Should employees pay the full cost of parking at their workplaces?

[pogofish]

I was at a Parking Management conference the other day, and learned that the average cost of an employer maintaining a parking space for use by their employees is over £10 per day, in security, maintainence, capital costs of building the car park, and leasing costs of the land.

Who was sponsoring/running this conference?

You are aware that there are a number of predatory commercial interests who would just love the idea of establishing some sort of defined "cost" for parking, so they could try and push their operations on to a legal basis.

 

[fredfelt]

No, companies should not be forced to charge employees for car parking.

There is a valid argument that employers should take on some of the responsibility of the traffic they generate. Nottingham council planned to do through a tax on car parking places called 'Workplace Parking Levy'. Years ago Labour also promised something similar for out of town supermarkets in an attempt to encourage local shopping - but Lord Sainsbury threw his cash around and the idea was quietly dropped.

 

[T & P]

Who was sponsoring/running this conference?

You are aware that there are a number of predatory commercial interests who would just love the idea of establishing some sort of defined "cost" for parking, so they could try and push their operations on to a legal basis.

Well, anything that forces people out of owning cars is good enough for some, no matter how unethical or unfair.

 

[fredfelt]

Who was sponsoring/running this conference?

You are aware that there are a number of predatory commercial interests who would just love the idea of establishing some sort of defined "cost" for parking, so they could try and push their operations on to a legal basis.

What are these 'predatory commercial interests' you speak of?

 

[pogofish]

Membership of the BPA (British Parking Association) for one. They are currently lobbying hard for a whole load of powers and not for the good of any cityscape or environment IMO.

 

[Zachor]

Well, anything that forces people out of owning cars is good enough for some, no matter how unethical or unfair.

This attitude shows why the luddite Greens are going to be fucked over at the election.

 

[teuchter]

Well, anything that forces people out of owning cars is good enough for some, no matter how unethical or unfair.

It seems to be pretty hard to find any government policy at the moment that even encourages you to use your car less, let alone "forces" you. So you haven't got much to worry about at the moment.

In fact, they'll even pay you £2000 to buy a new one. Where "ethics" or "fairness" comes into that I'm not quite clear.

 

[moose]

My employer provides car parking and also participates in this scheme. They don't reward walkers because there aren't any because of where we are situated.

They also provide several pool cars so that the cyclists can carry out the responsibilities of their job, like visiting clients and travelling between our offices.

 

[Mr T]

Yes - it's a failure of planning policy when employers are encouraged to set up in places where there is inadequate PT. Also, when people are allowed to build new housing where there is inadequate PT.

Most public transport - ie buses - aren't there to begin with, only rail. The failure of planning policy is in allowing such low density development that it is not commercially viable to serve by public transport (obviously a result of bus privatisation). Public transport is more viable when there are a large concentration of people going from one place to another or along travelling to points along a corridor - unfortunately the out-of-town retail/office developments etc tend to be located near roads that offer easy connections to many places to attract workers and customers from a dispersed catchment area. This is also an effect of workplaces becoming more atomised and more people owning cars and therefore choosing to live further away from where they work - the average travel time to work has remained constant for decades despite new roads/railways etc being built and more people owning cars - they just seem to choose to live and work around 25-30 minutes away from each other. Maybe in this regard we should rip up lots of roads and mark bus lanes on the remaining ones - hey presto heavy demand for all bus services!

 

[teuchter]

Most public transport - ie buses - aren't there to begin with, only rail. The failure of planning policy is in allowing such low density development that it is not commercially viable to serve by public transport (obviously a result of bus privatisation). Public transport is more viable when there are a large concentration of people going from one place to another or along travelling to points along a corridor - unfortunately the out-of-town retail/office developments etc tend to be located near roads that offer easy connections to many places to attract workers and customers from a dispersed catchment area. This is also an effect of workplaces becoming more atomised and more people owning cars and therefore choosing to live further away from where they work - the average travel time to work has remained constant for decades despite new roads/railways etc being built and more people owning cars - they just seem to choose to live and work around 25-30 minutes away from each other.

Exactly - it's a vicious circle; public transport becomes less viable, people start to depend more on cars, infrastructure gets built to suit those car drivers, public transport becomes even less viable, etc etc etc.

Outside London and perhaps a few other cities, the changes needed to reverse that process are more than just superficial tinkering - we need to take it seriously and really, properly invest in public transport and accept that there needs to be a few sticks along with the carrots.

Whenever Roryer starts one of these threads, the reaction is as if he's some kind of crazed extremist. But if we're going to significantly change things outside of the largest urban areas, then we have to accept that some of the measures will have to be relatively radical.

The usual reaction from car addicts is "well if the public transport options were there I'd use them". Which is fair enough (if actually honest) but only if you're prepared to accept the compromises that making that happen will require. Either you say you are in favour of public transport in general and will accept that some of your lifestyle will have to change. Or you are honest and simply admit that your lifestyle is dependent on the dominance of private transport, and you have decided you can live with the consequences that brings for others.

 

[Roadkill]

Whenever Roryer starts one of these threads, the reaction is as if he's some kind of crazed extremist.

I'm afraid that's the way he comes across to me, which is why I give him pretty short shrift.

<e2a> 'Crazed extremist' is too harsh, but he does come across to me as obsessive, unreasonable and unwilling (or perhaps unable) to take on board and consider any viewpoint other than his own.

 

[Geri]

Our car park at work is free, but people need their cars to do their job so I think it would be unfair to make them pay anything towards it.

We don't have any security for it though, which is why I refuse to leave my bike in it.

 

[fredfelt]

Our car park at work is free, but people need their cars to do their job so I think it would be unfair to make them pay anything towards it.

We don't have any security for it though, which is why I refuse to leave my bike in it.

For exactly the same reason the people 'need their cars to do their job' I'm putting in expense claims for my clothes and shoes.

My office does not have any parking. Travel to work and back is up to the employees. If we started to pay for car parking we'd have to also pay for bus fares.

 

[djbombscare]

Ah sooo lets get this right I make my employers somewhere in the region of 100k plus a month.

Becuase I drive my vehicle to work it cost them £200 a month, (4 weeks of 5days at £10)

and that's a perk for me is it ?


er. . .nope not seeing it.


And to add even more into the mix. The car parking spaces are also for customers of the business. deliveries and anyone who is visiting us.

So again where is the perk ?

 

[Pingu]

What about people who walk and cycle, can we have a £10 bonus instead?

no cos the knowledge that singlehandidly you are saving the planet should be reward enough it itself for you

you are however free to bask in your glory and look smug from time to time as well

 

[fredfelt]

Ah sooo lets get this right I make my employers somewhere in the region of 100k plus a month.

Becuase I drive my vehicle to work it cost them £200 a month, (4 weeks of 5days at £10)

and that's a perk for me is it ?


er. . .nope not seeing it.


And to add even more into the mix. The car parking spaces are also for customers of the business. deliveries and anyone who is visiting us.

So again where is the perk ?

Well in the case of where I work provision of a £200 a month car parking space would definitely be a benefit.

There are not any office car parking spaces here so if we made an exception that employee would get a £200 benefit over over employees.

We recently put a shower in though. It cost equivalent of two months of providing a car parking space but provided benefit to the majority of people who happen to cycle in.

 

[likesfish]

partner drives to hospital where she works on the ward its 20 min by car over an hour by public transport.
if she can't find a free parking space nearby has to pay to go to work ffs

 

[roryer]

I see the parking charges purely in terms of equity and social inclusion.

I do like the parking issue, as it is the terminal capacity of different modes that limits their efficiency. For instance a railway station is quite an expensive item, (see St. Pancras).

For cars terminal capacity is a joke, it takes up so much space it is quite astounding. Check out Google Earth and take a look at some offices or shops and %age of land for parking if you want to have a laugh at how ridiculous it is.

Car drivers should understand that the 'free' parking space they have on public roads outside their houses, in a supermarket car park, at work or in a town centre is indirectly subsidized by those who do not own a car. And yet when they are charged even a small percentage of its real cost there is outrage.

We are asked to live and travel sustainably, but are penalised when we do so.
We desperately need tradable carbon quotas to solve this problem. When people have to pay, its amazing how they can actually get to work without a car.

 

[moose]

Check out Google Earth and take a look at some offices or shops and %age of land for parking if you want to have a laugh at how ridiculous it is.

Check out how much more money people with cars spend at shops compared to people with bicycles.

Car drivers should understand that the 'free' parking space they have on public roads outside their houses, in a supermarket car park, at work or in a town centre is indirectly subsidized by those who do not own a car.

Cyclists should understand that the 'free' cycle paths they use at the side of public roads are subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers.

 

[teuchter]

Check out how much more money people with cars spend at shops compared to people with bicycles.

You what?

Cyclists should understand that the 'free' cycle paths they use at the side of public roads are subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers.

Please supply some figures for:

m2 of public space occupied by bicycles at a given time
m2 of public space occupied by private cars at a given time

cost/m2 of maintaining roadways used by cars
cost/m2 of maintaining roadways used only by bicycles

Then we can see whether you have any point to contribute.

Or, we can just laugh at you.

 

[trashpony]

I must remember who to never offer a lift to

 

[Giles]

I see the parking charges purely in terms of equity and social inclusion.

I do like the parking issue, as it is the terminal capacity of different modes that limits their efficiency. For instance a railway station is quite an expensive item, (see St. Pancras).

For cars terminal capacity is a joke, it takes up so much space it is quite astounding. Check out Google Earth and take a look at some offices or shops and %age of land for parking if you want to have a laugh at how ridiculous it is.

Car drivers should understand that the 'free' parking space they have on public roads outside their houses, in a supermarket car park, at work or in a town centre is indirectly subsidized by those who do not own a car. And yet when they are charged even a small percentage of its real cost there is outrage.

We are asked to live and travel sustainably, but are penalised when we do so.
We desperately need tradable carbon quotas to solve this problem. When people have to pay, its amazing how they can actually get to work without a car.

Why is parking in a residential street outside your house "subsidised" by non-car owners? How do they subsidise it. In most of London, the roads and houses were there before there were cars. And in most of London, you now have residents parking schemes, which pay for the cost of enforcing sensible rules (so people cannot block the roads, park on corners, park on crossings, commute in and park in residential streets, etc etc) and actually generates profit back to the local council.

Surely resident car owners pay for the parking scheme through their parking permits? How do non car owners subsidise them?

You are right about car parking taking up lots of space. That's why relatively few people commute and park into the middle of cities - the space is worth too much. But out of town, land is cheap, surrounding retail parks for example. And necessary, because the majority of customers going to those stores are buying more stuff than they could easily take home on a bus or a bike, aren't they?

I mean, I just drove to my local Homebase, and came out with a desk, some large cans of paint, a hoover, a chair, etc etc. I couldn't have carried these home another way. The desk was the display one, and so was already assembled, so its a good job I had a Transit. Homebase presumably find it worthwhile to build a car park next to their shops. How is the non car owner subsidising them?

Giles..

 

[teuchter]

Why is parking in a residential street outside your house "subsidised" by non-car owners? How do they subsidise it. In most of London, the roads and houses were there before there were cars. And in most of London, you now have residents parking schemes, which pay for the cost of enforcing sensible rules (so people cannot block the roads, park on corners, park on crossings, commute in and park in residential streets, etc etc) and actually generates profit back to the local council.

Surely resident car owners pay for the parking scheme through their parking permits? How do non car owners subsidise them?

You are right about car parking taking up lots of space. That's why relatively few people commute and park into the middle of cities - the space is worth too much. But out of town, land is cheap, surrounding retail parks for example. And necessary, because the majority of customers going to those stores are buying more stuff than they could easily take home on a bus or a bike, aren't they?

I mean, I just drove to my local Homebase, and came out with a desk, some large cans of paint, a hoover, a chair, etc etc. I couldn't have carried these home another way. The desk was the display one, and so was already assembled, so its a good job I had a Transit. Homebase presumably find it worthwhile to build a car park next to their shops. How is the non car owner subsidising them?

Giles..

This was all discussed at length a while ago on this thread:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=249670

Last time I went to Homebase, by the way, I got a taxi home. If I had been buying more than would have fit in a taxi, I would have got them to deliver it.

However, in order to get to that Homebase, I had to climb over two sets of metal railings, cross a busy 4-carriageway road, climb over a low brick wall and cross two carparks. (I could have avoided this by taking the "official" route without obstacles which would have been three times the distance). In other words that bit of London had been designed entirely with the needs of car drivers in mind, not of pedestrians. The sort of thing that planning policy should not allow.

 

[moose]

Then we can see whether you have any point to contribute.

Or, we can just laugh at you.

I wasn't being serious I was just being as twattish as Roryer to show not everything is as black and white as s/he would have us believe in his/her freaky city-centric world.

 

[Giles]

This was all discussed at length a while ago on this thread:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=249670

Last time I went to Homebase, by the way, I got a taxi home. If I had been buying more than would have fit in a taxi, I would have got them to deliver it.

However, in order to get to that Homebase, I had to climb over two sets of metal railings, cross a busy 4-carriageway road, climb over a low brick wall and cross two carparks. (I could have avoided this by taking the "official" route without obstacles which would have been three times the distance). In other words that bit of London had been designed entirely with the needs of car drivers in mind, not of pedestrians. The sort of thing that planning policy should not allow.

Why? Most people have cars. Certainly most people who spend most money and have most power have cars, and as we all know, money and power are what its all about.

You can't uninvent personal transport. Even before motor vehicles, those who could afford it had their own horse, or horse and carriage.

Giles..

 

[teuchter]

Why? Most people have cars. Certainly most people who spend most money and have most power have cars, and as we all know, money and power are what its all about.

You can't uninvent personal transport. Even before motor vehicles, those who could afford it had their own horse, or horse and carriage.

Giles..

What what is all about?

 

[Jayen4]

IMO , It is a complete 'piss take' to expect workers to pay to park at there place of employment. Neither should visitors to hospitals be expected to pay for parking. These hospitals etc are being funded out of our pockets anyway ! So why do they expect you to pay to park there ?? Because they've spotted another 'revenue stream' ,that's why...or 'greed'.
My sister works at a large hospital and she has to pay for a parking permit ! There's been hell on about it.
When I go to work for Royal Mail at one of their RDC's, I do not pay to park. As far as I'm concerned,if they want me there, then they can provide free parking for me.... Otherwise,I don't go. Simples.....as the meercats would say !

 

[Pingu]

roryer earlier today

 

[fredfelt]

partner drives to hospital where she works on the ward its 20 min by car over an hour by public transport.
if she can't find a free parking space nearby has to pay to go to work ffs

Sounds like they need more car parking then.

A hypothetical question...

If the hospital worked out that it cost £1,000 a year to provide an extra space would a sensible solution be to offer employees the option free parking or a bonus of say £500 if they did not use the space?

Everyone seems to be a winner if you put it like this.

 

[likesfish]

whats really galling is consultants who are on a good wage get to park for free as do senior managers.
nurses hca's and junior docotrs don't get parking permits