parking permit price rise.

[volvojim]

Went to renew my B-zone parking permit today ooh what a surprise it has risen to ?95.00 a year up from ?85.00Anybody know what the council plans to do with the extra revenue?

[red devil]

Invest in some car crushing machinery?..

[????]

recruiting more Traffic Wardens to continue their Rackateering

[Louisa]

Put the extra revenue back into our ailing car industry.

Louisa.

[bigbadwolf]

Dig up the road.

[PeckhamRose]

Put some more traffic-angering road humps in the way?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Maybe the price increase will encourage just a few people to give up a car. Or the second or third car? Job done

Or maybe as with everything else prices go up. See also public transport price increases.

[Horsebox]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Maybe the price increase will encourage just a few

> people to give up a car. Or the second or third

> car? Job done

>

> Or maybe as with everything else prices go up. See

> also public transport price increases.

Sean, whilst I agree with you regarding 2nd and 3rd cars, for some a 1st or only car is a necessity.

This is revenue raising excerise and nothing more.

If the council were really interested in people giving up their additional vehicles then they would / should introduce a higher charge for the +1, +2 and so on.

p.s. I don't own a car.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I have no doubt whatsoever that some people absolutely do need a car. But if only those people were on the roads there would be a lot more parking a lot less congestion and zero pounds parking charges

[Loz]

For those of you that think CPZs are the answer to parking problems, please note...

[Huguenot]

ermmm... note what?

Note that the council currently spends close to 10m on traffic issues, and motorists only deliver 1m in revenue?

Note that every council tax payer who DOESN'T drive, is paying for motorists?

Note that motorists are so vain that they think driving is a right?

[Jeremy]

Huguenot... we've had a similar discussion before. "Traffic Transport and Planning" covers more than just "services for motorists".

Plus, add in the fact that everyone needs roads for buses, taxis, post. Shops and businesses need the roads. And motorists of course pay additional taxes in the form of road tax, fuel, and sometimes congestion charge. So your stats - while relevant - are nowhere near detailed enough to draw the conclusions you have come to.

[Huguenot]

For sure, and I haven't mentioned the 'hidden' costs of motoring that aren't in my maths either. They seem to cost the planet, not a measly administration fee ;-)

I understand that [email protected] is responsible for communicating transport planning.

I think we should ask him!

I, of course, just have, and anticipate his detailed budget breakdown!

[Jeremy]

I would think everyone on here is pretty much aware of the environmental impact of motoring. That's not the point I'm making here though, I was only challenging your assumption that motorists are financially subsidised. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think it's possible that it may be the other way round. Certainly when considered at a national level, rather than just the local council. I'm sure you will gleefully post the councillor's response - as if it somehow supports your conclusions - nonetheless!

It also seems rather simplistic to suggest that motorists are selfishly killing the planet. Not everyone lives in an area with extensive public transport such as London or Singapore (even better). Plenty of people live in areas where there are few other ways of getting around - and these are the people who rack up serious miles in their cars. What's being to provide alternatives and incentives for these people?

[Huguenot]

I agree with you, motoring is critical for some.

(As it happens I just don't think the same thing applies to ED, and I don't think it applies to most motorists. Apparently there are 60,000+ cars registered in Southwark and 37,000 cars come in each day with commuters. I reckon 'essential' would be lucky to cover 10,000 of them. The rest of them, well, you know.... easy innit. Just imagine what a beautiful, beautiful place Southwark would be if 9 in 10 cars simply didn't exist.)

The budget issue was addressing early posts in this thread that suggested that parking fee was profiteering, or racketeering. It would be a very poor racket that derives only 10% of outlay. I'd sack the Spiv.

[Jeremy]

I agree that too many people use their cars in London. I am very surprised that over 50% of Southwark's car owners use their car for daily commuting. I support the congestion charge, but am frustrated at years of under investment in public transport. If you want to get specific to ED : there is arguably a bit of spare capacity in the local train network, but not much. And instead of having services increased, they are actually being reduced. Not much of an incentive to ditch the car, is it?

Councils possibly could make a profit from parking fees (and fines) - but having some insight into the way local councils are ran, I seriously doubt they do!

[Huguenot]

Sorry Jeremy, my mistake.

The 37,000 cars are incoming to the borough from outside. They're additional to the 60,000 registered locally, and the God knows how many untaxed and unlicensed vehicles. When the rozzers did Oakhurst Grove a couple of years back they must have clamped a third of the cars.

[JetSetWilly]

fuck me its only a tenner.