Safe Speed Forums

"There would be City-wide charge.
All employers with more than 10 parking spaces would be liable.
Customer parking, fleet vehicle spaces, loading / unloading only spaces and certain categories of business visitor spaces will be exempt from the scheme.
Parking spaces at emergency services and NHS frontline services would receive a 100% discount; and
Businesses with 10 or less parking spaces, disabled spaces and powered two wheel vehicle spaces would receive a 100% discount."


So, you just designate some spaces as disabled, and some as motorcycle.

I wonder how the borough and county councils in Bedford would cope....there are about 500 car spaces at both of them......all for staff. Funny, none of then seem in a hurry to use the park-and-ride scheme....

The company I now work for have a floor of a big office block, with a big car park shared by 12 or more companies. If I wanted I can have a parking place for £350 a year. So who pays, those who already paid? The owners of the building (Bruntwood, who own half of Manchester and a lot of car parking spaces), or our company even if it hasn't taken up all the space it can have.

Though this is a Nottingham idea if it went nationwide do we think MPs parking at the office - the one with the big clock - would be taxed as well? Having spent an hour shouting at the TV while watching this weeks Dispatches I am thinking not.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

MPs would be exempt on security grounds. People hate them so much they are at risk.

The biggest problem with schemes like this is if you charge your employees for parking then you have to allocate them a definite space. There is hell to pay if a visitor parks in it temporarily and the payer cannot park.

In practice, most firms would not charge employees, the money would be collected by councils and then spent on councillor's expenses rather than public transport which nobody wants to use because it is so poor.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

[rant on]

Sorry for a second post but I get really sick to death of do-gooding officials deciding that it would be good for me not to use my car - for a variety of specious reasons - and thus I should be taxed more. I would cut down on food before motoring if I was a bit short (this would probably do me good ).

[rant off]

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Where I live the county council offices are in the town centre with a large car park next to the offices, part of the car park is used for council office workers to park for free, the rest of us pay. If this scheme was to become nationwide, would the cost of parking be passed on to the council workers, I doubt it.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

...meanwhile everyone moves their car? I like it

If below 10 spaces is exempt then I would just have 10 very wide spaces, each big enough for 1.5 cars. so that's 14-15 spaces then.

Silly. This is a national gov sponsored scheme, being used by local gov. Each space will be specified in size, disabled spaces a bit wider and powered cycle spaces a bit shorter. If the allocated space is too long/short it will count as two, if the m/cycle space is occupied by a car it will count as a penalty. If the disabled space is occupied by a car without a disabled sticker it will be clamped and then crushed.
This, effectively, gives councils power over business use of their property....as if they need any more, you have to get planning permission to fart now.

Mmmm, well if I currently had my yard or whatever marked off with white lines etc, I would remove them and put up a sign that states this is not a car park and then just let cars stop in

Would this get me out of paying as it has now become a piece of land with cars on it?

I'm as much of a public transport enthusiast as I am a private motoring one, and I absolutely no question about it WOULD use PT to get to work if it was practical. But when driving to and from work means I get to spend an extra 90 minutes a day at home, then PT isn't a realistic option... Perhaps all these idiots sat in their nice publically-funded offices might like to consider how they got to work that day, how their colleagues got to work that day, how the people involved in servicing those offices got to work that day/the night before, and then seriously ask themselves if it'd be practical for them all to have made their journeys by PT.

Trying to price people out of their private vehicles will never work so long as the PT alternative doesn't exist, and if anyone in power thinks that our existing PT infrastructure could cope with the increased demand if even just a small percentage of private motorists tried to make the switch to PT, then they're even more out of touch with reality than we already know them to be.

_________________
Chris