That's an intriguing post @Stickman. A subsidy of parking fees from Council Tax implies that current revenues from parking don't cover the cost of maintaining the parking spaces. Do you have any more information about that? I'd always assumed that parking prices were set at a level to control, to some extent, the level of congestion around busy areas, and to prevent the selfish from just parking anywhere.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Edinburgh parking charges to soar by upto 33%"
(96 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
@ih:
I would argue* that if the price is less than the market can bear then there is a subsidy somewhere. After all, council housing rent is below market rates and is described as subsidised housing.
That places like George St are always full suggests that the price is lower than could be achieved in a "free" market.
Donald Shoup has devoted an entire career to studying this - I've read a lot of his articles (although the caveat below says that I may be completely misunderstanding them!)
*I had to pass economics exams for work, but I'm definitely not an economist so may well be completely wrong on this.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Stickman I can sort of see where you're coming from, in that there might exist a 'parking price model' that optimises the revenue. That is, not so expensive that it puts so many people from driving and parking that revenue falls, and not so cheap that everyone is willing to drive and pay the parking fees, and deprive the Council of market based revenue. I suppose choosing a price point less than optimal could be called a subsidy, but I would call it something else that I can't think of at the moment! PS. I've passed no economics exams, which probably shows.
Posted 7 years ago # -
If a demand management pricing ( like a full easy jet flight, as opposed to an overfull train in the southeast, where many people cant get on that hold a ticket, or British airways flight with 5 people on board), or was used, a no spaces could be a result of optimum pricing, but the parking charges are not that precise.
A parking space may be worth more as a shop a house or a disco, yet planning dictates it can only be used as parking space. Planning and other government policy also effect the price of land which in part may relate to the difference between what would be worth as a shop or a house. Planning helps create some of the high prices, above a “free market” price. The government manipulation of interest rates and manipulation of property market is effectively a subsidy for holders of estate at the expense of other investments including holding of cash, if the government had let markets adjust prices may have fallen.
To take the current status quo, which is not free market with supply controls, planning, interest rate manipulation by government, then just look at the spaces allocated for parking then yes still not efficient.
In George street have residents parking charged at what £70 a year, when could rent the space out for many £1000s even for parking use, residents parking its self could be argued to be a form of subsidy if council controlled land.
Its hard to do a proper evaluation, as if you take heavily manipulated prices, land then work out the cost on that basis this is not really a comparison of free market costs but inflated costs. Even in united states land use requirements.
To do an abstract evaluation what would be the reference points the baseline how would someone establish the free market prices of the different things to do a comparison between. I would imagine people would sell the land on the greenbelt for housing, land value may drop to the point parking is not so expense even in a comparison possibly a slight issue with the cost of free parking.
If took the things the way are at the moment and went for maximum revenue if took all land in Edinburgh that is currently parking spaces, then set demand management prices right in the centre, got rid of the residents parking there may be more efficient allocation with a greater yield, however may only be a pound an hour in Morningside once took the residents parking out, lower prices in some areas with greater over all revenue but residents vote out of town don't, so Edinburgh councils decisions subject politically consideration rather than just maximum revenue.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"In George street have residents parking charged at what £70 a year, when could rent the space out for many £1000s even for parking use, residents parking its self could be argued to be a form of subsidy if council controlled land."
Well the current "market rate" (according to Yumflee) is around £60-£90 per month for a private (i.e.. off road) parking space. Depending on location, of course: close to the city centre costs more. Secure parking is usually over £100 per month, similar to rentals for garages.
So resident's parking permits are very cheap by comparison, but of course don't guarantee continuous access to a specific space.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Donald Shoup
Anyone looking for an introduction to this stuff could do worse than listen to the Freakonomics episode featuring Prof. Shoup: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/parking-is-hell-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
They've been running experiments with automatically adjusting the cost of using a parking space depending on the demand for parking in that space. Very interesting.
EDIT: This was also four years ago; I don't know if the experiments were deemed successful.
Posted 7 years ago # -
EasyJet must have very good algorithms for maximising the return on every flight. The aim is always to get a full flight, with as many people as possible paying the higher ticket prices. Prices increase dramatically, as seats get filled.
It could work quite well if this were applied to parking:
In times of low demand (off-peak) there would be many available spaces, so rates could be low e.g. £1/hr. At mid-demand, when around half the spaces are still available, rates could increase, let's say £4/hr. Then when only 2 or 3 spaces are left, whack, £20/hr.
With availability of online mapping, it would be easy to create an app that continuously adjusts prices according to demand.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"In George street have residents parking charged at what £70 a year"
I don't think that is accurate, I live in zone S1 and our permit is about £90 for a 120 CO2 emissions car.
George Street is the most expensive zone, so will be a lot more.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Central areas are roughly double, but still less than £1 a day.
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/8684/residents_permit_prices_from_1_april_2016.pdf
Posted 7 years ago # -
Conservative's budget proposal:
- no city centre parking charge rises
- stop the roll-out of 20mph
- scrap the ring fencing of cycling budget
- halt the tram extension
- invest in magic "traffic management" to ease congestionhttp://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/53226/conservative_group_budget_motion
Posted 7 years ago # -
Conservative'sMr Toad's budget proposalFTFY
"It's the only way to travel. " (Mr Toad of Toad Hall)
Posted 7 years ago # -
From Monday
"
THe latest rise in parking charges in the Capital should not surprise anyone.
The gradual squeeze on the cost of motoring in the city has been going on for years and it is not just the busiest city centre streets that are affected. Anyone looking to park for an hour or two in many parts of Edinburgh, including Stockbridge, Sciennes and the West End, will have to pay well above 50 per cent more than they did five years.
"
Posted 7 years ago # -
How curious. Saturation point is the point when people stop taking their cars into the city centre. That is never gonna happen not even if we achieve super saturation. Which is I believe the wettest it gets though of course I will be instantly corrected if that is wrong
Posted 7 years ago # -
50% increase over 5 years is roughly 8.5% per year. Not unreasonable.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The article perpetrates two myths; that there is a large class of people (usually described as disabled and/or elderly) whose only way of getting around is by private car, and businesses rely on trade from car-drivers.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@ih, yes, I had that discussion with a chap at one of the George street consultations in the Roxburgh hotel. We were having a civilised debate. He said he could not agree to banning cars as his elderly disabled mother needed to be picked up from her house and then driven directly to shop or restaurant. I said actually if we are to succeed in making Edinburgh breathe again as a city free from pollution you will need to pick your mum up in your car then drive to a park and ride or similar car park and then take a taxi direct to your venue. I felt I was coming over a bit Georges D'anton of the French Revolution but in fact I was right as well as hard.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Tories - invest in magic "traffic management" to ease congestion
- Special car lanes for the wealthy? Although if you have the money you can flaunt bus lanes in your car already.
- Halt tram extension. These are not the same Tories that expect taxpayers in Scotland to pay for 'big infra' projects in London? (Crossrail quoted at £15 billion but might well be more. Yes - the SG for some reason think a third runway at Heathrow is a 'good thing'.)
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Laidback:
Iain Whyte said that the magic "traffic management" was better traffic signalling. Quite how that will help the volume of traffic attempting to get along St John's Road (or similar) isn't clear. Maybe cut down on the number of pedestrian crossings?
Cllr Whyte is another worshipper of the Great God Traffic Flow and questioning his faith is unwise.
Posted 7 years ago # -
He said he could not agree to banning cars as his elderly disabled mother needed to be picked up from her house and then driven directly to shop or restaurant.
Aye, fair enough. But how much better would it be if everyone who could walk/take the bus/cycle did so? If half the journeys in Edinburgh were being made on a bike, it'd be far easier for those who genuinely need to take a car to make their own journeys, and to find a parking spot at the end of them.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"Aye, fair enough. "
Not really. The type of drivers who use disabled or elderly people as the reason for not restricting motorised access to city centres/railway stations/etc. are just using this as a smokescreen to stake a claim for their own motor vehicle usage to be uninhibited.
It's all just disingenuous deflection of criticism of their own selfish desires and behaviours.
Posted 7 years ago # -
D'anton was of course guillotined by the committee he set up (1794).
We are dealing with a very stubborn cross section of society.
Enforcement is really the only option, people are not going to agree. But politicians are too scared.
We. Live in carmageddon with some mass delusion smokescreen as any individual driver is relatively harmless. Not too polluting and probably never kill anyone but collectively thousands die on the roads and the pollution levels soaring. Not sure if people here would disagree, we are hardly the demographic.
Posted 7 years ago # -
It's all just disingenuous deflection of criticism of their own selfish desires and behaviours.
I think it's important to acknowledge that this isn't true of everyone making this argument, even if it is true of the majority. Living in a wheelchair, for example, brings enough inherent problems that we should make sure we're not adding to them unduly. However, we also shouldn't forget that many elderly and disabled people don't have the privilege of access to a car.
But the argument needs to be made that restricting motorised access to city centres etc. is beneficial to those who have the greatest need for using a car.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@frenchy, there is the rub. If all people who do not need direct access are prevented from getting direct access then those who do need it will have a better time. so if an across the board ban in cars is enforced we might expect an increase in disabled parking badges but that is fine as you say if everyone else is kept out.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Even if the Tories 'magic traffic management' does succeed in improving the traffic flow temporarily, in the long term it will only make congestion worse by encouraging new- or longer- journeys (in much the same way as adding an extra lane to a motorway does).
Traffic will quickly return to just above saturation point, where it becomes self-limiting again.
The only way to get traffic to flow freely is by demand management using variable pricing controls (tolls, pay-as-you-go, point-of-use pricing - call it what you like)
Posted 7 years ago # -
"The only way to get traffic to flow freely is by"
making sure there are no junctions, crossroads etc.
(Or by having so little traffic there is no interaction.)
Posted 7 years ago # -
"is by demand management using variable pricing controls"
Indeed.
Problem there is that would be instantly slammed as 'war on hardpressed, lawabiding, noothertransportoption moralmajority voters'.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"
Ross Lydall (@RossLydall)
10/02/2017, 08:15
Daily Mail seems to have forgotten that gridlock is caused by cycle lanes http://pic.twitter.com/3V6ycswCho"
Posted 7 years ago # -
I cycle with a nice young man who is a traffic flow modeller and he is very happy to concede there is too much traffic on the roads and that helping that with flow will only increase traffic on the roads. As Eddie points out.
Posted 7 years ago # -
A traffic flow modeller
We've had enough of experts. What we need is some good old fashioned common sense.
Posted 7 years ago # -
So now it's all the fault of "internet delivery vans". Nothing at all to do with single occupant motor vehicle commuting, motorised school runs, or driving to the corner shop for milk and ciggies. Oh no.
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
