A tax on caving?

littletitan

New member
I do!
:LOL:


You need to get away underground for the weekend Mark!!!

Meanwhile, charge the tourists as much as possible....

.....no, more!
 
D

darkplaces

Guest
Can I upset you mark and cry - NIMBY

Some of us cant afford to live in amazing places like national parks, some of us have to live were we can afford the housing now you tell me I have to pay a tax to get into a national park. Maybe I should create a tax for you to go to your nearest shopping center or large town. You pay £8 just to enter the area then parking as well. It can happen, London did it. Thin end and all that, national parks charging for access, large towns charging for access. Will someone look at the big picture you let one start charging, they will all do it in time.

The goverment should spend the money it already gets from drivers on improving the roads and installing park and ride were its workable.
 

littletitan

New member
What if we don't want to go within 100 miles of a shopping centre or large town. Surely those who have a decent reason for visiting the National Park can be allowed free access.

Caving will be at the top of the tree of course.

Shopping will be at the bottom. In fact, lets forget shopping!


Oh, and by the way. what the f@=ks NIMBY?
 
D

darkplaces

Guest
NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard

A term used for people who think it doesnt apply to them.

Someone who wants wind power and doesnt want nuke power but wont accept a wind turbine anywhere were they can see it. Someone who might moan about solor pannels on the house next door.

Someone who buys a house knowing a public path runs down it but after 10 years wants to have it closed.

Someone who lives in an area intended for everyone to enjoy but wants everyone else to pickup the bill. If a tax applys to people entering a national park it applies to everyone as far as I am concerned. Your still contributing to the traffic.
 

paul

Moderator
c**tplaces said:
Can I upset you mark and cry - NIMBY

Some of us cant afford to live in amazing places like national parks, some of us have to live were we can afford the housing now you tell me I have to pay a tax to get into a national park. Maybe I should create a tax for you to go to your nearest shopping center or large town. You pay £8 just to enter the area then parking as well. It can happen, London did it. Thin end and all that, national parks charging for access, large towns charging for access. Will someone look at the big picture you let one start charging, they will all do it in time.

The goverment should spend the money it already gets from drivers on improving the roads and installing park and ride were its workable.

I also live in a popular Peak District village within the N.P. and agree with Mark - and the two car parks at either end of my village are free! I'm not against visitors enjoying the area - its the attitude that the area is just there for their enjoyment and lack of consideration for those who live and work locally that is annoying.

I don't think charging traffic for access is the answer. Better public transport is the answer. This would also benefit those living in the area - and we are not alll rich buggers living in big expensive houses as Darkplaces seems to think. We already have a tax for visiting the nearest shopping centre or large town: its called fuel duty.

For example in the village I used to live in previously, the nearest shop is 7 miles away and there's a bus at 08:30 and another at 16:00 (mainly for the benefit of kids to get to and from school) then there isn't a lot of option other than to use a car.
 

AndyF

New member
Mark said:
You want to try living in a popular peak district village, inconsiderate walkers, mountain bikers, cavers too, take up all available parking spaces and bugger off for the day, very few actually use the pay and display car parks until every other possibility is exhausted

The article JB linked to says residents could be excluded from paying extra, well they aint getting no money from me </rant>

Why is it some people think they have more right to park in a place because they live there? Get a house with parking, or accept the same rules as everyone else....

Who is going to choose to pay for parking when they do't have to?
 

paul

Moderator
AndyF said:
Mark said:
You want to try living in a popular peak district village, inconsiderate walkers, mountain bikers, cavers too, take up all available parking spaces and bugger off for the day, very few actually use the pay and display car parks until every other possibility is exhausted

The article JB linked to says residents could be excluded from paying extra, well they aint getting no money from me </rant>

Why is it some people think they have more right to park in a place because they live there? Get a house with parking, or accept the same rules as everyone else....

Who is going to choose to pay for parking when they do't have to?

Andy - nobody has a *right* to park in a place at all, true.

However many villages such as where I live (Winster) were not designed for modern traffic having been built before the car was even thought of.

In fact most of Main Street is terraced housing or adjoining housing with no gaps between to provide off-road parking and the front doors opening directly onto the footpath with no front gardens. Many houses have no roadside access at all being on jitties (narrow walkways), and the nearest bit of road is only a car-width wide.

If I get home and cannot park nearby, no problem, I just park where I can.

HOWEVER when a group arrive with just one or two in each vehicle (or the lines of mini-buses with DoE groups during the summer) and then "dump" their cars inconsideratelyso that each takes up 2 parking places and there are TWO FREE car parks nearby, it does get fairly annoying!
 

Pitlamp

Well-known member
OK then - so does anyone know whether DCA has addessed this particular issue? It's obviously one which cavers feel strongly about. It would be advisable for our regional body to have a say in this.

It's ironic that the National park puts out all these publications encouraging people to visit the area (eg visitor style newspapers) even though they themselves seem to be concerned enough about visitor numbers to feel justified in charging for access. Do I detect (as the late and great K.Bentham used to say) a whiff of rodent?
 

AndyF

New member
paul said:
HOWEVER when a group arrive with just one or two in each vehicle (or the lines of mini-buses with DoE groups during the summer) and then "dump" their cars inconsideratelyso that each takes up 2 parking places and there are TWO FREE car parks nearby, it does get fairly annoying!

Fair enough, I can see that that would be a wind-up. I know the Winster car parks are free, though I must admit I didn't know they were there myself until recently... They could perhaps do with better signing, to guide people to them who enter the village from different directions.

Alternativley, a residents parking scheme might be better, but the signage that that needs does detract from the "look" of a village street.
 

Cave_Troll

Active member
Personally as a resident of the Western side of Sheffield, I'd consider myself just as much of a local as people who actually live withing the Peak Park. I'm closer to Hathersage than Edale is. So why whould people in Edale be able to come down to Hathersage when i have to pay £8?

As to the whole concept of traffic congestion, I spend most of my bank holdiays in Edale or Hathersage fundraising. I see no evidence of gridlock or extreme congestion, _except_ for specific events like Hope Show.

If you think the Peak is congested, try living in Sheffield.
If you think Sheffield is suggested, try living in London.

Personally i think its cunning. enforce the parking payments in the Peak Park car parks and if they're just passing through or driving from Sheffield to Manchester via the A57 (and hence you won't get them with the parking) you can get them on congestion charging.

It was suggested that the whole of the mountain region of North wales was turned into a huge park and ride system with no cars allowed in. This plan did indeed seem to die a death
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
Acronyms wot I like a bit include NIMBY but don't forget BANANA, LOMBARD and DINKY (I bet there's loads more).

BANANA = Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

LOMBARD = Loads Of Money But A Right Dickhead (singular)

DINKY = Dual Income, No Kids Yet (couples)

Round here there's loads of NIMBYs, DINKYs, LOMBARDs and BANANAs. The strange thing is VERY FEW OF THEM are local, they just happen to have moved here and then sound off about how the place needs to be protected against development. I collectively call them "Financial Cleansers" (or F****** C****s for short).
 

AndyF

New member
I'm applying to get a copy of the "bid" under the freedom of information act.

We'll see what the actual plan is... :twisted:
 
D

darkplaces

Guest
Jolly good idea AndyF! - The FOI act truely does work but you have to ask the right question. If you need help just ask a guy called LAC on the c**tplaces forum (or ask me and I'll pass on contact details) LAC has managed to get stunningly loads of information on recently declassified bunkers (Burlington etc) hes a master at the FOI.

Again the real answer is over population - Once I'v cleaned ma weapon anyone wanna go a human hunting with me tonight :twisted:
 
D

Dave H

Guest
stu said:
'National parks are provided because of their special qualities, and one of those qualities is solitude, tranquillity, that sort of thing,'

Solitude, tranquillity, etc. do not have any legal standing. CPRE produce maps of tranquil areas, and I live in one of the few tranquil areas in the Midlands (the only one in Northamptonshire). But the Independent Government Inspector at our Local Minerals Plan Inquiry stated that protection of tranquillity is of no concern to him, despite the protection that our district council has given to our valley (they don't even allow floodlights on farm buildings to protect against light pollution!) The Inspector recommended a quarry in our valley to destroy the tranquillity of the wildlife reserve, internationally recognised gardens and much visited reservoir. The good news is that our county councillors threw out his proposal to protect the valley; the bad news is that the council officers (beurocrats) are going to challenge them! :x
 

AndyF

New member
A fully agree with protecting fragile environments, but just charging people money does not acheive this. Say it's £5 a day... (as London used to be) and you are a tourist travelling from Bristol. Well, you've spent £40 in fuel getting to the Peaks and back, so you'll just pay the £5 and join the queues. It will have almost zero effect on tourism to the area.

If you live ...lets say in Matlock, and you cross the park boundary almost every day. Well, then it will have a major disruption on your life.

So rather than limiting tourism and protecting local interests, it will have just the reverse effect!

This is NOTHING TO DO with protecting the park. It's about raising cash, thats all. If that were not the case, then (at risk of repeating myself) a quota on car numbers does the job.
 

SamT

Moderator
just a few thoughts having quickly scanned this thread.

As someone who has grown up in the valley - Not all people choose where they live. i.e are born and bred. So what should Mark do. Move away to greenland or sommat rather than expect that he should be able to park outside his own house on a saturday. Locals should have precidence over weekend visitors.

Some one said scrap the park. FFS. The hope valley would just be an another suberb of sheff if it weren't for the PNP. The PP do a whole lot more than manage footpaths and car parks you know.

Congestion charging is not the answer and I think we all know that. Good public transport is one. (OK it might not be perfect for cavers - due to kit and that - plus remote access. But if every rambler - dog walker - young family out for a walk. Burbage climbers, etc etc were to get the bus/train then there wouldnt be such a problem with a few car loads of cavers driving up winnats at the weekend.

also. Pitlamp, paul is a member of DCA so I guess they must be aware and I imagine it might get talked about at the next meeting.

anyhows I think you'll find that this is just and 'idea' at the moment. How will they inforce it ( I know cameras etc - but they'll never get planning permission for those) and we'll all be too old with knackered knees to be too concerned when it finally comes in (by which time the oil will have run out and nobody bar the Uber rich will be able to afford a car) And that aint too far away by all accounts - In our live time mate.
 

JB

Member
pitlamp said:
It would be advisable for our regional body to have a say in this.

The British Mountaineering Council's response to the Snowdonia Green Key strategy is here:

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/outdoor/access/greenkresp0202.pdf

The main thrust of the Snowdonia Green Key scheme was the provision of park-and-ride facilities on the edge of the National Park and banning visitor cars from the park itself. The Peak Park may have considered this idea but chucked it out after the Snowdonia experience. The Green Key strategy failed for two reasons:

1. Snowdonia NP never convinced the local people that visitors would be able to get to where they wanted to go using the park-and-ride buses. The logical extension of this was that fewer people would visit and the local economy would suffer. The congestion charge system is an improvement on the Green Key scheme because people can still get to where they want to get to conveniently (in their cars) so this argument won't work.

2. Opposition by the local tourist industry who argued that the increased cost (£3-£5 for the park-and-ride scheme) would deter people from visiting and an already impoverished area would suffer further from reduced tourism. This argument won't work in the Peak for two reasons: 1. the Peak is more affluent 2. since the Lake District and eventually Wales are likely to introduce similar schemes at the same time, people are more likely to just swallow the charge rather than be displaced elsewhere.

I would like to see the BMC, BCA and Ramblers Assoc. working together to agree a common response to any proposals. In practice I would expect the BMC and Ramblers having vastly greater membership, to have more resources to devote to this. For example, the BMC have a full-time, paid Access and Conservation officer. Since climbing in the UK is becoming more and more peak-centric, I would expect the current post-holder to be very interested in this type of policy. I know that the BMC and Ramblers communicate alot. Not sure whether the national caving body has been involved much with them in the past. I know that when the mountaineering world was opposed to the Green Key strategy many individual climbing clubs also submitted their own responses to the authorities.

That said, I live in an area of Sheffield which is suffering from massive congestion and you cannot just do nothing. In the last year it has become just about impossible to get to and from my house at certain times of the day (i.e. at morning and evening rush hour it can take three quarters of an hour to travel half a mile). I would be against more road building in the Peak and congestion increases carbon emissions, makes it hard for residents to get around etc. In the absense of any better ideas I may support a congestion charge as long as other practical and viable methods of transport (park-and-ride, bike lanes) were put in first. Yes - it might deter a few less well off people but the country is an entirely different place to 20 years ago and we might have to accept this cost.
 

AndyF

New member
The congestion charge system is an improvement on the Green Key scheme because people can still get to where they want to get to conveniently (in their cars)...


In other words, everyone will STILL use there cars = no reduction in traffic

....people are more likely to just swallow the charge rather than be displaced elsewhere.

In other words, everyone will STILL use there cars = no reduction in traffic

In the absense of any better ideas I may support a congestion charge as long as other practical and viable methods of transport (park-and-ride, bike lanes) were put in first.

I keep coming back to the same point. If the aim of congestion charging is to reduce traffic, then you acheive the same goal by setting a vehicle quota. It is fair to ALL income groups, residents and travellers alike and cannot be used a a stealth tax.

If you charge people, everyone will end up demanding more pay to cover it, the average income rises to compensate, and it just churns money around. It does NOT reduce traffic. Only forced reduction will work, and the welthy should not be able to bypass this, especially as they usually have the biggest gas-guzzlers.

The same phenomena happened with MIRAS tax relief when buying a house. After a few years, house prices had risen to where they matched peoples ability to afford the subsidised mortgage. The same would happen with congestion charging.
 

Johnny

New member
Here's my two penneth.

Can anyone remember the days before Thatcher's government deregulated public transport?
I can, and it was possible to travel most places when you wanted to by bus without it costing you a fortune.
Congestion charging is not the answer, just like fuel tax is not the answer; we are in the middle of a craze for 4x4's at a time when fuel costs an arm and a leg.
I do not think that people visiting a national park (I take national to be for the nation) want to have loads of grief trying to park but what choice do they have?
We need to get good, well priced, carefully considered public parking and transport.
Anything else would just be yet another exercise in extortion.
 

Stu

Active member
SamT said:
Some one said scrap the park. FFS. The hope valley would just be an another suberb of sheff if it weren't for the PNP. The PP do a whole lot more than manage footpaths and car parks you know.

It wasn't intended as a statement of intent or possibilty. I was suggesting, in response to a quote from the woman at PP, that the very notion of a "Park" may be an attraction which could escalate this particular problem.

A congestion charge works when the potentially displaced have to something to move on too. They haven't, so won't; and the whole notion of a charge just feels like a money making proposition.

I won't/can't stop using my car through the Peak District and I make every effort to avoid "congested" roads and honey spots; often never encountering "problem" traffic, because I'm judicious... but could still get hit by a charge.
 
Top