The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

1…9192949697…191

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    I'm sort of struggling to care. Move to the countryside?

    Just think the local councils are missing a trick here. Lotta revenue there.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,135
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I'm sort of struggling to care. Move to the countryside?

    Just think the local councils are missing a trick here. Lotta revenue there.
    I think it is a great idea to make neighbours compete against each other in this way. Would there be a separate disabled auction?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,515
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I'm sort of struggling to care. Move to the countryside?

    Just think the local councils are missing a trick here. Lotta revenue there.
    Do you not think they might have thought about this already? Where they own a car park, they'll get the revenue. They also have to balance that against the rates they receive from the businesses that benefit from the carpark. And for it to raise revenue you need drivers to still use it, not leave their car at home.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I'm sort of struggling to care. Move to the countryside?

    Just think the local councils are missing a trick here. Lotta revenue there.
    Do you not think they might have thought about this already? Where they own a car park, they'll get the revenue. They also have to balance that against the rates they receive from the businesses that benefit from the carpark. And for it to raise revenue you need drivers to still use it, not leave their car at home.
    Nah I'm suggesting the spots in front of their houses. They enforce all the 'residents' parking' stuff. Charge 'em a revenue maximising amount.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,515
    rick_chasey said:

    kingstongraham said:

    This road is going to be made one way later this year, because it's apparently impossible to think of a workable way to safely allow cars in both directions.


    Yeah so there's a tonne of revenue lying on the table there.
    Residents already pay for permits. If there aren't permits, there's unlikely to be the demand to charge for it. Victorian terraces with small front gardens do sort of necessitate on street parking.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    kingstongraham said:

    This road is going to be made one way later this year, because it's apparently impossible to think of a workable way to safely allow cars in both directions.


    Yeah so there's a tonne of revenue lying on the table there.
    Residents already pay for permits. If there aren't permits, there's unlikely to be the demand to charge for it. Victorian terraces with small front gardens do sort of necessitate on street parking.
    Yes but they clearly don't charge nearly *enough*
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,135
    Please never go into politics RC.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.

    Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,135
    Can you think of any unintended consequences?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    Can you think of any unintended consequences?

    ...such as?
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,107
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Can you think of any unintended consequences?

    ...such as?
    Getting voted out
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited August 2023
    Oh boo hoo, this isn't a "how can i be popular" this is "this would be a sensible policy".
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,107
    First.Aspect said:

    I'm sort of struggling to care. Move to the countryside?

    Too many wind farms.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,107
    rick_chasey said:

    Oh boo hoo, this isn't a "how can i be popular" this is "this would be a sensible policy".

    It's neither.

    I quite like Japan's solution to on street parking.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,515
    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    kingstongraham said:

    This road is going to be made one way later this year, because it's apparently impossible to think of a workable way to safely allow cars in both directions.


    Yeah so there's a tonne of revenue lying on the table there.
    Residents already pay for permits. If there aren't permits, there's unlikely to be the demand to charge for it. Victorian terraces with small front gardens do sort of necessitate on street parking.
    Yes but they clearly don't charge nearly *enough*
    What's enough? If you put parking fees up to £20/hr most people will just find a way not to park there => no revenue at all.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,515
    rick_chasey said:

    Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.

    Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.

    Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.


    Pick *one*.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    kingstongraham said:

    This road is going to be made one way later this year, because it's apparently impossible to think of a workable way to safely allow cars in both directions.


    Yeah so there's a tonne of revenue lying on the table there.
    Residents already pay for permits. If there aren't permits, there's unlikely to be the demand to charge for it. Victorian terraces with small front gardens do sort of necessitate on street parking.
    Yes but they clearly don't charge nearly *enough*
    What's enough? If you put parking fees up to £20/hr most people will just find a way not to park there => no revenue at all.
    Hence *revenue maximising*
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited August 2023
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.

    Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.

    Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.


    Pick *one*.
    Well right now we don't have the public finances to support non-car travel, so why not charge people for car travel in order to help fund non-car travel investment? :)

    It also penalises owning two cars, which I am a fan of too.

    It takes up road space and causes problems for pedestrians etc, so they should be charged for the additional negative externalities they cause.

    In general the problems cars cause are not anywhere near fully paid for by the car user; the pollution and adverse effect on health, the cost on the infrastructure etc etc. So this is a simple small way to go towards redressing the balance.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,135
    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Can you think of any unintended consequences?

    ...such as?
    Getting voted out
    Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,878
    There are an amazing number of cars in the southern sticks. Quite depressing.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Can you think of any unintended consequences?

    ...such as?
    Getting voted out
    Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.
    Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?

    And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,515
    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.

    Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.

    Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.


    Pick *one*.
    Well right now we don't have the public finances to support non-car travel, so why not charge people for car travel in order to help fund non-car travel investment? :)

    It also penalises owning two cars, which I am a fan of too.

    It takes up road space and causes problems for pedestrians etc, so they should be charged for the additional negative externalities they cause.

    In general the problems cars cause are not anywhere near fully paid for by the car user; the pollution and adverse effect on health, the cost on the infrastructure etc etc. So this is a simple small way to go towards redressing the balance.
    You're not listening. Islington charges residents nearly a grand a year per vehicle to park outside their home with significant reductions for low-emission vehicles. There are almost no driveways in Islington so everyone with a car is paying that. Islington is as champagne socialist as it gets with a high proportion of EVs and the council is desperate for cash so they *will* already be milking this for as much as they can politically get away with. There is not some untapped reserve of cash to be tapped.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.

    Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.

    Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.


    Pick *one*.
    Well right now we don't have the public finances to support non-car travel, so why not charge people for car travel in order to help fund non-car travel investment? :)

    It also penalises owning two cars, which I am a fan of too.

    It takes up road space and causes problems for pedestrians etc, so they should be charged for the additional negative externalities they cause.

    In general the problems cars cause are not anywhere near fully paid for by the car user; the pollution and adverse effect on health, the cost on the infrastructure etc etc. So this is a simple small way to go towards redressing the balance.
    You're not listening. Islington charges residents nearly a grand a year per vehicle to park outside their home with significant reductions for low-emission vehicles. There are almost no driveways in Islington so everyone with a car is paying that. Islington is as champagne socialist as it gets with a high proportion of EVs and the council is desperate for cash so they *will* already be milking this for as much as they can politically get away with. There is not some untapped reserve of cash to be tapped.
    I don't want to go all *there's more to the world than Islington* but really most councils do not remotely charge the maximum revenue amount.
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,135
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Can you think of any unintended consequences?

    ...such as?
    Getting voted out
    Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.
    Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?

    And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
    In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,878
    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    rjsterry said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stand by it. They should maximise revenues, and charge as much as they can for those spots.

    Nice revenue raiser, reduces the incentives to own a car, win win.

    Do you want people to stop using their car or raise revenue.


    Pick *one*.
    Well right now we don't have the public finances to support non-car travel, so why not charge people for car travel in order to help fund non-car travel investment? :)

    It also penalises owning two cars, which I am a fan of too.

    It takes up road space and causes problems for pedestrians etc, so they should be charged for the additional negative externalities they cause.

    In general the problems cars cause are not anywhere near fully paid for by the car user; the pollution and adverse effect on health, the cost on the infrastructure etc etc. So this is a simple small way to go towards redressing the balance.
    You're not listening. Islington charges residents nearly a grand a year per vehicle to park outside their home with significant reductions for low-emission vehicles. There are almost no driveways in Islington so everyone with a car is paying that. Islington is as champagne socialist as it gets with a high proportion of EVs and the council is desperate for cash so they *will* already be milking this for as much as they can politically get away with. There is not some untapped reserve of cash to be tapped.
    You say that, but my neighbours, for example, park their car on the street to avoid wasting valuable garage space. Presumably there is a price at which they wouldn't and obviously not that many have garages as an option.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited August 2023
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Can you think of any unintended consequences?

    ...such as?
    Getting voted out
    Paving over front gardens. Parking in the next nearest place that's not extortionate.
    Can only do that if you have a dropped kurb, no?

    And people do that parking in the next nearest place that isn't extortionate anyway (in this instance, in front of my house). The solution is to then widen it out to all parking spots, right?
    In Rictopia, if there is demand, anyone can buy the parking spot outside of your house. If its not you that's too bad.
    Sure, why not. If you have rules about not sub-letting spaces, seems fine to me.

    Currently all the legal spots on my street are free and it's a total bumfight, so forgive me if I'm lacking sympathy for people who insist on having their car in front of their house.

    I say make everyone pony up for them.

    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,135
    It's just another taxation choice.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited August 2023
    First.Aspect said:

    It's just another taxation choice.

    Correct.

    Along with ULEZ.

    Gotta pay for the cost to society somehow.

    I quite like the idea that they go up for auction, so you can really maximise the price. Free markets to the rescue.
    _
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Doesn’t the extortionate on street parking model increase demand for larger properties with off road parking?
    Which is the least sustainable model for solving the housing crisis.
    Would also be another complaint the young would have against Boomers. Why do I pay a small mortgage for parking when older generations didn’t and now don’t in their large houses.

    Seems a very short sighted plan.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,135
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    It's just another taxation choice.

    Correct.

    Along with ULEZ.

    Gotta pay for the cost to society somehow.

    I quite like the idea that they go up for auction, so you can really maximise the price. Free markets to the rescue.
    Not sure it's what you'd call a progressive tax though is it? The richer you are, the more likely you aren't going to pay it.

    Hard to think of a less progressive way to rax vehicle ownership, actually.

Categories