CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Two-car homes face parking permit price hike"
(30 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Murrayfield Conservative councillor Jeremy Balfour said: “If the council are going to charge people more to park two cars outside their home then they must be given a guarantee that they will have a space.
“Most two-car households have a second vehicle through necessity not luxury, families need a second car to ferry children around. Motorists already pay enough in tax and this just seems like more. The council shouldn’t be seen as anti-car.”
And why not?
It's mildly amusing when card-carrying Tories cannot accept the simple realities of the laws of supply and demand. The same old cliché responses just don't deal with the problem of there being 36% more permits than spaces.
Posted 11 years ago # -
But opposition politicians have already warned it will hit families in the pocket and leave the council looking like it is “anti-car”.
Which opposition politicians? Not the Green group, certainly. Hardly any Lib Dems left, so must be the Tories. More clarity, please EEN!
Aha. For "opposition politicians" read "a single Tory councillor".
Just how wrong headed can one councillor's world view actually be?
While the second car is being used to "ferry children around", what is the first car doing? Creating congestion by transporting only the driver presumably?
Posted 11 years ago # -
0
Posted 11 years ago # -
When will these people understand that the road way is a public space and they are being subsidised in their use of it? There is no right to own a car or drive, but there is a cost to everyone when motor transport is used.
Posted 11 years ago # -
We used to have two cars. I had the option of taking bike+train+bike or walk+train+bus to work, and I tried to be good but I would very often be lazy and take the car. So we got rid of one. And we live out in the wilds of West Lothian.
There have been lots of times it would have been very useful to have another car, and we've had to hire one a few times. But all the inconvenience has been outweighed by the warm sense of smug self-satisfaction. Don't underestimate the power of the smug side.
The number of couples in the parking zones in Edinburgh who really need two cars must be very small. But probably of greater concern is households with adult children (if you know what I mean), who may well have good reason for a car of their own. These may also be relatively low income households so it could have an impact. There will be some hard cases so I hope the council will look at ways of mitigating them while maintaining the purpose of the policy.
Posted 11 years ago # -
While the second car is being used to "ferry children around", what is the first car doing? Creating congestion by transporting only the driver presumably?
More likely it's sitting there doing nothing, like most cars do for most of the time...
A group of 5 colleagues today wanted to go to KFC at Edinburgh Park for lunch. Even though it's a nice day, they decided that the 850m walk was too much, so they piled into 2 cars (someone had a child seat in, so they couldn't all fit in one) and took a 6,000m round trip drive instead - all so they could buy overpriced processed chicken slurry. I despair!
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
We used to have two cars
"We're getting rid of one of ours at the end of this month. Mine sits in the drive week on week doing nothing so no point in having two. Mrs B is quite exited because it means she gets to take the 'comfy' car to work. She's already started calling it *my* car.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
More likely it's sitting there doing nothing, like most cars do for most of the time...
"Isn't that desirable?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Isn't that desirable?
Not from a parking occupancy point of view. Cars doing nothing require some place to go, and in the city centre that means abandonment in the streets. At least a car going somewhere could be said to perhaps fulfilling some sort of function beyond depreciating in value.Posted 11 years ago # -
Why do people seem to think that parking should be free? There is an interesting blog post from Ian Walker on this subject, which is food for thought.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Why do people seem to think that parking should be free?
It's certainly one of the major considerations when people buy a house. I think people have already (in most cases) made the consideration before buying the car, it's not a thing they just turn up with.
Of course that doesn't make the argument less valid (why should it be free, unless of course you *have* paid for the privilege [drive, land etc] ), but I think in most cases the logistics have been carefully considered. Maybe not so obvious to a non drivist...Posted 11 years ago # -
I think people have already (in most cases) made the consideration before buying the car, it's not a thing they just turn up with.
I live in a tenement with 9 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed flats. Even at minimal occupancy that's 11 people, but it could be 20 assuming 1 person per bedroom or beyond 30 if you have some couples sharing.
There's space out the front of our demise for 2 cars.
Clearly a lot of people have bought/rented and turned up without making any real calculation as to where their car(s) goes.
This is not unique, it's probably common towards all such city centre tenements. Even doing end-on parking you might double the number of potential parking spaces but it still doesn't come close to what would be required for every flat to have and "just" one car. And my own example is towards the lower density of tenements, there are plenty which would have 4 flats on each level (even 5 sometimes) across 4 or 5 floors.
It's pretty simple that for city centre parking (which the original story refers to), there's a commodity in restricted supply and there's no practical way to increase it even slightly. There's two ways to deal with demand and one of these is to regulate and charge for the privelege. If people/"hard working families" can justify owning and running two cars and living in a city centre then they can justify paying for the privelege of using public space in which to secrete their vehicles.
I'm personally in favour of them charging on a scheme based on the physical footprint of the vehicle. If I were a car owner and had a Smart Car I'd be pretty miffed having to pay a similar charge to a big Lexus SUV just because the latter had the magic word "hybrid" attached to it. It's the space that's in short supply, so base the pricing controls directly on it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Kim, that blog is great. One of those things you just accept as how it is, until you actually think about it.
I love the last comment too:
"I'm still wondering how this started? Who thought "I'll just store my car here" and why did no-one beat them with a newspaper?"
Posted 11 years ago # -
As I understood it, when I had a parking permit, the permit is there to allow residents to park. It doesn't fulfil more than a marginal role in regulating demand for parking from residents (of course it does stop non-residents parking, which is its primary purpose). If you wanted to use it to regulate demand it would probably need to be much more expensive.
But then it also adds to the social imbalances of the city centre (although not by nearly as much as property prices) so that the only people who can afford permits are the people who can also afford huge SUVs. Regressively taxing space helps crowd out the poor.
Posted 11 years ago # -
When cars were first produced only rich people could afford them. Modern capitalism is driven (sorry) by oil and weapons. When not in a war car production pushed the economy, see Volkswagen history of the beetle. Whilst also stockpiling weaponry.
Oil needs to go somewhere so cars get cheaper. So now everyone has a car.
At no point did anyone try to stop this and say where will the cars go? The rich have their drives but the poor are on the street. New town interesting as the mews where the horses and carriages lived have all been converted to housing, so in fact not fit for purpose. The old town has very few cars, even though the densit of living in the tenements quite high. You know you can't really have a car near your house if you live in the old town.
Modern buildings do not have parking spaces to reflect the fact that there are too many cars and no where to put them. But it is too late and no politician will speak against it. Crazy.
Also liked Ian walker's use of the b word early in the article, a technique borrowed from Beckett to energise the reader.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I have a permit in the S1 zone for the family car, its £70/£80 pa.
People moaning about additional cost need their heads examined, frankly even I as a permit holder think it is ludicrously cheap.
Also, people talking about guaranteed parking places need to rethink - you buy / rent a home for any number of reasons, surely not because you can park outside your house !! If that is the case, move to somewhere with a driveway and stop complaining.
We used to have 2 cars years ago until we engaged the brain and realised there was zero point as I cycle most days.
We have many times considered losing the remaining car and it 'almost' adds up - but my wife has family all over scotland and visits are tricky by public transport. If our transport infra was more linked up / better thought out, we would definitely consider no car.
I think its easy for us in Edinburgh/Glasgow though - almost like London where you can be car free easily. It becomes less feasible outside the big cities (again, due to the aforementioned rubbishy transport policy).
Posted 11 years ago # -
"If that is the case, move to somewhere with a driveway and stop
complainingparking on the road and-or pavement!!!."One thing that really gets my goat is people with perfectly serviceable driveways who insist on leaving their vehicles on the road outside, often blocking cycle lanes or half of the pavement, and narrowing the road unnecessarily. If you own off-road parking, use it. There should be a fine for not using your driveway as far as I'm concerned.
But yes, complaining about the cost of a parking permit is like complaining you bought a house near an airport. You didn't think it was going to get cheaper/quieter over the years, did you?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Lots of people have garages, I have one. But cars no longer go in garages. Just stuff you don't need but don't fling out?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Which is why I said driveway rather than garage. If I had a car it wouldn't fit in my garage either!
Posted 11 years ago # -
That's an excellent blog post and articulates very clearly something which I've pondered for a long time.
Why did we allow our pre-car streets to be gradually taken over with people leaving their metal boxes lying around?
And it depends what you are trying to achieve with the permit system. Charging on physical size would have limited effect in Edinburgh where a fair few streets have "end on" parking. Width-wise, a Ford Ka is only 17cm narrower than a planet-rogering V8 Range Rover.
As Insto says, the permit is primarily intended to address parking congestion. Secondly to provide CEC with income, and arguably only thirdly to boost CEC's otherwise-dubious green credentials.
Is the preferred goal to reduce reliance on car use, or reduce private car ownership? Not always the same thing and it is good to be clear. For example, increased car sharing (and city car club etc) would reduce congestion and pollution, but wouldn't necessarily convince people of the benefits of active travel or see investment in it.
Agree with Kaputnik that even one car per flat doesn't really work, even end-on - you can't get 8 cars outside an 8 flat tenement.
Needs a bit of stick, yes, but a lot more carrot.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"so that the only people who can afford permits are the people who can also afford huge SUVs. Regressively taxing space helps crowd out the poor."
Only in a system where cars are a social 'essential'.
I wonder (in Edinburgh at least) how many people really fall into the 'I need a car to get to work because I work shifts/anti-social hours when there are "no" buses'.
AND how many of such people really shouldn't be trying to 'afford' to run a car.
As has been said above, there will never be 'enough' space for all the people who might want a car in New Town, Old Town, Marchmont etc. so presumably 'most' don't have cars. So WHY is (has been anyway) CEC cramming in as many cars as possible (end on parking etc.) for this minority.
I can't remember if permit parking is not 'allowed' to make a profit?
Posted 11 years ago # -
It crowds them out whether the cars are essential or luxury. The view taken of the necessity of car ownership isn't relevant to the impact of the tax. If you decided (for some perverse reason) to regulate the demand for allotments by using a permit system, charging for the permit would limit access to allotments to people who could afford the permit. So the permit system would crowd out the poor.
If you want car space allocated on the basis of need then you need a needs-based allocation system. A price-based allocation system will allocate according wealth or cash criteria. That's what they do.
You'd really want to ban on-street parking and make people internalise the costs by moving their cars onto driveways and convert some of the largely wasted space behind tenements into parking space.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"It crowds them out whether the cars are essential or luxury. The view taken of the necessity of car ownership isn't relevant to the impact of the tax."
Only if they have 'no money' or decide that 'it's not worth spending that much on parking'.
I accept that people's choices aren't always rational - especially when it comes to cars/transport - but I'm unclear how much the thought that this a "tax" rather than an 'expense' affects their judgement(?)
I wonder if there would be any 'rational' balance between permit cost and petrol used.
If the permit is a lot more than the cost of petrol used (each annually) perhaps that would indicate the car isn't really required. If expenditure on petrol is much more, parking is a minor cost.
One thing that should make car owners 'happier' would be having residents spaces exclusive for 24hrs per day - which would justify a cost increase.
Alternatively a complete ban on parking for more than (say) a couple of hours.
The 'rich' would sell their city centre houses, prices would crash and the 'poor' could buy them!
Or something...
Posted 11 years ago # -
whether the cars are essential or luxury
Define 'essential'.
Wheelchair user? Most probably.
Jobbing tradesman/woman? Quite likely, though a cargo bike might suffice in some trades.
Family with three sprogs? Arguable, but there are other ways.
Night shift workers? Again arguable, depends where you live/work, nature of the job.
Everyone else? Purely a lifestyle choice unless very infirm or troubled with mobility issues.Posted 11 years ago # -
Some teaching staff claim that they need one. This sometimes comes up when the issue of parking spaces at schools is discussed.
You don't want to live near the school. Most schools are outwith business districts where normal people work. It can be difficult to reach schools using public transport which tends to run from houses to town centres.
I did know someone who couldn't drive because of a medical condition. She had to get one bus and two trains from Bellshill to Maryhill.
I know there is another option but few staff will consider it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
For an on-call doctor... not exactly essential but jolly much better than having to cycle in at 3am or get a taxi.
For visiting my parents - yes we could get 2 trains, a bus and then a taxi for 15 miles (or get picked up from Spean Bridge by the olds and drive 45 miles), but with all the Stuff of Holiday it's much more manageable by car (and means that we can get there and back in a weekend).
Most of the rest of the time the cars (we have two very old things because we've not had to rationalise yet) stay put and the bikes get used.
Posted 11 years ago # -
All these permit bays with one person's personal-use car living on them - they would make a nice cycle lane for hundreds and thousands of bikes a day.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm in favour of fewer bays but more permits. I used my car less often when it was hard to get it parked.
They should let HMO flats have more permits. That'll bung up the bays nicely with low-use vehicles.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The 'rich' would sell their city centre houses, prices would crash and the 'poor' could buy them!
In realpolitik auld reekie.. ?!
Or something...
They wouldn't sell up. Just rent it out. No guilt.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
