CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Consultations Consultations Consultations

(130 posts)
  • Started 1 year ago by HankChief
  • Latest reply from crowriver
  • This topic is sticky

Tags:


  1. Klaxon
    Member

    That's why I suggested demand based pricing instead, attaching a fixed value to road space is much harder than letting the local market find a level via some kind of marketplace.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  2. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Is there a handy way of calculating the cost of that according to local property prices?

    You could do it using house prices and house areas as a proxy. A single car parking space seems to work out at about £2500.

    Office accommodation is highly variable, but rents are often about £200 per person per month, which is £2400 per year. A typical office worker gets about 10 to 12 square metres, which is much the same as a car; a less generous office set up might squeeze it to 8 to 10 sqm.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  3. ih
    Member

    Is there a handy way of calculating the cost of that according to local property prices?

    Council Tax levels and an appropriate multiplier.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  4. Klaxon
    Member

    The gold standard would be adopting the Tokyo model where you need to prove you have allocated parking to register ownership a car in the city.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  5. HankChief
    Member

    Do you want to create a new thread for this debate?

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  6. Ed1
    Member

    To set demand based pricing may require merging parking permits and pay and display spaces. As a space may be worth more to use pay and display. If kept a distinction then would depend on the ratio of spaces that used for permit to pay and display the choice of ratio may have the biggest impact.

    I suppose if all spaces were merged then could vary daily’s based on demand but for pragmatic reasons how would vary permit prices daily weekly etc.

    If keep separate arbitrary ratios then may not be the most efficient use.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  7. nedd1e_h
    Member

    I suggest this thread is only used for links to other specific consultation threads

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  8. Ed1
    Member

    Possibly a bit radical by why scrapping property based permits may be most efficient and have one demand based pricing. This may be more efficient for property use also as people would live near work and would affect prices of properties in relation to efficient use value. If people had to pay the real price of parking then few with choose to live in George street and drive out of town to work. However cant see that being a vote winner.

    Also when look at things in relation market efficiency many things would be different why treat parking so differently from other functioning of government. For example what if the thinking then applied to council housing and used demand pricing, or evening rail pricing scrapped the political based rail cards based on voters groups young students middle aged, families and used easy jet demand based pricing. What of un funded public sector pensions where people pay token fees for large sum of future money, that is neither costed or even fully known, why not charge the normal borrowing rate, why should a well-paid official be given an opinion on future tax payers money below market rate? Part of pay not really as small link with extra years little relationship the more someone pay has increased the lower they pay per pound.

    Why not apply market rate for the base rate? and not distort to manipulate house prices undermining market efficiency and subsidising private investment.

    It often seems the government want to use a frame of thought of market and efficiency when applied to lower income groups yet the very people who make decisions have access to future public funds with no pretence of market rate. The market rate for MP is zero people would pay to do the job, but what of standards what standards.

    I am not saying against demand pricing its just if heard an politician in those terms would know talking about something that effects lower social economic groups more than higher groups. Also with parking changes don’t really have thought on it.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  9. Stickman
    Member

    Consultation for a pedestrian "refuge island" on East Fettes Avenue between the park and Broughton High. Will mean 25 parking spaces lost so expect local outrage.

    https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/east-fettes-avenue/

    Consultations like this are why things take so long to get done.

    Posted 6 days ago #
  10. crowriver
    Member

    TRO seeking to ban vehicles from stopping on school zig-zags (apparently extra signage required to comply with new legislation).

    I can't imagine anyone here wants to object, but if you have time it won't do any harm to write in support.....if it means they can more easily enforce the stopping ban, I for one am strongly in favour.

    TRO/17/69 - School stopping various locations

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/2379/tro1769-_school_stopping_various_locations

    Posted 5 days ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin