Hi
Here in Nottingham the barmy Local Council are planning to introduce a workplace parking levy. This levy will apply to all parking spaces in the City and the Council state that the levy will be set at £150 per year per space initially rising to £350 per year per space after 10 years.
It is possible to e-mail comments to the Council and it would be greatly appreciated if as many as possible could be sent (objecting preferably) in order that they might come to their senses and scrap the idea.
It is thought that the Council are trying to force people to use the buses and the new tram system (when built) - not surprisingly the Council own the major part of both of these modes of transport.
The e-mail address is:
www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/test_new/wplwww/feedback...p
Thanking you in anticipation.
Bert.
|
Sounds like good value for the space to me, even at the top rate. Try parking in a commercial car park, then you'll see how lucky you are to have city centre work place parking facilities.
Chris
|
|
|
This is not entirely Nottingham's initiative, as you probably know, because local authorities were encouraged a couple of years ago by the Government to consider this option as a way of reducing inner city traffic congestion. City councils, including Nottingham, already apply a one-off car parking levy for developers of new office and other developments. This can easily be £1000 or more per space provided in a new-build development and is intended to discourage all but the M.D. from parking his BMW next to the office back door as well as contribute to extra costs of traffic management caused by new development. The argument runs then that if new car spaces are subject to a charge/tax then existing ones should also be taxed.
The general tightening up of commuting costs such as this was one of the factors that made me give up a long distance commute from the country into an urban office in a London borough with an anti-traffic council. Three years on, I feel fairly vindicated in that fuel costs have continued to rise, the company I worked for has scrapped its company cars together with the 'free' council car park season for newcomers, and the cost of that car park season has risen considerably. However, I have mixed views about the merits of car space charging for Nottingham which, from experience, I know to have traffic and parking problems. I have sympathy for the principle but until places such as Nottingham and Oxford improve the security of their park-and-ride schemes and speed up the transfer, I will continue to hunt for parking spaces in those spots I know to be the likeliest.
Frankly, I doubt you will be successful in changing Nottingham's plan but hope that they are persuaded to use the income generated in a way that actually improves access for people working or visiting the city.
David
|
I could understand these plans a little more if [outside of central London] there was any kind of decent public transport. I live in an area of Cheshire where people could be commuting to Manchester, Runcorn, Liverpool, Stoke, even further afield (I know of several sadists who commute to B'Ham daily). Here the only option is to use your car on the reasonable road network and simply have to brave the jams round the busy areas. Several of the bus routes along main routes in the area run WEEKLY. On one hand you've got councils threatening these parking charges, but they don't want to know when you contact them and ask them what the hell they're going to do re the transport situation.
They'll get their tax money though won't they...
|
|
Lot of sense spoken above, its the lack of integrated nature thats the pain.
Recently had two occasions to go into Central London which "should" be the ideal public transport journey. The first experience was so awful that a few days later tried the alternate, drive and tube for the last bit. Guess which was the most stressful part of the whole business, yes the public transport. Think cattle and sheep get transported in more humane conditions.
(I know of several sadists who commute to B'Ham daily)"
Don't you mean masochists? Oh no I see you are talking about the lane 3 tailgating push everyone out of the way 'cos I'm late for work mob, sorry misunderstood you there Dan ;-)
Reply |
Report as offensive
| Link
|
>Don't you mean masochists? Oh no I see you are talking about the lane 3 tailgating push everyone out of the way 'cos I'm late for work mob, sorry misunderstood you there Dan ;-)
They're masochists too (well, you'd have to be to endure that on a daily basis wouldn't you?) but it was meant along the lines of your tailgating comment :~)
|
|
|
|
London's road system seems to have last been looked at in the 1960's, when the majority of the one way systems were put in place and have hardly changed in the last 40 years.
Quite frankly, it needs a radical review, with gyratory systems to replace the thousands of sets of traffic lights.
Any extra distance would be more than made up by the better flow and reduction of engines idling in queues for half their running time.
Unfortunately, there is no overall plan for London's roads. Instead, each Borough is doing its' bit to make life as difficult as possible i.e. create as many bottleneecks as it can.
A similar attitude comes through on the Welsh survey, where the planners congratulate themselves on having reduced traffic speeds in cities by 10 mph.
I can't see why they don't give themselves something to really cheer about and simply dig a trench across every main road and reduce traffic speed to zero.
St Ives in Cambridgeshere is an interesting example in that there is only one road into/out of the town centre and all through traffic is bypassed. Strikes me as a sensible solution where you get the best of both worlds. Only local traffic in the town and through traffic not held up. A good example of the benefits of bypasses, although the only one road in/out would be OTT for a larger conurbation.
|
At the risk of repeating myself ( sorry) the reason for the anti-car wars is as follows:
In May 1996, The Car Free Cities Network of the European Union adopted the 'Copenhagen Declaration', which included the following exhortation: "All decision makers at the local, regional, national and European levels are urged to play their part in changing our culture of mobility.'. Thus car use is to be discouraged by all possible means.
So Socialists want to control evrything we do, starting with mobility.
|
|
|
|
Isn't the largest "private" car park (probably ;-) in Nottingham the one at the county council offices just outside the city centre?
Will they (the council) have to pay the levy?
I suppose "they" (ie their taxpayers) will.
And aren't the tram lines specifically run along heavily used public transport routes to ensure that the trams are a financial success?
And so inaccessible to car commuters (unless they drive across town to the tram routes ?:-(
And doesn't Nottingham have a large number of "suburban" industrial zones (Boots, Raleigh, Players)?
Good job all their workers live in the adjacent back to back terraces and walk to Boots, cycle to Raleigh, or take their hoop and stick into Players.
Because the local (council owned) bus company has cut its cross town services.
So that's alright then!
|
|
|
Public Transport and the state of the roads are topics that have no doubt been done to death but I may as well chuck my comments in here. Neither are pertaining to the specific thread but are associated.
On the subject of public transport, Mrs. Etchells has returned to commuting after 11 years of using various cars. Would you be surprised if I told you the railways were a shambles? After four weeks, various delays, cancelled trains, scruffy stations and general ineptititude have left her questioning her decision. Her new job has a requirement that she travel to London occasionally. The very first time, the train is delayed for an hour - thank you Mr. Branson.
Hardly the best encouragement for any individual to consider they have made a wise decision.
On the matter of the state of the roads, coming home from work this afternoon, a set of lights I use were out of action. These lights are at a staggered junction so delays are inevitable, it is one seriously busy junction, all day. It funnels traffic to a John Lewis superstore and is a main access junction to Manchester Airport - although it shouldn't be. A cutback that saw a bypass halted made sure that this road remains a bottleneck. Waiting times are always running into several minutes due to filtering and the inevitable queue jumpers.
The point is, because the lights were out and there was an absence of police to slow the whole thing down, drivers were approaching the junction in a sensible manner. Result, very light traffic and virtually no waiting.
Considering the above, it does support the theory that there is a deliberate attempt to make using a car and the public highway a debilitating experience. So much so that the dirty train and crummy non-existent bus service become attractive.
I still find it hard to believe that the millions of car users in the UK actually elected this anti-car government back in to office.
|
Junction at the Griffen in Heald Green by any chance?
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
Or is it the junction with the A34 at Cheadle?
|
|
|
Dave Etchells wrote:
> The point is, because the lights were out and there was an
> absence of police to slow the whole thing down, drivers were
> approaching the junction in a sensible manner. Result, very
> light traffic and virtually no waiting.
Similar set of lights here in Bristol near the M32 junction - out of order last week, traffic flowing freely as a result, easier to park in the bays near the local shops, shopkeepers very happy. But they have been repaired and it's back to the usual queues and pollution!
|
|
|
|
|
The Griffin, for some of Joseph Holts finest.
|
|
I prefer the Samuel Finney myself. The Merlin for some good sunday food too.
|
|
|
|
