Westminster Council about to charge for motorcycle parking

[kford]

Ahoy, motorbike and scooter commuters: Westminster Council is about to charge ?1.50/day to park in their part of London.

As we ease the burden on the Tube and buses, and ease road congestion, while returning up to 100+ mpg (10mpg more than a G-Wiz electric car and 50mpg more than a Prius), we should be encouraged, not penalised.

Send your opposition to:

http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/forms/emailform.cfm?AliasID=345&comments=

PS: I cycle too, so on the days I cycle in, I'll still be paying, as it's a yearly permit. Great.

[SeanMacGabhann]

well, it's not just introducing a charge is it - a number of "enhancements" are also proposed

Horses Mouth

Bikes do take up much less space than cars, but every time a bay is extended or a new one introduced, it does have an associated impact. And ?1.50 a day for unlimted bay use seems benign compred to ?2 for a single bus journey for example

[Brendan]

And the cost of keeping a bike running?

Many people use bikes to commute into work because it is the cheapest and easiest option. If you start charging them the same price as a bus journey (with a monthly pass) why shouldn?t they just take the bus? I mean there is plenty of space on the busses and trains for a few thousand more commuters. They aren?t filled to capacity at all.

Oh and the uk isn?t already hugely taxed for a comparatively low level of service delivery compared to most other industrialised nations.

Fuckit lets charge ?em ?5 a day and up the congestion charge while we?re at it.

[david_carnell]

I've begun to lose sight of where your irony ends and where your spit-flecked genuine rage begins, Brendan.

On this one though, I'm firmly with kford and on the side of the motorcyclist. The idea of unlimited use for your ?1.50 is ludicrous. Almost all daily commuters will park in one place only and then go home. Not move from bay to bay on some sort of shopping expedition.

[kford]

I have yet to see any 'enhancements'.

The only impact, as far as I can see, is some bays have been made one car's length longer, a benefit, as we can fill that with up to 10 bikes. The cost to the council? Painting white lines around a bay which was lying empty because the Congestion Charge and phone-pay parking has freed up loads of on-street parking spaces.

Oh, and we pay road tax, insurance and it costs ?18 to fill my tank at the moment.

[kford]

Brendan, would you like me and all the other bikers to cram on your already crowded bus?

Did your missus run off with a biker or something?

[Brendan]

kford. Yeah coz I wasn't being sarcastic in any way.

[SeanMacGabhann]

An oft quoted line about buses (from non-bus users obviously) is that they take up space AND they are empty. So if bike-riders did take to the buses, where's the harm in that? I jest obviously

I'm not saying I'm for the charge per say but nor do I see it as the end of the world. It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. Ditto car parking charges (which are a hell of a lot more than ?1.50) a day. More people using bikes = more requirement for bays = more overhead in costs

Congestion charge is seperate again - of course it's designed to discourage you from driving. Nowt wrong with that IMO. And even if you think there is plenty wrong with that, give it a few more years. Mark my words, time will come when people will be complaining about Govenments not doing enough to discourage driving, back "when it wasn't too late"

kford - you haven't seen any enhancements, but then you haven't seen any charges yet have you? It's a discussion document. And Brendan was on your side - he wasn't saying they should get on a bus. How much anyone ALREADY pays in road charge/tax/ blah blah isn't relevant. Ditto petrol. You are consuming a resource that's fast running out. What do you WANT people to do?

If you do get on my bus, I always say hello. But I'm not a chatter person in the morning ;-)

[david_carnell]

I would have thought subsidising a more efficient means of transport (motorcycles) by charging those using less efficient means (cars) would have made more sense. Why not pay for these improvements with money raised thru increased car parking charges - something we can all support.

More carrot, less stick.

[Brendan]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not a tax. It's a charge for a service. Ditto car

> parking charges

I have to strongly disagree with you there. Over the last 5 years central government has consistently cut funding to local government. This has forced councils to up council tax for one but also to seek out as many other forms of revenue as possible. So all these new charges for service that are being brought in are local government trying to cover its costs because it is not getting the tax money it used. Therefore it forms part of our tax burden.

One that I personally resent because the shortfall is largely due to this country?s current overseas conquests. It also seems funny to me that nobody seems to notice that our current economic situation coincides coincidentally with over half a decade of pointless war. (Veering wildly off topic there but anyway)

Anyway as a matter of principle it is very important that people make the connection that tax is A CHARGE FOR A SERVICE. You pay your tax to the government, they then use that money to provide you with roads, sanitation, health services etc. In return the general public doesn?t rise up and string the PM up from a tree, to use a simple metaphor but essentially that?s the deal.

[kford]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> kford. Yeah coz I wasn't being sarcastic in any

> way.

Sorry mate, didn't quite get your banter (tu)

[SeanMacGabhann]

well the economic situation isn't "ours" exclusively - an awful lot of countries are in the same do do. Spending reserves of money on stupid wars is not clever but the current financial problems stem more from the crazy banking systems and their lack of regulatory oversight

A charge isn't always a revenue-raising tax. It can be an economic tool to change behaviour. And tax isn't to stop the general public rising up and stringing the PM from a tree - but to stop it rising up and flaking into EACH OTHER.

Things are getting more expensive. But that is only compared to recent prices. Things are still, overall, pretty inexpensive compared to not so long ago. People have selective memories. It wouldn't matter so much but people can hoist themselves into quite an indignant rage with very little provocation it seems

[Brendan]

Few. That was a bit of a political rant the like of which I haven?t indulged in for a while.

Anyway kford, I agree that at this stage they should be encouraging people to use bikes rather than discouraging them. Although I do thing that there should be some way of encouraging folks to use smaller bikes.

[kford]

Thanks Seany, I'll chat to you too ;-)

Re: discussion doc.: it's actually happening for real, from 4th August. All bikes in W1 have been leafleted. It was introduced on a good day to bury bad news - Jan 3rd 2007, while we were all hungover/busy at work/on hols.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I am being a bit Devil's Advocate here as well - I'm not just saying "tough luck" and I can see where you are coming from - but I'm trying to balance things out. I was thinking (on the bus this morning - it's great for that ;-) ) that there isn't anything anyone can do these days without people crying foul..

For example - Bus stops - too many of 'em. Some of them are barely 20 yards/metres apart. Think how much journeys would be speeded up if they were reduced by 20-30%. But if that was proposed then various lobby groups would complain, say they pay taxes, fares so they can have a bus stop nearby etc. Infirm people would find it too far to walk etc. Which, if all these arguments were true, let's install more bus stops! But then that would be opposed by ... and so on and so on. Slightly off-topic I guess but I used it as an example of how impossible it is to do anything these days

[*Bob*]

Riding a motorbike in London can be a dirty, dangerous and soggy experience. Sometimes all three. It needs to be incentivised.

And thus, charging someone nearly ?400/year to park is stupid stupid stupid.

[Rhinestone Cowboy]

Hello all.. Just sorted myself out with Westminster Council bike parking. If you sign up before 3rd August you get the whole month free... which is nice. You can pay weekly ?5 Qtly ?20 or Yearly ?150 So its not a huge amount but what happens if you actually live in the Zone and pay to park yr bike outside yr house. I don't having moved to lovely East Dulwich from Bow.

[dazed&confused]

I heard about this a few months ago and recently had a leaflet from Westminster council left on my scooter.

It's an absolute disgrace. Motorcycle parking has always been free in London. What with rising utility bills, fuel costs, council tax, stealth taxes, train/tube/bus fares and god knows what else my scooter was the one thing I could point to and say 'thats still good value for money'. Obviously Westminster council realised this and saw an opportunity to fleece some more money from hard working commuters.

How long before Camden, Islington and all the other boroughs follow suit? So much for the Government trying to encourage environmentally friendly transport!

What annoys me even more is that they're justifying the charge by saying they've created more motorcycle parking spaces and added secure posts to tether your bike to. But I haven't seen ANY new spaces in Westminster, in fact, it's more packed than ever and nobody seems to use the security posts so it's not even as if they were needed. What's more, these new spaces (if they really exist) will be paid for with two years of parking revenue, even at their own inflated estimate of cost. After that they start making a profit and you can bet your bottom dollar they'll start ramping up the prices in a year or two. How much can it really cost to paint a few white lines on the road?

If they really wanted to increase motorcycle parking facilities all they would need to do is convert a few car parking bays for motorcycle use. But, of course, then they'd be losing car parking revenue. So no chance of that happening!

We should do what the French do and just point blank refuse to pay!

[SeanMacGabhann]

all that last post is missing is

"Yours, disgusted of Kent"

[kford]

Thanks for your solidarity, Rhinestone. You're now paying more than it costs to park a whole car outside a property in Clapham or Wandsworth. Are you the reason we're being fleeced left, right and centre from all angles, by all parties?

The ?150-?400 I spend on this scam could go to something useful, like my family's stomach, a new push-bike, or even spent on LL. Instead, it will be used to keep Westminster's council tax the lowest in the country.

[citizenED]

Brendan, sorry about this, and I haven't really thought this one all the way through, but, in principle, I disagree with the notion that tax is a charge for a service. I believe that tax is your contribution to society.

[Brendan]

We employ the government to administer our society.

[SeanMacGabhann]

and so the problem is what? Society isn't an homogenous blob is it - just because some people don't like being charged for X, doesn't make it a bad administrative decision surely?

[Rhinestone Cowboy]

Oh dont get me wrong I am not happy about the new tax.. I put ?5 a week in my bike and so that's my weekly cost doubled. I was just pointing out that they are not going to change so might as well sign up and get a months free. Just wish they would hurry up and open up the bus lanes for us..

[citizenED]

If you want to look at it like that - yes. but I don't think it is quite the same as a private company offering a single service or product. A society is a unique entity and not like a commercial enterprise. Basically you cannot be outside of it. So we don't employ the Government in any real way. We contribute tax and parliament administers it on our behalf but to my mind that is not the same as paying for a service.