|
marky7890
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2009, 19:29:42 » |
|
Anyone know if these charges have freed up spaces at the stations?
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2009, 23:56:05 » |
|
The idea of a parkway station is that you can drive there and park and take the train. If it's going to cost to park there some people will just drive and not take the train or drive to a less suitable station that has free parking.
Maybe so, but Bodmin Parkway car park is full of car sharers cars by 0800 so people actually catching a train can't park! Lets looks at teh bigger picture here. If the presence of the parkway station encourages car-sharers to park there then that is great. but why should the railway subsidise it? at the end of the day the railway is a business-like it or lump it and all these people who say its wrong to make a profit from a public service are talking crap, Tesco provide a more vital public service (we all need to eat or we'll die!) but no one moans about them profiting from it! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
G.Uard
|
|
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2009, 04:53:23 » |
|
I'm sure council tax payers would not mind a small additional premium in exchange for the right to park at stations for 'free'.  In all seriousness though, as Vacman points out, the railway is a business, with a duty to its shareholders. Whether or not free parking could prove cost effective would be the subject of much contention, but Chiltern's car share idea is a good and constructive one. However, if we look at the degree of integration of public transport/local authorities in our European neighbours, the clumsy and piecemeal privatisation of our own transport systems appears even more badly advised than it did when instigated. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
slippy
|
|
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2009, 10:00:25 » |
|
The charges planned to be introduced at Bodmin and Liskeard from Feb 1st 2009 have been DROPPED due to local council intervention!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2009, 10:25:21 » |
|
The idea of a parkway station is that you can drive there and park and take the train. If it's going to cost to park there some people will just drive and not take the train or drive to a less suitable station that has free parking.
Maybe so, but Bodmin Parkway car park is full of car sharers cars by 0800 so people actually catching a train can't park! Lets looks at the bigger picture here. If the presence of the parkway station encourages car-sharers to park there then that is great. but why should the railway subsidise it? at the end of the day the railway is a business-like it or lump it and all these people who say its wrong to make a profit from a public service are talking crap, Tesco provide a more vital public service (we all need to eat or we'll die!) but no one moans about them profiting from it! Because, unlike Tescos, the railway is subsidised by the taxpayer (even TOCs▸ that pay a permium to the DfT» are subsidised by the government grant to NR» ) as are its competitors (buses, cars, planes). The taxpayer doesn't subsidise the railway to assist its shareholders it subsidises the railway because it provides a social and economic benefit. It thesefore doesn't really bother me that some of my tax is going to FGW▸ who are indirectly using to to subsidise car-sharing in Devon because a rail service and car sharing are both good things and both reduce road congestion. If FGW exclude car sharers from the car park and the result is that car-sharing falls my tax will be indirectly subsidising a company that causes more road congestion and I would not be happy with that if it could be avoided! Why should I subsidise a company without a social conscience who thinks that it can operate in a vacuum from wider socieity. On the other hand, if full car parks are discouraging rail travel then that is a serious problem. The only real answer of course is to extend the carpark (paid for with contributions from both the TOC and the tax payer). The answer is not for the railways to operate in their silo and ignore the world outside. If the railway is really only about making money for its shareholders then does Vacman also object to the industry having to spend extra money complying with planning laws, spending cash on preserving listed buildings, or paying taxes? It would also be very foolish for a company so reliant on public subsidy to alienate the public by appearing meanspirited. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 10:34:22 by Tim »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2009, 21:16:08 » |
|
Bodmin parkway is in cornwall, not Devon! I stand by my post though, My tax (and I pay bloody loads of it) also goes to subsidse the likes of the airlines, railway station car parks are there for one thing and thats for rail passengers not car sharers, there is no more room at Bodmin to extend the car park and effectively car sharers parking there are losing the railway business!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2009, 21:43:39 » |
|
How can it be bad for the railway? It frees up spaces so even more rail users can park!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2009, 22:22:12 » |
|
Erm, sorry, Btline, but I agree with vacman on this. Whether we are looking at Bodmin Parkway or Nailsea & Backwell, the fact of the matter is - there are a limited number of car parking spaces available. If some of those spaces are taken up by those who park one car, just so they can get into another car and then drive into town, it means that particular space is no longer available for someone who actually wants to catch a train. And our local council have placed cheery notices, threatening ^70 charges to those who park outside the specified spaces, in our station car park. I think they should perhaps charge ^70 to those who rather selfishly use up a parking space in the station car park, but don't actually use the station: it's 'free' to those who do? C.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
G.Uard
|
|
« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2009, 10:39:15 » |
|
The idea of a parkway station is that you can drive there and park and take the train. If it's going to cost to park there some people will just drive and not take the train or drive to a less suitable station that has free parking.
Maybe so, but Bodmin Parkway car park is full of car sharers cars by 0800 so people actually catching a train can't park! Lets looks at the bigger picture here. If the presence of the parkway station encourages car-sharers to park there then that is great. but why should the railway subsidise it? at the end of the day the railway is a business-like it or lump it and all these people who say its wrong to make a profit from a public service are talking crap, Tesco provide a more vital public service (we all need to eat or we'll die!) but no one moans about them profiting from it! Because, unlike Tescos, the railway is subsidised by the taxpayer (even TOCs▸ that pay a permium to the DfT» are subsidised by the government grant to NR» ) as are its competitors (buses, cars, planes). The taxpayer doesn't subsidise the railway to assist its shareholders it subsidises the railway because it provides a social and economic benefit. It thesefore doesn't really bother me that some of my tax is going to FGW▸ who are indirectly using to to subsidise car-sharing in Devon because a rail service and car sharing are both good things and both reduce road congestion. If FGW exclude car sharers from the car park and the result is that car-sharing falls my tax will be indirectly subsidising a company that causes more road congestion and I would not be happy with that if it could be avoided! Why should I subsidise a company without a social conscience who thinks that it can operate in a vacuum from wider socieity. On the other hand, if full car parks are discouraging rail travel then that is a serious problem. The only real answer of course is to extend the carpark (paid for with contributions from both the TOC and the tax payer). The answer is not for the railways to operate in their silo and ignore the world outside. If the railway is really only about making money for its shareholders then does Vacman also object to the industry having to spend extra money complying with planning laws, spending cash on preserving listed buildings, or paying taxes? It would also be very foolish for a company so reliant on public subsidy to alienate the public by appearing meanspirited. Economic dichotomy? A 'privatised' industry, accountable to shareholders, but supported by the public purse. Money for huge capital investment can only be obtained from private finance, but the tax-payer picks up the tab for the 'social and economic benefits' via subsidies. Whilst this strategy has seemingly served other major industries and even government initiatives, the devil is in the detail and its inadequacies are painfully exposed in this debate on a relatively minor issue. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2009, 10:57:54 » |
|
Economic dichotomy?
I think that this is what Christain Wolmar calls "lets pretend capitalism". I have absolutely no problem with people profiting from the railway (all of the staff make money out of the railway afterall. You wouldn't expect them to work for nothing so why expect an investor to lend his money to the industry for nothing in return?) but the current system neither sets the market free nor focuses solely on public service. It is a complet muddle which is neither the best for the company profits, the passenger or the tax-payer. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2009, 13:01:37 » |
|
Erm, sorry, Btline, but I agree with vacman on this.
I don't understand.  With car sharing, three people turn up in one car, park and take the train. Without car sharing, three peope turn up in three cars, parking and take the train. A loss of two spaces, and potentially six rail users. I think Chiltern have got it right. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marky7890
|
|
« Reply #41 on: February 05, 2009, 14:10:39 » |
|
Erm, sorry, Btline, but I agree with vacman on this.
I don't understand. With car sharing, three people turn up in one car, park and take the train. Without car sharing, three peope turn up in three cars, parking and take the train. A loss of two spaces, and potentially six rail users. I think Chiltern have got it right. I think its like: 3 people turn up in 3 separate cars, leave 2 in the car park, then Drive 1 to Plymouth, reather than catching the train. Mark |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #42 on: February 05, 2009, 14:21:12 » |
|
Yes, but they won't get free parking unless they take the train.
And if necessary, put barriers at the exit of the car park, so you have to flash a valid ticket/pass before you can leave.
I still think it is a very good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris2
|
|
« Reply #43 on: February 05, 2009, 16:49:27 » |
|
I think its like: 3 people turn up in 3 separate cars, leave 2 in the car park, then Drive 1 to Plymouth, reather than catching the train.
Mark
The problem with Bodmin Parkway is, people park there then travel to Bodmin, to save money on the car park in the town centre, so only paying for one car instead of two. Bodmin Parkway needs the car park charges brought in; as it is absolute chaos, with cars parked along the entrance road, people leaving their cars there for holidays for two to three weeks, and the regular commuters, especially during the summer. So if you arrive after 8am you can be lucky to get an official car park space. So people use the twenty minute spaces to park in, they also park in the disabled bays, even if they are not disabled, the bus turning circle is a very common parking space, even though it is labelled that you can be clamped. Last year there was a camper van in the car park, and they used the car park as the base for their holiday, using the toilets for washing facilities. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 09:18:21 by Chris2 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #44 on: February 05, 2009, 22:56:28 » |
|
Yes, but they won't get free parking unless they take the train.
And if necessary, put barriers at the exit of the car park, so you have to flash a valid ticket/pass before you can leave.
I still think it is a very good idea.
But they all get free car parking! the car sharers aren't catching the train or paying anything! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
