Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 6th October 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Parking mad policies only harm the Capital



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 January 2008
Council just wants to grab as much cash as it can, says Bruce Young
DOES Edinburgh's parking policy go beyond grabbing as much cash as possible as quickly as possible? The question is not facetious. Councillors elected to provide facilities and officials employed to organise and manage them consistently fail to meet
Edinburgh's parking needs.

The council's recent study on parking availability suggests that councillors don't distinguish between high demand in George Street and low demand in Regent Road and Johnston Terrace.

Yet they included these off-centre streets to improve apparent parking availability.

Four kinds of driver try to park in the centre of Edinburgh – tourists, commuters, shoppers and those who are stopping briefly. Only the latter needs on-street parking for a quick visit – the others would be better served by off-street car parking with payment on departure, removing the risk of a fine.

The council recognises this, otherwise why periodically dust off and promote old plans for underground car parks?

An automated car park is now planned under Chambers Street – but why only 100 spaces and why there when it could be built under the city streets – for which the council's own study shows high demand?

Or, as happens in Europe, why not build downward under squares and public gardens to provide central and unobtrusive high volume parking which would neither encroach on to building space nor reduce amenity?

In 2005-6, George Street produced £1.3 million in parking fine income, the UK's highest outside London, but while the council upped its charges, the result of that was to dramatically reduce occupancy. To recover income, the council doubled the period permitted for those willing to pay these charges, to find that occupancy increased.

But revenue fell worryingly – less frequent turnover of spaces meant fewer fines for overstays. The extended time let commuters park closer to their destinations.

Yet the council was quick enough to recognise financial potential in the extension of controlled parking zones out into suburbia, where few commuters and fewer shoppers park, forgetting that increasing use of residential areas as informal park and rides simply demonstrates the inadequacy of city centre parking.

The council seems to see car parking only in terms of both huge revenue and its very active strategy of social engineering – encouraging people out of their cars and making people who have cars travel by bus or, soon, tram.

I believe the city council's aim is to drive drivers off the road and out of the city, so small wonder then that employers now find staff unwilling to move to the Capital.

The council is not incompetent – it's just irresponsibly indulging itself – but sadly, the result of that is that Edinburgh is the loser.

• Bruce Young is the Lothian & Borders Co-ordinator for the Association of British Drivers.



The full article contains 476 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

The ghost of Harry Lauder,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 12:38:34
The usual predictable pro-car rant from Bruce Young. There is a fundamental question for Edinburgh in this time of peak oil. Do we turn over larger parts of our beautiful centuries-old city (largely designed in a pre-car era) to metal boxes with wheels (most of them grossly under-occupied) at the cost of land allocated to play parks, much-needed homes, lesisure facilities or so on. Or do we have the vision to plan for a time for reduced car use. The kind of Edinburgh that would result from Mr. Young's suggestions is not one that looks at all attractive to me.
2

Hmm ...,

18/01/2008 12:49:54
... I thought that the point he was making was that underground car parks like those on the Continent would provide unobtrusive high volume parking AND maintain amenity.

Apart from wanting rid of cars, which part does the ghost disagree with? Do these car parks not provide high volume parking, do they take over "larger parts of our beautiful centuries-old city"?

And ghost is even wrong about the bit about "largely designed in a pre-car era" - the New Town was designed with streets wide enough for a coach-and-four to do a u-turn - doesn't that cater for the then equivalent of today's cars? Doesn't that mean that todays equivalent is much less demanding of road space?

The trouble with today's Trotskyist public transport supporters is that they are too busy pushing their argument to think about the issues.
3

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 12:50:41
Mr Young has forgotten a fifth kind of driver - those who live in Edinburgh. We need parking controls so that we have somewhere to keep our cars during the day - a lot of us can (and do) walk/bus/cycle to work and keep a car for weekend journeys. As #1 says, a blinkered view.
4

Padraig,

18/01/2008 12:57:51
Bruce Young makes a good point about the City Council endulging itself - it IS elected to provide services and is failing dismally because it is obsessed by its social engineering program, to push everyone on to public transport.

A good comparison is Glasgow, a developing shopping destination whereas Central Edinburgh's shopping footfall has reduced as people are moving their custom out of town and even to Glasgow where good car parking is available for stores throughout the city centre.

Shopping like so much else is competitive and Edinburgh is not competing, so hide-bound is it in dogma and an urge to tell everyone what to do.

As we are seeing in Edinburgh's answer to the competition of out-of-town sopping malls - they want to ban them!

That is a loser's answer to competition!

And Edinburgh is the loser, as Mr Young said.
5

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 13:01:47
"why not build downward under squares and public gardens"

Good point. I was in Monaco some time ago and had absolutely no trouble finding a parking space---in an underground carpark hewn out of the rock.

Of course, Monaco is unlikely to ever suffer from the same anti-car disease that Edinburgh has suffered from during the last 15 or so years. For a start, they have no labour party and secondly, it would be totally rediculous for a principality that hosts the flagship race of the F1 season to be anti-car---or anti anything for that matter!

Underground carparks would solve the problems for Edinburgh. And they can be done too. Edinburgh is built on rock, the same as Monaco is. Maybe there ought to be some consultation there...
6

Dileas,

18/01/2008 13:20:11
Ghost (1) asks "Do we turn over larger parts of our beautiful centuries-old city (largely designed in a pre-car era) to metal boxes with wheels (most of them grossly under-occupied) at the cost of land allocated to play parks, much-needed homes, lesisure facilities or so on. Or do we have the vision to plan for a time for reduced car use."

That is just what this Council's blighted approach to car parking is doing - instead of recognising that cars are and have been part of city life for decades now and making proper provision for them, it is pushing these cars out into the suburbs, obsessed with the idea of all the money is will make from "control zones" which didn't previously have a parking problem.

And as for the claim that it is a better idea to "have the vision to plan for a time for reduced car use", it is cloud cuckoo land to think that we should anticipate reduced car use" except possibly in Edinburgh, where this policy would result in not only cars but their occupants, the population, shops and businesses leaving Edinburgh for other cities with less Luddite policies. As Bruce Young said, companies are finding it more difficult to get staff to work in Edinburgh. Ok, so it is driven mainly by housing cost but the whole quality of life counts, including good shops and easy travel - and parking.

You don't work for the Council, do you, Ghost?
7

The ghost of Harry Lauder,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 13:22:49
If you read the RICS report from a couple of years ago, it argues very powerfully that Edinburgh by 2050 will look and feel very differently. The need to cut emissions and the fact that oil production is in decline means that services will be much more decentralised again.

The problem with building large underground car parks (aside from cost) is that it will attract even more single occupancy cars into the centre and Edinburgh cannot cope with greater volumes with altering the city pretty dramatically (and I would argue quite negatively).

Why is it that the "car is king" lobby call attempts to increase public transport use "social engineering"? It is nothing of the sort and simply labelling it so does not make it true.
8

The ghost of Harry Lauder,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 13:27:10
6 - No, I don't work for the Council. I am a normal Edinburgh resident, with a young family. I own a car but try to use my bike or walk where it is practicable to do so. The fact that I own and use a car does not mean I think that public policy should treat car-users as top of the hierarchy. The idea that car-users are oppressed is laughable. The real costs for public transport users have increased much more dramatically than those of car drivers.
9

Bruce Young,

18/01/2008 14:24:41
Thanks, everyone, for your comments.

Good point, Dunaskin (3) - when I wrote the piece I was thinking about public parking rather than the residents' spaces, perhaps because they are a "no go" zone for me as I don't have access to them.

I recognise, though, that there are issues with them too - there are not enough to meet the residents' numbers and they impose a cost to residents, particularly those who live off-centre and didn't previously find parking near their homes was an issue at all.

I see that Dileas (6) did mention that these latter residents would be better served if adequate city centre parking was provided and I agree with that - wish I had thought to say so!

Interestingly, if adequate well-placed off-street parking was provided so that only short-stay parkers, visiting say one or two shops needed to use on-street parking, far fewer on-street spaces would be needed and more spaces would be available for residents' parking - win, win, I think!

Ghost of Harry Lauder (7) mentioned the cost of underground parking but I think that, as the City Council's income makes clear, the price levied for on-street parking would make commercial parking of that kind not only viable but attractive for a commercial operator.

And the point on people calling the present policy "social engineering" - that is because it is; it is a deliberate attempt to make everyone the same, whether or not they have access to a car, a bus passenger!


But in one point I agree wholeheartedly with you -"Edinburgh by 2050 will look and feel very differently." I don't agree that "the need to cut emissions and the fact that oil production is in decline means that services will be much more decentralised again", although I suspect that you mean "centralised". Motor manufacturers are investing massive amounts of money in hybrid technology and bio-fuel power, even before the EU's drive to reduce mean vehicle emissions to 130gm/km and the USA's Energy & Security Act of 2007 whic
10

Bruce Young,

18/01/2008 14:39:26
Sorry - I ran out of space and didn't notice.

Motor manufacturers are investing massive amounts of money in hybrid technology and bio-fuel power, even before the EU's drive to reduce mean vehicle emissions to 130gm/km and the USA's Energy & Security Act of 2007 which is aimed at reducing the USA's reliance on oil and will enforce its CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)policy which will require an average 35 mpg (UK equivalent 42mpg) by 2020. It is expected to kill off large capaccity V8s. Consequently, we can expect cars to become much cleaner and fuel efficient.

Consequently cars will probably remain viable and will still provide the independence of travel which we now enjoy. Provided that we elect a government that recognises this and provides the necessary infrastructure.

I envy Ghost the use of his bike - that is a privilege of the young and fit but does not meet every need or occasion. He should hope so, because by 2050 he is less likely to be able to cycle as he does at present.

I do not EVER suggest that the car should be king - but there should be a place for it and the needs of its users, just as cyclists clamour for cycleways - then don't use them much.

Road users pay over £50 BILLION in taxation annually, In return, the government invests only £8 billion on roads so don't EVER try to tell me that "the real costs for public transport users have increased much more dramatically than those of car drivers". You are just plain WRONG.

Scallywag (9), you make a good point but I think that it is a problem of design of the park and its access rather than the principle of underground parking. As for peak time, I think that the problem is the concentration of travel into a small timeframe and the answer is increased flexitime and home waorking, both of which I think we are likely to address by 2020. I certainly hope so, anyway.

But you do make a good point about choice!
11

Bruce Young,

18/01/2008 15:08:49
Scallywag (9) said "However when we were ready to go we realised we were going to hit what could be the evening rush. Main route past the car park jammed full of cars and the sprial ramp the same. One car getting out onto the main road at each change of the signals. Not good. Decided to stay a bit longer and get dinner until things eased off. Good for the local economy."

That's somthing else that we agree on - I sometimes collect my wife from work in the centre of Glasgow and we have a meal to avoid the rush hour. It also makes for a pleasant if expensive interlude! There is a multistorey car park directly across the road from the restaurant - Glasgow is really well served by off-street parking!
12

The ghost of Harry Lauder,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 15:35:43
Bruce - according to the nationally produced transport statistics, private motoring is now more affordable than it was 20 years ago, while rail and bus fares have increased by 37% in real terms since 1980.

As far as bicycle use goes, I am in my 40s and hope to have another good 10-20 years using my bike as a mode of transport. My neighbour, who is 70, uses his bike as his means of getting around the city. Of course, I appreciate that not everyone can use a bicycle (my dad, for example, is a wheelchair user and needs access to a car or taxi) but if even a FRACTION of those who could cycle or walk more actually did so, some of the pressure would be eased. And that would mean better services for people who really do need a car, such as older people, emergency services, trades and so on.

I'll say it again: Edinburgh's future can only lie in reducing transport volumes and managing traffic more effectively. Anything that is predicated on simply absorbing the predicted increase in car-use is not sustainable.
13

Rollo Tommasi,

18/01/2008 15:54:36
It's about time that the essential car drivers out there realised that their real enemy is not the council. It's the non-essential drivers in single occupancy vehicles who are slowing down all our journeys.

Edinburgh's arterial routes are saturated at rush hour. Encouraging people to use buses isn't "social engineering". It's simply trying to attract people to travel in a way which minimises congestion as much as possible.

Now compare that with an idea to encourage more people to drive right into the centre of town and park in a huge underground car park. What would that do for journey times into and through the city centre?
14

Bruce Young,

18/01/2008 16:15:38
Ghost (13), it's difficult to reconcile your claim, when road users put in £53/54 Billion and get out £8 billion of improvements and rail users can get a day return fare, as one of my colleagues did, from Glasgow to Edinburgh for £7.50 (See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/edinburghAirLinkBill/or/ea06-0402.htm column 116)

I suspect that the information you quote was not a comparison between alternative means of travel. It may mean simply that cars are in terms of inflation cheaper to run than than they were 20 years ago, just as washing machines and televisions are due to manufacturing efficiency. But that does not explain ow, now that fuel costs have increased so much and are so heavily taxed, they could still be cheaper than they were 20 years ago. It is also hard to see how, heavily subsidised as they are, trains could be dearer unless they are just being run very inefficiently, probably due to relatively low demand due to the inconvenience of the three journeys needed - from home to station, station to station and station to destination.

I suspect that the answer is the bane of statistics - selective measurements which mean only that public transport is less cost efficient a means of transport than it was 20 years ago and cars are more efficient than then.

I don't think anyone would deny that travel by car is much more expensive than public transport as well as generally faster and certainly more comfortable and convenient.
15

Bruce Young,

18/01/2008 16:32:45
Sorry, Rollo (14), whilst I agree that we should reduce non-essential journeys (it's a long time since I drove into Edinburgh just for the fun of it) I don't agree that "the real enemy is not the Council" - a large part of the problem is of the City Council's making - road narrowing, unnecessary bus lanes and road closures et al. And, of course, parking restrictions aimed at solely chasing cars out of town.

We rely on local and national government to provide and maintain the road network which vehicles can use. Their failure over the the last ten years in particular means that they have aggravated instead of improved the problem.

And I am not advocating that drivers be encouraged "to drive right into the centre of town and park in a huge underground car park". I would prefer to see a lot of relatively small ones, which would be less affected by Scallywag's problem in France and would be more convenient to the occupants' several destinations.

Their effect on journey times would be determined by the professionalism with which the City Council provided an efficient road network "streaming" the flow instead of restricting it.

It actually isn't that difficult - the City Council just doesn't want to do it.

As for Ghost's final point that "absorbing the predicted increase in car-use is not sustainable", I might be tempted to agree, except that that prediction assumes that car growth increases over the next twenty years at the rate that it has over the last. Unless the population grows substantially, that is unlikely as we have seen cars become more affordable with the rising prosperity of the population as a whole. This increase in percentage ownership is unlikely to continue in a period if increasing taxation and restricted economic growth.

Having said that, if immigration continues at the present level, it is possible that more cars could come on to the roads but these immigrants are also bringing increased prosperity which should be recognised by
16

Bruce Young,

18/01/2008 16:47:33
Scallywag, I agree that a badly planned parking facility can aggravate congestion and certainly agree that such a facility should minimise queueing to get out. That surely is a benefit of a large number of smaller facilities.

Having said that, isn't the problem really that a lot of people need to travel at the same time? We see that too on buses and commuter trains, which at peak times are crowded, however many buses or trains could realistically be put on. It just isn't practical to own and operate buses which are required only at peak times. In London I never take a car into the centre - like so many other people with the result that at peak times the Tube is jammed full, despite even a single station journey costing £4.50.
17

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 17:48:24
So Mr. Young's being given a platform here to promote his views in his capacity as Lothian & Borders Co-ordinator for the Association of British Drivers? In order to get some idea of how representative these views are, I'd like to know how many members the ABD has in the Lothian and Borders region.
18

Seabhag,

Edinburgh 18/01/2008 19:27:27
I agree with the Ghost and also want to say that - once you take the upfront costs of cars out of the equation then it is absurd to say that public transport is cheaper than a car. If I want to go to Perth for a day with my kids it costs me FAR more to go by train than my car. The problem is that, once you have a car, then it is cheaper to use it as much as possible rather than public transport alternatives. This is quite wrong, of course: the emphasis should switch from one-off taxes like vehicle excise duty to "use" taxes like tax on fuel and road-use charges, both of which are opposed, of course by the luddites, like Bruce, who believe that car growth can continue. Only one planet, guys, only one planet.
19

Bruce Young,

18/01/2008 19:46:57
Plod (19) says "I'd like to know how many members the ABD has in the Lothian and Borders region"

Thanks, Plod - not nearly as many as I would like (but we have more nationally, I am told, than either Brake or the bus lobby Transport 2000).

Thanks for reminding me that I had forgotten the plug!

If you would like to support our work by joining ABD, you can do so online at www.abd.org.uk or by telephoning 0800 358 9955.
20

ddmc,

21/01/2008 12:17:02
nice to see the article's author isn't hiding away, perhaps the full time journos of the hootsmon should take note.

I think you have to compare the centre of edinburgh to the next largest town which is Livingston. It is currently building phase 4 of it's expansion wheras Princes St is receding. The reason for this is a large amount of car spaces, same as the so called out of town developments and the extension of the M8 to hermiston gate.
Sorry ghost but forcing people to use only public transport is a classic case of social engineering, whic h started in Edinburgh when david begg was on the cooncil.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Traffic wardens & parking regulations

More Traffic wardens & parking regulations >>

Today's Vote

Do you back higher parking permit fees for drivers with the most polluting cars?
Yes, we have to cut vehicle emissions somehow
No, this is just the motorist being squeezed again
No, it won’t stop people driving big cars

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.