Jump to content

Taxpayers' Funds Proposed To Be Wasted On Unwanted & Ineffective Parking Scheme

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Have a think about it long term.  The age of the petrol vehicle is ending.  Unless you're fortunate to have your own drive or garage, you're going to require a charging point somewhere.  Maybe the allocation of parking bays on streets which home owners will be required to pay for a permit, will eventually have  on-street charging points?

 

 

Edited by Baron99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a car in that picture.

 

In that picture there are also houses that likely had outdoor toilets, and malnourished children. Not everything was better "back in t'day".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

I see a car in that picture.

 

In that picture there are also houses that likely had outdoor toilets, and malnourished children. Not everything was better "back in t'day".

See that's where the problem started Lord.

Once one moves into the area the area's doomed 🤣.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Have a think about it long term.  The age of the petrol vehicle is ending.  Unless you're fortunate to have your own drive or garage, you're going to require a charging point somewhere.  Maybe the allocation of parking bays on streets which home owners will be required to pay for a permit, will eventually have  on-street charging points?

 

 

The problem with that is who pays for the infrastructure?

 

Councils certainly don’t have the money for it and central government doesn’t seem minded to fund large scale area wide roll-outs of on-street EV charging infrastructure.

 

That leaves the private sector and I’ve seen no sign of them being willing to fund such initiatives.

 

Would residents and businesses be willing to fund it via permit / membership fees? I doubt it as things currently stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rockers rule said:

Because we're already paying to use the road, something that has never excluded those paying for the privilege ever being excluded from parking on it.

 

Until finding how easy it was to make a lucrative 'Cash Cow' it can be.

How boring does repeating the same nonsense time and time again have to be spouted?

 

Lets ban all cars from parking at the side of the ROAD. Bicyclist should rule the world and public transport should be the only transport available for the likes of the working man.

All taxpayers pay for the road, but if the demand for the road space becomes too much then it's not unreasonable that some extra costs may be incurred to manage that. That's kind of the way the world tends to work.

 

I pay for the roads through my tax but I don't own a car. I accept that some of that goes towards road and parking spaces for cars in the same way I accept that some of my taxes pay for NHS treatment of smokers, even though I don't personally smoke. But there are limits.

 

Cars are getting physically bigger with each generation of model, and car ownership continues to rise (it has doubled in 30 years from 20 million to 40 million in the UK, or thereabouts). Why should I continue to subsidise that when it's clearly unsustainable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Rockers rule said:

Until finding how easy it was to make a lucrative 'Cash Cow' it can be.

In my experience, which is considerable, no councils put in parking restrictions just to make money. They do it for what are generally referred to as good traffic management reasons. That’s the only lawful reason they can do it.

 

On the grand scale of council finance, surplus income from parking isn’t particularly big and it’s restricted on what you can spend it on. It’s also controversial and attracts negative publicity, so it isn’t easy and is not without political risk.

 

So, they don’t pursue installing parking schemes just to make money.

 

I’d suggest that one way of overcoming this perception would be to make at least the first permit free. It is done elsewhere and the fees received from permits cover the admin fees and not much more, so it isn’t a big financial issue as income from pay and display and penalties covers the overall costs. The powers that be in Sheffield decided that residents and businesses in permit zones need to contribute, but that could change if there was a will.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Allison R said:

Thanks for all the kind wishes, Mr Bloke.  I don’t care that no one is taking it seriously. I just cannot understand the meanness and distain. I’m strong enough to take it – it just seems pointless and petty and immature and sad.  I don’t understand what has happened to people. It’s like they seem to revel in putting other people down. 🤷‍♀️

Welcome to Sheffield Forum. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, AndrewC said:

All taxpayers pay for the road, but if the demand for the road space becomes too much then it's not unreasonable that some extra costs may be incurred to manage that. That's kind of the way the world tends to work.

 

I pay for the roads through my tax but I don't own a car. I accept that some of that goes towards road and parking spaces for cars in the same way I accept that some of my taxes pay for NHS treatment of smokers, even though I don't personally smoke. But there are limits.

 

Cars are getting physically bigger with each generation of model, and car ownership continues to rise (it has doubled in 30 years from 20 million to 40 million in the UK, or thereabouts). Why should I continue to subsidise that when it's clearly unsustainable?

Doesn't quite stack up.

You pay for the roads through tax as I do, then pay an addition tax in the form of VED.

Vehicles are far from 'getting bigger' even those that are, are more efficient than they've ever been.

I don't smoke or drink so why shouldn't I enjoy Cars and motorcycles as an alternative?

 

Keep safe 8) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you weren't daft enough to make a link between VED and road funding. I was wrong. Fair enough.

 

VED is a tax on the emissions your car makes. It doesn't have anything to do with funding the roads and confers you no extra rights or privileges over anyone else in terms of ownership of the road. Electric cars don't pay VED. Are you going to claim you have more right to roadspace and free parking over electric car owners, as well as cyclists etc.? 

 

It's funny that you asked in your previous post, 'How boring does repeating the same nonsense time and time again have to be spouted?', because you wouldn't believe how often motorists need that above point about VED/road tax explained to them.

 

Cars absolutely are getting bigger. And when it comes to parking issues and space for roads in urban areas, that is a massive factor. There are more cars on our roads than ever and they are all on average bigger than previous generations of model and for some reason motorists expect society to keep giving up more and more space to accommodate that - it's nonsensical and arrogant - and unsustainable.

 

 

As for why you shouldn't 'enjoy' cars; well, you're welcome to but that kind of brings us back to the original issue. You can't expect to not pay for your enjoyment. Including the privilege of having a space outside your house.

 

Keep safe 8) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That old street scene is long gone, taken over by paint, camera's, signs, bus gates, an ugly authoritarian landscape.

 

Didn't take long before the Windy Millers took over with their patronising view of the world.

 

Socialism, you will be miserable, you will be controlled, restricted and punished, you will pay through the nose.

 

2k council tax, 2k parking charges, 4k gas/elec (including a whole host of green taxes) , 2k road tax (DFO), petrol duty, insurance, insurance tax. The idea that the motorist hasn't contributed more to the tax take to pay for some tarmac is ludicrous.

 

Instead of supplying cheap or free city centre parking to meet the demand, lets turn the whole city into a car park, crazy.

 

Edited by fools
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

In my experience, which is considerable, no councils put in parking restrictions just to make money. They do it for what are generally referred to as good traffic management reasons. That’s the only lawful reason they can do it.

 

On the grand scale of council finance, surplus income from parking isn’t particularly big and it’s restricted on what you can spend it on. It’s also controversial and attracts negative publicity, so it isn’t easy and is not without political risk.

 

So, they don’t pursue installing parking schemes just to make money.

 

I’d suggest that one way of overcoming this perception would be to make at least the first permit free. It is done elsewhere and the fees received from permits cover the admin fees and not much more, so it isn’t a big financial issue as income from pay and display and penalties covers the overall costs. The powers that be in Sheffield decided that residents and businesses in permit zones need to contribute, but that could change if there was a will.

 

 

I always value your input, "Planner 1".

 

You may be interested to learn of at least one council that has recently raised city centre parking charges and hours covered, with a clearly stated intent that the increased revenue of approximately £2m per year is to try and help balance the overall budget. i.e. to try and avoid cuts to other services.

 

It is not a "parking scheme" but is generating "surplus income from parking" to which you refer.

 

Lancaster City Council, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, cgksheff said:

I always value your input, "Planner 1".

 

You may be interested to learn of at least one council that has recently raised city centre parking charges and hours covered, with a clearly stated intent that the increased revenue of approximately £2m per year is to try and help balance the overall budget. i.e. to try and avoid cuts to other services.

 

It is not a "parking scheme" but is generating "surplus income from parking" to which you refer.

 

Lancaster City Council, by the way.

Yes that is interesting.

 

They are allowed to raise prices or extend hours in order to cover costs, but doing so expressly to generate surplus income is unlawful according to every legal opinion I’ve ever seen. Indeed one London Borough which drastically increased permit prices were found to have done so specifically to raise more income to cover gaps in service budgets ( via an FOI’d email from a councillor if I remember correctly). They were taken to court by residents, lost and had to pay back the increased costs to permit holders and rescind the price increase. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.