Alternatives to current CPZ funding model?

[gm99]

I live in an area currently being consulted for a new CPZ in SE5, where most of the opposition seems to have centred on the costs to residents that would result.

That got me wondering whether there could be alternative funding models to the current approach to CPZs in Southwark, which would reduce or eliminate the cost to residents and therefore address concerns about cost, while still ensuring that they are self-financing and effectively manage parking demand.

Here's one idea: how about Southwark selling a small number (10-15% of available space?) of permits to non-residents (ie commuters), with the cost set a little below commercial (eg council car park) annual ticket costs. ?3/weekday would equate to ~?780/year. Residents could then get a free permit (or at least much cheaper - eg ?25 to ?50 to cover admin costs) and a meaningful number of free visitors' tickets (>20).

On a different note, I think it would make a big difference to notions of CPZ schemes as fair if the cost of visitors' permits was (a) lower, and (b) aligned with the hours of operation. E.g. ?0.25 per hour per ticket. Free books of visitors' tickets could also be made available to elderly or disabled residents who may rely on visitors to a greater extent than average.

In areas where the parking problem is commuter parking, that would mean that a one or two hour CPZ to deter all day commuters (as at Herne Hill) would not prevent residents from receiving visitors/trades etc without incurring prohibitive costs (?150/yr for one visit/week at current prices). I think that would make residents much more willing to sign up, and achieve something closer to a 'best of both worlds'.

Any views on whether these ideas sound sensible/reasonable would be appreciated. Likewise, alternative ideas would be received with interest.

Thanks.

[Loz]

Assuming that the council are actually only recovering the costs of administering the scheme (and, yes, that is a big assumption), then you have to have a zero sum game here.

For easy maths, lets assume there are 100 spaces on a street and 100 permits would be sold. At ?145 per annum (which I believe is the going rate), that gives you income of ?14500. Now, if you were to bring that down to, say, ?40 per resident, but flog off 15 permits to commuters, then you have 100x?40 = ?4000 for the residents and you need to charge the commuters ?10500/15 = ?700. So far, so good.

But, if you also want to bring the cost of daily permits down from ?3 to 50p, then funding for that needs to be bought in. Let's assume 20 per resident per year. That's a funding shortfall of 100x20x?2.50. Assuming that this needs to be covered by the commuters, that adds ?333 per annum, bringing you well over a grand for parking.

Would anyone pay that??

[gm99]

The Council's parking account currently (2011/12) runs a ?1.8m annual surplus (by law any profit has to be reinvested in roads - maintenance etc), so there is some wriggle room. Southwark permits are ?125/yr if bought for a full year.

As things currently stand, CPZs generally operate below capacity. E.g. the Lucas Gardens CPZ near me, which has much higher permit takeup than average, has around 60% occupancy during the day. So - as you assume - commuter permits would be in addition to residents, not instead.

So to use your figures:

100 permits @ ?125 = ?12500

100 permits @ ?40 = ?4000

Shortfall: ?8500 = 15 permits @ ?570 (?2.20 per weekday, not accounting for bank hols etc).

I have just found the figure for the council car park at Stead St E17, where there are annual permits: ?591/yr.

The cost of daily visitors' permits would vary depending on CPZ hours, so across the borough this hit wouldn't be as big as your figures indicate (most Southwark CPZs are around 10 hours), but everyone would see their costs reduced so there would (all else being equal) be a reduction in revenue. As the system currently operates, a visitors' permit in a 2 hour CPZ costs the same as in a 10 hour CPZ.

I suspect that if residents' and visitors' permit costs fell there would be an increase in permit takeup.

Clearly there are also lots of 'what ifs', and there would be start-up, advertising etc costs.