Car Parking Charges

[graham]

The the only reason anyone has an interest in applying "systems" is to extort as much money as possible out of people.

Did you see my tale of the hospital car park? That was most certainly free until it was abused (and abused it was - I used to need to go there on business at the time).

 

[Pitlamp]

Sorry Graham, I just didn't get chance as I've had to work all the weekend so far - and quite long hours.

My own experience of hospital car parking charges was from regularly visiting my ill grandmother over an extended period and one evening calculating how much this "illness tax" had cost me.

Somehow we all seemed to manage OK before these iniquitous schemes were imposed on us.

 

[Peter Burgess]

A free time-limited parking ticket works pretty much as well as one you pay for.

Not sure it would, though it has been used in some circumstances, such as getting the first 20-30 minutes free when using airport parking. There is a difference in that longer periods do attract a fee.

There are plenty of places where you can park free for say 2 hours with no return permitted within a further 2 hours. Seems to be a working solution that does not involve rationing by price. The problem with rationing by price, which is why is was not used for food, is that it is socially divisive.

 

[al]

If you go to Ambleside, where parking space is equally sought after, and and just as scarce as in Edale, you can pick up a FREE clock-ticket in any shop, keep it and use it for limited free parking whenever you're there.

A fine example of rationing without the revenue.

 

[droid]

One trouble with paying for parking: when I lived in Hathersage, day trippers would park anywhere to avoid paying for the car park opposite the swimming pool. If that involved blocking local's access so be it.

Free parking would have alleviated this somewhat.

 

[grahams]

The the only reason anyone has an interest in applying "systems" is to extort as much money as possible out of people.

Did you see my tale of the hospital car park? That was most certainly free until it was abused (and abused it was - I used to need to go there on business at the time).

To avoid this problem at Skipton Baths carpark, they provide free parking for 3 hours and charge a huge amount (?8) for time beyond that. Not a perfect solution but much better than what amounts to additional taxation on hospital carparks.

 

[crickleymal]

The the only reason anyone has an interest in applying "systems" is to extort as much money as possible out of people.

Did you see my tale of the hospital car park? That was most certainly free until it was abused (and abused it was - I used to need to go there on business at the time).

Was and still is abused. I regularly used to see people parking in the Oncology Centre carpark in Bristol and walk into town. Mainly because the prices were similar and also because the council used to force the hospital to provide more parking every time it wanted to build an extension.

 

[mulucaver]

What I am hearing, here, are plenty of stories from people who never seem to have had a problem parking in Edale, only in paying for that.

Strikes me that the rationing by charge is working well. 

Rationing worked pretty well in the 1940s too. You didn't have to pay for the ration cards.

Yes, of course, and you have the option of not parking.

 

[mulucaver]

You've got the option of not reading it Dave   

Sorry, wrong quote

 

[mulucaver]

You've got the option of not reading it Dave   

This is the post I meant to answer.

Yes, of course, and you've got the option of not parking.

 

[mulucaver]

Before mulucaver jumps down my throat again - my caving diary tells me that during this month I've been very active both in the Dales and in the Peak. It was on one caving trip that a paid for parking system caused me considerable inconvenience. So as far as I'm concerned this discussion is certainly related to caving.

I'm not jumping down anyones throat, merely expressing an opinion. I think the original post was relevant to caving and all the uninvited responses are relevant to parking and not caving.

 

[droid]

Presumably, Dave, you wish the OP to abandon if he doesn't park?

'Option of not parking'.....

 

[mulucaver]

I don't wish anything on anyone. Their choice not mine.

 

[Pitlamp]

Good morning mulucaver - I see you're an early riser like me.

I don't agree with some of your recent comments but the last thing I want to do is fall out with you, so I don't think I'll be answering them. 

(Until next time we happen to be digging together   )

 

[Peter Burgess]

OP - "Not seeking comments".

I am struggling to work out which replies were actually "invited" in the OP.

It is not for us mere mortals to decide who is honoured with permission to reply - that's for the (g/m)ods to deliberate on.

 

[david3392]

How this topic has continued on a caving forum is quite mystifying. However I may as well put in my opinion as well

It does amuse me to hear some  members of the outdoor community (cavers, climbers, hang gliders, walkers etc) who, with hundreds of pounds-worth  of gear with them, begrudge having to pay a parking fee of perhaps a few quid. If it is council owned thern so what if it's 'revenue raising?' You would think by previous comments that the money is going into someone's personal back pocket. As long as it goes into providing local services then fine by me. You can contact your local council and ask where the money goes from parking revenues if you want to make sure. I'm sure most people would prefer to leave their vehicle in a place with a reasonable level of security and ease of access, rather than an isolated grass verge or whatever. In that case it needs to be paid for. I would agree though that the motorist is seen as an easier target than most.

On the subject of vehicle tax, if it just a punitive emissions tax and nothing to do with the road as such, then why do you make to make a SORN declaration if you decide not to use the road? On that basis I prefer to still call it a road tax and one for  the pro-bike lobby to think about when they demand their cycle lanes etc.

I came back from Manchester today having parked in the events car park near the cathedral. ?7 for up to 4 hours and ?12 over the the 4 hours. Now that's extortionate!

 

[Bob Smith]

You sorn the vehicle to ensure it is not being used without insurance. Road tax does not exist, all the money from the vehicle excise duty is all paid to the exchequer and not ring fenced for highways. Now really far off topic.

 

[dunc]

How this topic has continued on a caving forum is quite mystifying. However I may as well put in my opinion as well

Moderation when it suits.

It does amuse me to hear some  members of the outdoor community (cavers, climbers, hang gliders, walkers etc) who, with hundreds of pounds-worth  of gear with them, begrudge having to pay a parking fee of perhaps a few quid. If it is council owned thern so what if it's 'revenue raising?' You would think by previous comments that the money is going into someone's personal back pocket. As long as it goes into providing local services then fine by me.

So what of the idle businessmen/women that abused the system and forced charges at once previously free sites? And as for council owned - the OP mentioned a company that is no doubt private and not in anyway concerned about the public good - they are a company in it for one thing and one thing only - profit!

On that basis I prefer to still call it a road tax and one for  the pro-bike lobby to think about when they demand their cycle lanes etc.

Precisely the pathetic attitude that I mentioned previously, "I pay for the roads which gives me greater entitlement, if I have to pay everyone should". Bah bloody humbug. Bikes don't really cause pollution in use or clog up the roads or take over parking spaces blah etc so why should they be subject to an emissions based tax?

I came back from Manchester today having parked in the events car park near the cathedral. ?7 for up to 4 hours and ?12 over the the 4 hours. Now that's extortionate!

But surely you must have felt happy leaving it somewhere safe and secure and of course benefiting the local council or whoever etc....  :-\

 

[Peter Burgess]

We can all quote examples to argue one way or the other. Today I parked free to visit Verulamium Park in St Albans, free for first three hours, and it's a well maintained and properly looked after car park. The park is one of the best municipal parks I have seen, complete with well-presented remains of the old roman town, and all free including parking up. I then continued to Luton Airport, parked up for 30 minutes in the short stay car park which cost me ?3.60. Fair enough - airport parking is never cheap. However, if a lot of money is raised from fees, one would expect the place to be of an excellent standard. Not so! The surface looks like it hasn't been properly maintained for 20+ years, resembles a building site - I doubt any money has been spent on it for a very long time. One has to conclude that the money raised is used for something else entirely - probably all the CCTV they put up to stop people doing drop-offs on the approach roads. Gatwick short-term parking is a palace in comparison.

 

[graham]

If it is council owned then so what if it's 'revenue raising?' You would think by previous comments that the money is going into someone's personal back pocket. As long as it goes into providing local services then fine by me.

Sure, but this is all part of the culture that instinctively believes that 'public services' from parking through toilets to street lighting ought to be 'free. Everything has a cost, it's just how that cost is calculated and allocated that should be allocated, nothing else.

Thing is, you'd think that experience with privatised railways would have shown folks that not everything 'public' is wrong, but apparently not.