Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The High Cost of Free Parking

Whilst I appreciate that every case is different, I think there is a preconception that if you live outside of a city or town then a car or access to one is a necessity. I live in a village 3 miles from a town and 10 from a city. It's also a 2 mile trip to the nearest railway station (which I walk each morning and in reverse in the evening). Now I live with my parents but can't drive myself due to epilepsy, yet I do manage to get by without a car. I can see it getting harder, as it has done in the last decade. Ten years ago my village had three newsagents, now it has none, but in the adjacent village has opened up a Tesco, specifically designed for car trips and hence bulk shopping. I think what's needed is a systematic movement back to local community shops, but unfortunately I can't see it happening.

One thing I think we are going to see a welcome growth in is cycling. It's such a underused godsend at the moment, and after the initial purchase, absolutely free. :cool:
 
At the moment it's not free public space because it's got private cars parked all over it.

And I don't know why you keep going on about the space being "privatised" - the proposal is that it is either used for public use other than parking (eg green space) or, that a charge for its use is levied. Just as a charge for the use of the railways was levied even when they were in state ownership.

As I said earlier I understand your concerns. I'm just approaching it from a different angle. If a charge can be levied for car parking then what makes you think a charge can't be levied to other potential users of this 'green space'. Now it's my turn to say can't you see what I'm getting at here?
 
As I said earlier I understand your concerns. I'm just approaching it from a different angle. If a charge can be levied for car parking then what makes you think a charge can't be levied to other potential users of this 'green space'. Now it's my turn to say can't you see what I'm getting at here?

I can kind of see what you're getting at. But I don't see it as a valid argument against the principle of charging people to park their (private) cars on public space.

I'm not sure what "other potential users" you're thinking of? What are you saying - that if local authorities start charging people to park on residential streets, for example, they'll suddenly go bonkers and allow Starbucks to build cafes on parking spaces?

It's already common to charge for parking in many areas; I don't see how extending this to cover more areas really changes anything radically, or amounts to the "privatisation" of public space.
 
I'll come back to this tomorrow. But for now I would say that if you charge people for some space in a street you effectively make that tiny bit of land theirs. That's another tiny piece of land that is no longer available to other people. Multiply that and think about the consequences..:)
 
Whilst I appreciate that every case is different, I think there is a preconception that if you live outside of a city or town then a car or access to one is a necessity. I live in a village 3 miles from a town and 10 from a city. It's also a 2 mile trip to the nearest railway station (which I walk each morning and in reverse in the evening). Now I live with my parents but can't drive myself due to epilepsy, yet I do manage to get by without a car. I can see it getting harder, as it has done in the last decade. Ten years ago my village had three newsagents, now it has none, but in the adjacent village has opened up a Tesco, specifically designed for car trips and hence bulk shopping. I think what's needed is a systematic movement back to local community shops, but unfortunately I can't see it happening.

One thing I think we are going to see a welcome growth in is cycling. It's such a underused godsend at the moment, and after the initial purchase, absolutely free. :cool:

I think this post makes quite an important point.

I bet that there will be other people living in Stavros's village, who if they were to post on here, would set off on a big rant whinging about how they simply can't exist without a car, and it's all because there isn't any public transport, but if there was, then they would act differently.

The thing is that Stavros gets by OK-ish because I imagine he goes to work in town every day, and probably can do his shopping and stuff there. But for other people who aren't so mobile (either physically or for financial reasons) doing stuff like shopping must be a real pain unless they don't have a car. This is because there is no local shop which is because of growing car usage (and by the sounds of it, planning policy which encourages this by allowing the construction of the Tesco) and we are into the classic vicious circle which then just causes even more local facilities to go under.

These kinds of cases are important because they are fairly marginal - ie it obviously is just about possible to cope without a car (as Stavros proves) but we are allowing places like this to gradually slip into the category of places where it genuinely isn't realistically possible to do so.

And I think we should be doing everything we can to stop this happening - through planning policy and through reinforcing the existing public transport policy - but also through a bit more in the way of "stick" measures, whether that is increased fuel tax, or making people pay for their parking when they do get into town or drive to the supermarket. That way, although some will of course complain, perhaps it's still possible to swing the balance to a situation where more people are walking a couple of miles to the station everyday, and then suddenly things like village shops become viable again, the vicious circle can be reversed and ultimately, the majority of people will be better off - including all the most vulnerable ones like old folk who can't or don't run a car.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't just rely on carrot measures - I bet you could instigate a ten-minute frequency bus service and loads of people would still get in their cars and drive to Tesco. The bus service would benefit people who don't have cars but it wouldn't necessarily provoke the major shift in habits that would really benefit lots of people - I think folk need a bit of prodding as well as pulling. Of course, as others mention, that prodding is likely to kick in automatically through rising energy prices some time anyway, but it'll be a lot easier for everyone if we're a bit prepared.

The thing about increasing bike usage is significant too - it's interesting to see how cycling has taken off in London, for example. It's an excellent example of a self-reinforcing shift in attitudes: I bet there are lots of people who now cycle to work who just a few years ago simply wouldn't have considered an option. But now it's become more popular, and more facilities are provided in response (bike storage rooms in workplaces, for example)
these changes in turn make it more popular still. I believe that this kind of change can be encouraged to take place in the sorts of areas described above, if people are brave enough to take on the inevitable whingers and whiners.
 
if you charge people for some space in a street you effectively make that tiny bit of land theirs. That's another tiny piece of land that is no longer available to other people.

You would have a point if that land was, currently, genuinely available to other people. But it's not. It's only available to car owners.

And I don't feel that that's fair because I don't believe that car owners currently pay enough to be able to claim that they have any more "right" to that bit of space than anyone else.
 
Workplaces should charge employees at least £5 per day per space. (Nottingham's workplace parking levy is the first attempt to do this, based on the principle that if a workplace provides parking then cars will travel at peak hours on local authority funded roads to fill them).

But I'm sitting here working on a night shift in an out of town trading estate. Couldn't get a bus they stop running way before I start and start again after I've finished.

I decided to use my bus pass this week to visit my 90 year old Mum - have to change buses at the next town, total journey distance 12 miles. Travel time to get there 1 hour 26 mins including a 44 minute wait at the changeover - returning 1 hour 34 mins including a 54 minute wait at the changeover. Needless to say I'm going in the car next time !
 
Even when parked at fee paying car parks, cars will still be subsidised unless the fees cover not only all the operating costs of the car parks but also the full rent and rates which would be paid by a typical business or shop using the same land.

Absolute nonsense. Fee paying car parks are businesses paying rent and rates, or they're council-run (i.e. funded by residents) in places where businesses and shops couldn't exist.

I think I'll complain to my local council about the miles of cycle lanes they built using my money, and which I've never seen a single cyclist on.
 
This is because there is no local shop which is because of growing car usage (and by the sounds of it, planning policy which encourages this by allowing the construction of the Tesco) and we are into the classic vicious circle which then just causes even more local facilities to go under.

Bloody hell, if I had to shop in my local store, I don't think I could afford to eat.
 
Julius Caesar's solution to parking problems was to ban chariots from Rome's central business district.
(Source; "Not for Cars Only -- A Guide to Innovative Parking Lot Design" 1993)

Had fuck all to do with parking, though, didn't it. Measure was taken to control noise/congestion during the day time.

Honestly, whenever I see someone take such a violent and protracted dislike to what is actually a small part of the whole road building/pollution/crappy public transport/inefficient/unsubstainableetc etc issues with cars and transport, or anything else for that matter, the phrase that immediately springs to mind is 'fruitloop'.
 
But I'm sitting here working on a night shift in an out of town trading estate. Couldn't get a bus they stop running way before I start and start again after I've finished.

I decided to use my bus pass this week to visit my 90 year old Mum - have to change buses at the next town, total journey distance 12 miles. Travel time to get there 1 hour 26 mins including a 44 minute wait at the changeover - returning 1 hour 34 mins including a 54 minute wait at the changeover. Needless to say I'm going in the car next time !

WPL would not apply off peak if there were no pratical alternative. Until more people use public transport the service will be poor, it can also only serve high density routes of course. Demand reponsive transport systems are being put in place but they are still mainly pilots.

12 miles could be cycled for a relatively fit person in about 45 minutes, or at a very leisurely pace without getting out of breath in about an hour.

If you take a folding bike you could cycle one section to the bus station to meet the service you need.
 
Bloody hell, if I had to shop in my local store, I don't think I could afford to eat.

Make a list of the reasons why things tend to be more expensive in a local shop, and then consider how some of these factors might change in a situation where more people are doing their main shopping locally.
 
Make a list of the reasons why things tend to be more expensive in a local shop, and then consider how some of these factors might change in a situation where more people are doing their main shopping locally.

Let me see, local shops serving a low volume of customers (compared to a big supermarket) need to have small quantities of goods delivered frequently (e.g. one tray of raspberry Muller Lights as opposed to 5 pallets at a time).

If the local shop doubles its customer base then it can have 2 trays delivered at a time (no change in delivery cost) - but only if it has appropriate storage space.

The more customers it has, the more frequently it'll need deliveries (unless it can build vertically to provide additional storage levels - unlikely) generating a huge increase in van traffic to the door.

Doesn't work......
 
the only problem with closing down large supermarkets etc and everything going back to local shops is the distribution network...

one of the reasons (aside from being bullys) supermarkets can be so cheap is that the distribution network can be centralised and drops to stores are more efficient. bulk purchasing and eonomies of scale etc etc

reverting to just small local shops would push the price of food up.
 
the only problem with closing down large supermarkets etc and everything going back to local shops is the distribution network...

one of the reasons (aside from being bullys) supermarkets can be so cheap is that the distribution network can be centralised and drops to stores are more efficient. bulk purchasing and eonomies of scale etc etc

reverting to just small local shops would push the price of food up.

Part of the reason it's so "efficient" is that they don't deal with the tricky bit of getting the stuff to your house. You do that for them.

With the local shop model, there is a van or lorry from a central distribution point to the shop, and then someone walks/cycles or maybe a short car journey to their house.

With a supermarket, that van/lorry journey is replaced with a couple of hundred cars with one person and a few bags of shopping in each. And the supermarket doesn't have to pay for those transport costs. In fact, they probably sold you the petrol so they get the profit on that too! Excellent! It's certainly efficient from the supermarket's point of view, that's for sure.
 
reverting to just small local shops would push the price of food up.

Large businesses are often cheap because they externalise huge chunks of their costs onto others. For example, discounts and special offers are often paid for by the supplier, not by the retailer. Suppliers are expected to bear all the costs of returned goods, often with "penalties" on top.

One thing that would definitely happen if the economy reverted to small local shops is that there would be a lot less choice. You wouldn't get 200 different types of bread or 20 different brands of beans. But I don't see that as being a fundamental problem.
 
With a supermarket, that van/lorry journey is replaced with a couple of hundred cars with one person and a few bags of shopping in each. And the supermarket doesn't have to pay for those transport costs. In fact, they probably sold you the petrol so they get the profit on that too! Excellent! It's certainly efficient from the supermarket's point of view, that's for sure.

Another method of externalising costs is using a large fleet of heavy lorries as mobile warehouses. Society as a whole pays for the maintenance of the roads and the costs of pollution, etc.
 
Part of the reason it's so "efficient" is that they don't deal with the tricky bit of getting the stuff to your house. You do that for them.

With the local shop model, there is a van or lorry from a central distribution point to the shop, and then someone walks/cycles or maybe a short car journey to their house.

With a supermarket, that van/lorry journey is replaced with a couple of hundred cars with one person and a few bags of shopping in each. And the supermarket doesn't have to pay for those transport costs. In fact, they probably sold you the petrol so they get the profit on that too! Excellent! It's certainly efficient from the supermarket's point of view, that's for sure.


you dont really understand how distribution networks work do you?

the efficiencies and ecconomies of scale that they can enjoy over a local shop are humungous and significantly affect prices. stock replenishment systems and the use of expensive predictive analyitics mean their buying and replenishment systems are very efficient. When I worked for a large supermarket chain (funnily enough supporting warehouse and distribution) we only ever held 2-3 days worth of short life chilled produce at a distribution centre. the more days you have to hold the more expensive it becomes to do so. this cost is passed onto the consumer or screwed out of the supplier. ambient products less so but even then it becomes a matter of space.. and the bigger the space you need the more it costs.

repacing this with some bloke, the bbc weather forecast (oooh looks like it will be sunny so I will get in some ice lollys) and the back of a fag packet isnt going to work. well not strictly true but you will not get anywhere near the choice you have at the moment and items being out of stock etc will increase. you will need more deliveries to keep stocklevels a t a sustainable level.

the supermarket model isnt just successful becsue they are cunts and rip everyone off...

i would love to be able to get everything i need at our village shop but its not going to happen
 
you dont really understand how distribution networks work do you?

Well I do, and I appreciate there is a huge amount of knowledge, technology and resources employed to maximise "efficiency".

i would love to be able to get everything i need at our village shop but its not going to happen

Which begs the question, did we all starve before supermarkets were invented? Or did we just not have the opportunity to buy out-of-season foods, 200 different types of bread and £5.99 jeans?
 
iirc food shopping was much more expensive when i was a kid (as a proportion of income)

nb annectodal only. not looked up any stats
 
Although bizarrely they will deliver stuff to your door in a van for hardly more than it would cost in the supermarket (less, if you factor in the cost of running a car in the first place).
 
Although bizarrely they will deliver stuff to your door in a van for hardly more than it would cost in the supermarket (less, if you factor in the cost of running a car in the first place).


unless you live miles from a store and having said that a guess local shops could do similar with a boy on a bike and say a large whicker basket of some sorts
 
you dont really understand how distribution networks work do you?

the efficiencies and ecconomies of scale that they can enjoy over a local shop are humungous and significantly affect prices. stock replenishment systems and the use of expensive predictive analyitics mean their buying and replenishment systems are very efficient. When I worked for a large supermarket chain (funnily enough supporting warehouse and distribution) we only ever held 2-3 days worth of short life chilled produce at a distribution centre. the more days you have to hold the more expensive it becomes to do so. this cost is passed onto the consumer or screwed out of the supplier. ambient products less so but even then it becomes a matter of space.. and the bigger the space you need the more it costs.

repacing this with some bloke, the bbc weather forecast (oooh looks like it will be sunny so I will get in some ice lollys) and the back of a fag packet isnt going to work. well not strictly true but you will not get anywhere near the choice you have at the moment and items being out of stock etc will increase. you will need more deliveries to keep stocklevels a t a sustainable level.

the supermarket model isnt just successful becsue they are cunts and rip everyone off...

i would love to be able to get everything i need at our village shop but its not going to happen

I do understand the basic principles of how these systems work, if not every last subtelty.

You're assuming that a move to "local shops" means going back to Mr and Mrs Jones with a clunky old cash register and deliveries in a Morris Minor van.

There's no reason why the supermarket companies can't operate these smaller stores, just like they have realised they can do in cities where they can't or aren't allowed to build massive stores. The economies of a centralised distribution system can still apply. There will of course be increased transport costs because these centralised depots will be supplying loads of small stores rather than a few big ones, but as I say, these are costs that in reality are currently borne by customers (and society in general) anyway.

Of course there's a whole other argument about the supermarket "system" and all the problems it creates as the flipside to cheap food prices. And whether or not we'd want to encourage this system to continue in general. But that is a different discussion.
 
unless you live miles from a store and having said that a guess local shops could do similar with a boy on a bike and say a large whicker basket of some sorts

One big technological change that has had significant consequences is the availability of refrigerators and freezers.

One big social change is that most households used to have at least one person available to shop regularly for food, often every day.

People used to shop much more regularly for much smaller quantities because they couldn't store them for long.
 
Indeed, you can get most stuff to last at least a week from a shopping delivery, more like two weeks if you pick up milk and stuff as part of some other journey. Obviously this might be a bit tricky if you live on the moon, but then if you do then you probably don't have a major congestion problem anyway.
 
WPL would not apply off peak if there were no pratical alternative. Until more people use public transport the service will be poor, it can also only serve high density routes of course. Demand reponsive transport systems are being put in place but they are still mainly pilots.

12 miles could be cycled for a relatively fit person in about 45 minutes, or at a very leisurely pace without getting out of breath in about an hour.

If you take a folding bike you could cycle one section to the bus station to meet the service you need.

But I've got a bus pass 'cos I'm over 60 and not as fit as I was - still doesn't seem too bad an idea till you realise that i have to battle along the roads with the juggernauts. Yes I know that they should be off the road as well but it's a bit 'chicken & egg' - we keep using our cars until there's less traffic but there won't be less traffic until we stop using our cars. Also I quite fancy it on a nice day like today - but on a freezing, wet January day ?

I don't know what the answer is.
 
Part of the reason it's so "efficient" is that they don't deal with the tricky bit of getting the stuff to your house. You do that for them.

Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury et al will do this with your weekly shop for about a fiver and most people will save the fiver as they won't make any 'whim' purchases.

Also as each van delivers about eight peoples shopping that's one van and eight less cars. Because of economies of scale your local shop couldn't do deliveries for that price.
 
I do understand the basic principles of how these systems work, if not every last subtelty.

You're assuming that a move to "local shops" means going back to Mr and Mrs Jones with a clunky old cash register and deliveries in a Morris Minor van.

There's no reason why the supermarket companies can't operate these smaller stores, just like they have realised they can do in cities where they can't or aren't allowed to build massive stores. The economies of a centralised distribution system can still apply. There will of course be increased transport costs because these centralised depots will be supplying loads of small stores rather than a few big ones, but as I say, these are costs that in reality are currently borne by customers (and society in general) anyway.

Of course there's a whole other argument about the supermarket "system" and all the problems it creates as the flipside to cheap food prices. And whether or not we'd want to encourage this system to continue in general. But that is a different discussion.

So more but smaller lorries to supply these smaller stores - and then you've got a bus full of shoppers each bringing home a family's shopping. Where on earth are you going to put all these bags on a bus ?

Yes , we have too many people but that problems not going to go away. If you banned procreation you'd end up with an ageing population and no youngsters coming through.

There is one solution - anyone volunteering to be culled ?
 
Back
Top Bottom