 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

The evidence is in several studies, carried out by large organisations like Transport for London: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-benefits-summary-pack.pdf

and Sustrans: http://www.tut.fi/verne/wp-content/uploads/Shoppers-and-how-they-travel.pdf

 

I had the Sustrans study repeated when I worked in Barnsley and the findings mirrored those in Bristol to an even higher degree.

Yes maybe Barnsley and London but this is Sheffield we are discussing .

 

[Annie Bynnol 612]

It is totally unfair to cut services funding from Sheffield people to subsidise car drivers to park in the City Centre.

I am unwilling  sponsor people to slow the movement of everybody down and increase the pollution of the environment.

This activity should be conducted by parking companies in proper buildings. 

To aid mobility the Council should agree with the Companies how to fund disability parking.

While land is awaiting  development the  land should be leased  to companies or be used to benefit the ever growing population of City Centre.

[Planner1 428]

3 hours ago, Parkside said:

Yes maybe Barnsley and London but this is Sheffield we are discussing .

 

The Sustrans one was in Bristol, which is a similar sized city to Sheffield. The Bristol study was a repeat of one done in Graz, Austria, again a similar sized city. How many times does something have to be repeated showing the same results before you dismiss it as "codswallop".

 

The point is, that far from being "codswalop" as you put it, the points I am making are well evidenced from research carried out by very reputable organisations.

[RJRB 688]

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

The Sustrans one was in Bristol, which is a similar sized city to Sheffield. The Bristol study was a repeat of one done in Graz, Austria, again a similar sized city. How many times does something have to be repeated showing the same results before you dismiss it as "codswallop".

 

The point is, that far from being "codswalop" as you put it, the points I am making are well evidenced from research carried out by very reputable organisations.

When such assertions fly in the face of logic,and are produced by an organisation with a vested interest,and reliant on government grants,it is obviously going to be questioned by those affected,including businesses.

John Lewis could certainly house a few cycles in the multi storey,but I wouldn’t fancy getting up to the top level

 

[whiteowl 54]

I'd rather pay the money that would be spent on parking, on postage with Internet shopping and it gets delivered to my house.

 

I suppose I'm lucky in a way though as I live in Woodseats so I can go to Chesterfield and pay 80p to stay in the donut car park if I need something that day. Straight-forward to get to and cheap.

 

If you make things too expensive or complicated people will find alternatives.

[Planner1 428]

9 hours ago, RJRB said:

When such assertions fly in the face of logic,and are produced by an organisation with a vested interest,and reliant on government grants,it is obviously going to be questioned by those affected,including businesses.

John Lewis could certainly house a few cycles in the multi storey,but I wouldn’t fancy getting up to the top level

 

The point of those studies is that it’s perceived logic, which is incorrect. People assume that because they come by car, most people do. The facts are that they don’t. 
 

It isn’t just cycling, if you look at the retail perceptions study, people come via a variety of means other than car.

[RJRB 688]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

The point of those studies is that it’s perceived logic, which is incorrect. People assume that because they come by car, most people do. The facts are that they don’t. 
 

It isn’t just cycling, if you look at the retail perceptions study, people come via a variety of means other than car.

My perceived logic is that visitors to the city centre come by,cars,public transport,as pedestrians and other forms of transport including cycles.

From your research could you give a rough indication of the spread as far as Sheffield is concerned.

Our results could be skewed to some extent because of the availability of out of town shopping centres where free parking is available for a limited period or for the whole day.