# Parking fees for bikes?



## Riverman (21 Jul 2010)

Is it right Finsbury Park, London Bridge and Walthamstow are currently charging £1.50 a day for secure cycle parking? I guess with secure parking there's more of a justification for a fee, but £1.50? Seems a bit steep.


----------



## mark barker (21 Jul 2010)

Given the price of land in London and the cost of wages, I'd have thought £1.50 was quite cheap!


----------



## benb (21 Jul 2010)

That's surely less than the hourly car parking charge in the same area.
I don't think we can expect free parking everywhere.


----------



## snorri (21 Jul 2010)

I was asked to pay 8 euros per night for secure parking at the Hotel Kyjev in Bratislava this summer, and they advertise as a budget hotel!!!
Needless to say I went and found another hotel where parking charge was never mentioned.


----------



## Davidc (21 Jul 2010)

There's a cost associated with providing secure parking, so it seems inevitable that there are going to be charges.

Rather a reasonable small charge than getting back to no bike, part of a bike, vandalised bike or whatever.


----------



## CotterPin (21 Jul 2010)

£1.50 for peace of mind sounds good value to me!


----------



## marinyork (21 Jul 2010)

Davidc said:


> There's a cost associated with providing secure parking, so it seems inevitable that there are going to be charges.
> 
> Rather a reasonable small charge than getting back to no bike, part of a bike, vandalised bike or whatever.



There is a cost associated but for example the council here believed that it was such a huge bonus having secure cycle parking that they didn't want to charge for it and wanted it to come out of the LA government. There's certainly a cost for the land/building, that's what the administration vetoed  so we'll never have one.


----------



## TheJollyJimLad (21 Jul 2010)

I know there was a consultation by TfL a few years ago to reactivate old railway arches by London Termini to create not just secure cycle parking but additional facilities such as Wi-Fi, Showers plus drinking water to fill up a water bottles etc. I think it would certainly encourage more people to cycle in from Greater London (even beyond) where showers aren't supplied at work. 
Do you agree that this could be a way forward and are people more likely to pay if parking came with extra facilties?


----------



## marinyork (21 Jul 2010)

TheJollyJimLad said:


> I know there was a consultation by TfL a few years ago to reactivate old railway arches by London Termini to create not just secure cycle parking but additional facilities such as Wi-Fi, Showers plus drinking water to fill up a water bottles etc. I think it would certainly encourage more people to cycle in from Greater London (even beyond) where showers aren't supplied at work.
> Do you agree that this could be a way forward and are people more likely to pay if parking came with extra facilties?



As I've already said it's not just London, it's elsewhere. A secure facility here would probably have led to a mini boom in cycling to the core of the city centre, where ironically enough there is the least capacity for cycle parking, yet the greatest demand -other areas of the city centre having more cycle parking - has the least parking. Most proposed secure bicycle facilities have the 'extras' of which you speak, except wi-fi. In London you've probably got the problem of charging because if it was put in a really good location it would be permanently parked out. That said £1.50 is a lot too a poor person, Riverman is very correct on this.


----------



## mark barker (21 Jul 2010)

Here in Swindon the secure parking offers nothing other than bike racks in a cage, but thats all it needs really. The scheme is "free" although you have to pay £10 for the swipe card to access the area....


----------



## marinyork (21 Jul 2010)

mark barker said:


> Here in Swindon the secure parking offers nothing other than bike racks in a cage, but thats all it needs really. The scheme is "free" although you have to pay £10 for the swipe card to access the area....



Does it have limited hours? Or is it 24hr?


----------



## mark barker (21 Jul 2010)

marinyork said:


> Does it have limited hours? Or is it 24hr?


Its open 24/7, (and you can leave your bike in there for upto 6 weeks at a time  )


----------



## BigSteev (21 Jul 2010)

Riverman said:


> Is it right Finsbury Park, London Bridge and Walthamstow are currently charging £1.50 a day for secure cycle parking? I guess with secure parking there's more of a justification for a fee, but £1.50? Seems a bit steep.



I believe that Walthamstow does charge £1.50 for it's 'secure' cycle parking at the station, however, as their definition of secure and mine* differ considerably, I still wouldn't use it.

*My bike will be guaranteed to be there upon return in the same state I left it. Leaving it there is not at my risk.


----------



## marinyork (21 Jul 2010)

mark barker said:


> Its open 24/7, (and you can leave your bike in there for upto 6 weeks at a time  )



I think that's reasonable enough. As was pointed out by the cycle big whigs here though, ideally in a city the size of swindon or bigger you'd have two or three secure cycle parking facilities in the city centre and then smaller schemes of other sorts in shopping areas outside the city centre and railway stations/transport interchanges.


----------



## marinyork (21 Jul 2010)

BigSteev said:


> I believe that Walthamstow does charge £1.50 for it's 'secure' cycle parking at the station, however, as their definition of secure and mine* differ considerably, I still wouldn't use it.
> 
> *My bike will be guaranteed to be there upon return in the same state I left it. Leaving it there is not at my risk.



What are their facilities?


----------



## BigSteev (21 Jul 2010)

Secure bike shed using smartcard entry system for 60 bikes and sheffield stands for 24 bikes

Use of the shed is free but there is a £5 charge for the access smart card. For security reasons you will need to present a form of photo identification (e.g. passport, driving licence) and proof of address. Payment can only be made by debit or credit card. The cards can be obtained from the Waltham Forest Direct Shop, 137 Hoe Street, Walthamstow, E17 4RT.

You can call in anytime between 8.30am-6pm Monday to Friday and 9am-1pm on Saturday.


----------



## Riverman (22 Jul 2010)

There's a couple of reasons why charging £1.50 is a bad idea.

As marin said for some people this is not cheap as not everyone in London is swimming in money. The London development agency should be encouraging people to use it and be mindful about the need to reduce pollution which is at record levels in London at the moment. They should also work hard to reduce pressure on public transport which can get very congested at peak times. Although £1.50 may not seem like a huge amount of money, it still counts as a chunk of a return oyster fare journey and many people will therefore just end up using the tube or the bus.

If the London Major is serious about cycling, he'll try his utmost to provide these services for free or as near cost price as possible. Perhaps some sort of low priced annual charge would be better. It would encourage people to use it more to get the best value for their money.

One last point though which I feel is often overlooked. Cycling saves lives, clearly it does and more importantly it takes pressure off the national health service through lowered obesity related health problems etc. And that saves the government a lot of money, so why bother charging people for something like this?


----------



## Riverman (22 Jul 2010)

User said:


> £1.50 a day is cheaper than either a return on the tube or the bus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cyclists like us yes but we're a lot more conscious than your average cyclist, thus are more likely to pay for such things, we are however, those least likely to have our bikes stolen, which is partly what this scheme is trying to prevent.

I agree people need to take responsibility and providing things 'for free' can encourage people not to but this is such a basic service. Secure storage of bicycles should be mandatory everywhere, infact councils should be required by law to provide it. Most people pay council tax rates right? So why can't we use some of these rates to provide proper facilities for cyclists? Why do we have to be fleeced by the council just because we want to protect ourselves against the crime that they allow to go on? Ok maybe I'm being a bit flippant there but nothing happens in isolation.

You'll barely encourage people to cycle and protect their bikes from theft if you charge them for parking facilities. You should want people to cycle and not use cars or public transport. If you really want that you should do your best to make the costs minimal. £1.50 a day sounds far from minimal to me when you consider the cost is being offset by other things, like healthcare etc that I outlined in my previous post. If anything such facilities will result in a surplus of funds to the treasury.


----------



## marinyork (22 Jul 2010)

User said:


> £1.50 a day is cheaper than either a return on the tube or the bus.
> 
> This is a minimal cost - most likely the true costs are subsidised by the local authority anyway - and frankly it's an investment that most cyclists would happily pay.



Already been said that the costs are subsidised by LAs. As previously said the only good reason for charging is that it'd be too popular, as is a potential problem in other cities. You're not really qualified to be saying whether it is a minimal cost or not or whether most cyclists would pay it.


----------



## marinyork (22 Jul 2010)

Riverman said:


> Cyclists like us yes but we're a lot more conscious than your average cyclist, thus are more likely to pay for such things, we are however, those least likely to have our bikes stolen, which is partly what this scheme is trying to prevent.
> 
> I agree people need to take responsibility and providing things 'for free' can encourage people not to but this is such a basic service. Secure storage of bicycles should be mandatory everywhere, infact councils should be required by law to provide it. Most people pay council tax rates right? So why can't we use some of these rates to provide proper facilities for cyclists? Why do we have to be fleeced by the council just because we want to protect ourselves against the crime that they allow to go on? Ok maybe I'm being a bit flippant there but nothing happens in isolation.
> 
> You'll barely encourage people to cycle and protect their bikes from theft if you charge them for parking facilities. You should want people to cycle and not use cars or public transport. If you really want that you should do your best to make the costs minimal. £1.50 a day sounds far from minimal to me when you consider the cost is being offset by other things, like healthcare etc that I outlined in my previous post. If anything such facilities will result in a surplus of funds to the treasury.



This is spot on. A number of cities are starting to do secure bicycle parking. Whether or not there is a charge or not, London likes to think of itself as leading the country in cycling issues, there should really be some kind of joined up plan for all London boroughs to have secure cycle parking. And yes, to a certain extent it is down to the Mayor, he could have it as a policy and liaise heavily with the local council to do it, who are the ones who are going to have to run and fund at least some of it.

£1.50 is far too much for people at the bottom. You'd start getting into the territory where people might start thinking that that decent quality D lock they had no intention of getting was good value for money rather than a 5mm cable lock.


----------



## Riverman (23 Jul 2010)

I forgot to mention reductions in carbon dioxide and offsetting. If we took these things seriously we 'd be paying people to use bicycles.

Note: Let's not go into the co2 that's expelled in your breath, that's negligible when you take other factors into account.


----------



## marinyork (23 Jul 2010)

User said:


> Why's that then?



You're unaware of the concept of what a large sum of money £1.50 is, because a lot of cyclists don't earn the huge salary you do, because you haven't done any research on it and most of all it sounds like you haven't been involved in a secure cycle parking scheme. Also because you make fairly spurious comparisons to other forms of transport. Round here the high cost of public transport is one good reason why people take up cycling. You can compare all you like but when some think those forms are expensive it doesn't get you quite as far as you think...


----------



## marinyork (23 Jul 2010)

User said:


> Given that you don't even know how much I earn (which is actually significantly less than I was earning two years ago outside the NHS) I can only surmise that you are basing your statements on pure assumption - and making a complete ass of yourself in so doing.



The assumptions are to do with the daft comments you make. 'Significantly less' is still probably very high. You've still not made any comments to demonstrate that you are aware of what a large sum of money £1.50 is for some cyclists. We have plenty of people on here that spend a lot of time talking to themselves, this is about those other people not in the elite.



User said:


> Again, pure assumption on your part. As it is, I have done quite a bit of research on paid cycle parking, partly to inform my role as a National Councillor for CTC.



I already know who you are and I would hope so. I judge people on the quality of their posts and not their rank and imagined status. 



User said:


> You're wrong on that one as well. I have been involved in scoping projects for both free and paid for secure cycle schemes. I've also been involved in the evaluation of such projects, including the ones here in Cambridge.



God help us. I said it sounds like you haven't been, I didn't say you hadn't been. My point still actually stands, it really doesn't sound like you're familiar with one. It might not matter to you but it matters a great deal to me that there aren't any secure bicycle schemes here. 



User said:


> I wasn't making the comparison of costs to other forms of transport. I was commenting on Riverman's comparison to bus and tube fares in London.



You were just trolling as usual, rather than bringing anything much to the discussion. There are plenty of places on the internet where people can rant about public transport costs and you can post ah yes this offers excellent value for money in comparison because I earn xxxx and don't have to worry about it. I suggest the commuting section if you want to go in for that sort of thing.


----------



## Riverman (23 Jul 2010)

> You're unaware of the concept of what a large sum of money £1.50 is,




£1.50 equals a little over a quarter of an hours work for those on minimum wage. 


User said:


> I wasn't making the comparison of costs to other forms of transport. I was commenting on Riverman's comparison to bus and tube fares in London.




My comparison was that it's a reasonable chunk of a tube or bus fare, especially if we're talking about multiple journeys. Four journeys using secure storage would place the cost higher than a day travel card on the tube in zone 1 and 2.

It makes no sense whatsoever in my mind to charge for such a basic service given all the benefits to society in using the system (i.e.- decreased pollution in the city, in the world, the health benefits of cycling and the reduced pollution and the lowering of crime).

The costs for bike users of not using the system are thefts of their precious bikes. The people who need bikes most are those who cannot afford public transport and the service should cater for their needs most. Charging them £1.50 a pop for the privilege of protecting their bikes against theft seems a bit mean to me. Especially when you consider that it's the ineptitude and lack of interest of the police (Brick Lane) that is partly to blame for there being so many bike thefts in London. Surely the police would want these figures to go down? Isn't provision of secure affordable bike storage a priority here? If enough was invested in secure storage we'd see bike thefts plummet in London.

Charging for secure bike storage is like basically being penalised for being responsible and doing your bit for the environment which imo sends out completely the wrong message.


----------



## Riverman (23 Jul 2010)

Ah one last thing. Let's say your bike costs £100 to replace and you decide to use the secure bike storage each day on your way to work. You work five days a week and get three weeks holiday a year.

You'll be charged £367.50 for a years use and you'll still probably have to walk abit to get to work or pay for public transport from the secure storage to your workplace. Wouldn't it therefore be better not to bother with safe storage and just take a chance with your bike? Or is this system only supposed to cater for people who use bikes that are worth more than £360 to replace?

And how much is that £367.50 in proportion to your salary if you were on minimum wage?


----------



## Riverman (23 Jul 2010)

User said:


> Except is £1.50 per day - not each time you take your bike in or out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The gym comparison doesn't hold much weight. Gyms are luxuries and commuting to work is a necessity. Why should safe cycle storage be a 'luxury'? It should be a basic right, the police and council are supposed to be there to prevent you being a victim of theft. Yes there is a certain amount of personal responsibility in this but whereever possible (And let's be honest this is possible here) you shouldn't be penalised for being responsible.

I take your point about there being more weathy commuters in london than your average UK city but if a city as wealthy as London can't provide free secure bike storage, what hope is there for poorer cities and again what sort of signal does it send out? 

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on a lot of this. However means testing might be a reasonable compromise, as use of these storage facilities should be free to those on basic incomes, benefits etc. The trouble with that though is it tends to be quite unpopular with the general public who see that as unfair.

edit: in response to the bit about hybrids. Yes, parking should be free for people driving hybrids in London as the benefits to the planet are very clear in reductions in CO2 emissions. This is the typical response you will get from people who believe that people should pay for the amount of carbon they use.


----------



## User169 (23 Jul 2010)

Riverman said:


> Ah one last thing. Let's say your bike costs £100 to replace and you decide to use the secure bike storage each day on your way to work. You work five days a week and get three weeks holiday a year.
> 
> You'll be charged £367.50 for a years use and you'll still probably have to walk abit to get to work or pay for public transport from the secure storage to your workplace. Wouldn't it therefore be better not to bother with safe storage and just take a chance with your bike? Or is this system only supposed to cater for people who use bikes that are worth more than £360 to replace?
> 
> And how much is that £367.50 in proportion to your salary if you were on minimum wage?



The London Bridge facility charges 200GBP for one year (although I accept that that might be a sizeable wodge of cash to get your hands on at one time). 

I think I paid 120 EUR for a year pass in 2009 - that was basically a shed with racks which couldn't be accessed 24h (shut from 11pm to 6am I think). Given that I leave my bike outside the house every night, I gave up on safe storage this year and just park it outside at the train station (along with hundreds of others).


----------



## spen666 (26 Jul 2010)

All these things people seem to think should be provided free are not of course FREE. 
They still have to be paid for somehow. They may be free at the point of use, but will have to be funded somehow.


Riverman, are you expecting the faily who can't even afford a £100 bike to fund the safe secure bike storage for other's expensive commuter bike? 

This notion of FREE is a myth


----------



## Ludwig (26 Jul 2010)

It sounds very cheap to me considereing the options with the congestion charge , the tube etc. It costs about £2.00 just to leave a bag at euston Station. In the old days you could simply chain your bike to a lamp post or railings but that is difficult these days.


----------



## Riverman (26 Jul 2010)

spen666 said:


> All these things people seem to think should be provided free are not of course FREE.
> They still have to be paid for somehow. They may be free at the point of use, but will have to be funded somehow.
> 
> 
> ...



I've said it before and I'll say it again only hopefully louder this time. Cycling generates a SURPLUS in terms of peoples disposable income. And in terms of carbon and in terms on how much we spend on healthcare it generates a surplus to the treasury. So why should people have to pay for basic cycling facilities? when the use of and construction of those facilities can be offset with savings elsewhere? 

Regardless of the savings to the NHS etc which do offset the costs of these schemes, we need to move toward an economy where the polluter pays. If we did, you would end up being paid to use these facilities. as you should imo. As a cyclist you should be paid for the contribution you make toward reaching our carbon reduction targets. Because this will bring big savings to the UK and the world in the long term


----------



## spen666 (27 Jul 2010)

OK, then if cycling generates a surplus, you provide the facilities and operate them for everybody from this invisible surplus


No?


Strange that isn't it.


You are living in cloud cuckoo land. Get yourself back into the real world.

Who has this surplus?

Who are you expecting to provide these facilities?

How do you propose to harness this so called surplus to pay for the facilities

alternatively lets all try alchemy instead, its far more likely to happen


----------



## Riverman (27 Jul 2010)

spen666 said:


> OK, then if cycling generates a surplus, you provide the facilities and operate them for everybody from this invisible surplus
> 
> 
> No?
> ...




It's the general way people think about transport that needs to change, and this is part of it. People should be encouraged to cycle, whenever possible. This is an opportunity to encourage people to cycle instead of using cars or public transport but is much less of an opportunity if it costs people almost £400 a year to use.For some people this is over half the cost of a season ticket on the tube for zone 1 and 2.

I'm not living in cloud cuckoo land, I'm living in the real world. A world where climate change is a reality, a world where poor people do exist and one where current pollution levels in London are at a record high. A world where all this pollution and lack of exercise has a high cost to society, environment and peoples lives, real costs that we should try and deal with.

That said not even Copenhagen has got cycle parking right but London could learn a lot from them in regards to cycling in general.
http://www.streetfilms.org

Edit: Means testing was mentioned earlier and again that would certainly be a step in the right direction but I still think that kinda sidesteps how we should begin to think about transport.


----------



## Riding in Circles (27 Jul 2010)

If it really is secure then it seems very reasonable.


----------



## spen666 (28 Jul 2010)

Riverman said:


> It's the general way people think about transport that needs to change, and this is part of it. People should be encouraged to cycle, whenever possible. This is an opportunity to encourage people to cycle instead of using cars or public transport but is much less of an opportunity if it costs people almost £400 a year to use.For some people this is over half the cost of a season ticket on the tube for zone 1 and 2.
> 
> I'm not living in cloud cuckoo land, I'm living in the real world. A world where climate change is a reality, a world where poor people do exist and one where current pollution levels in London are at a record high. A world where all this pollution and lack of exercise has a high cost to society, environment and peoples lives, real costs that we should try and deal with.
> 
> ...




lots of words, but not a single word that answers a single practical point that I raised.

Now if you live in the real world, deal with the real issues about the cost of the same


----------



## snorri (28 Jul 2010)

spen666 said:


> Who has this surplus?



The government considers itself to have a tax surplus which it presently uses to subsidise me and thousands of other car owners so that we are not required to pay the full costs of our habit.
It would not seem unreasonable to have some of this surplus providing subsidised or even free parking for cyclists.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Jul 2010)

spen666 said:


> OK, then if cycling generates a surplus, you provide the facilities and operate them for everybody from this invisible surplus
> 
> 
> No?
> ...


every time someone picks up a bike and switches from public transport or from a car the Treasury heaves a small sigh of relief. It's perfectly sensible to subsidise cycling if you consider that Crossrail is costing £16bn, and the new river crossing would have been about £3bn. We're easy on the environment, easy on the public purse, and, particularly in your case Spen, easy on the eye.


----------



## spen666 (29 Jul 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> every time someone picks up a bike and switches from public transport or from a car the Treasury heaves a small sigh of relief. It's perfectly sensible to subsidise cycling if you consider that Crossrail is costing £16bn, and the new river crossing would have been about £3bn. We're easy on the environment, easy on the public purse, and, particularly in your case Spen, easy on the eye.


You are living in cloud cuckoo land.

I repeat my question, where is the money going to come from to provide & run these facilities

There is no facility now. It will cost to provide the facility. We have massive national debts, so where is this money coming from? There is no pot of money slopping round to pay for this.

It has to be paid for from somewhere with new funding.

Either the users pay for it or the tax payer pays for it.

If the latter you have the situation of money being paid by amongst others those who can't even afford a bike paying to store bikes costing £1k or more in some instances.

Is that what you want?


----------



## Riverman (30 Jul 2010)

> I repeat my question, where is the money going to come from to provide & run these facilities




Perhaps we can subsidise it with the money that we would have lost had there been a Tory majority and we'd brought in £200,000 tax breaks for the top 5% of the population. Or how about all the money we've saved thanks to the Tories not being able to bring in marriage tax breaks. I'm sure that would pay for it and then some.

Then again, why can't we just tax polluters more and pay for it that way? The airline industry should be the first inline.


----------



## e-rider (30 Jul 2010)

paying to park a bike is fundamentally wrong in a society that is attempting to promote cycling to the population and reduce pollution - bike theft should be stamped out by getting tough on offenders and then there would be very little need for secure parking


----------



## spen666 (30 Jul 2010)

tundragumski said:


> paying to park a bike is fundamentally wrong in a society that is attempting to promote cycling to the population and reduce pollution - bike theft should be stamped out by getting tough on offenders and then there would be very little need for secure parking




And in the real world we do have bike theft and always will do.

So where is the funding for the bike parking coming from


----------



## CycleFun30 (31 Jul 2010)

The idea of paying parking fees for bicycles sounds a bit odd first...
However I would gladly pay £1.5 or even a little bit more for really secure parking at my workplace (an NHS hospital)...
Last summer I bought a nice second hand bike, went to work and locked the bike at the designated
storage area (with CCTV!), but after I finished work the bicycle had disappeared. I asked the security guys to check
the CCTV recordings and they actually saw the thieves - two young local kids... Needless to say the police could not find the bike.
I should have had a more secure lock, I know, since then I have purchased one... 
What I am trying to say that appareantly cycle thieves are still smarter than police, security cameras are only effective if 
someone is there to watch the recordings regulary, so if we want to make sure that our bikes are kept securely we do have 
to make financial sacrifices.


----------



## snorri (31 Jul 2010)

spen666 said:


> If the latter you have the situation of money being paid by amongst others those who can't even afford a bike paying to store bikes costing £1k or more in some instances.
> 
> Is that what you want?



We already have the situation of money being paid by amongst others those who can't even afford a car paying to save car owners the full costs of running their £10K+ cars.
That's not what I want.


----------



## e-rider (31 Jul 2010)

spen666 said:


> And in the real world we do have bike theft and always will do.
> 
> So where is the funding for the bike parking coming from



the tax payer of course


----------



## MacB (31 Jul 2010)

I think the facilities should be free at point of use, it can be paid out of general taxation as the benefits of more cyclists can be perceived to be in the general interests. I currently support and subsidise all sorts of things, I use or don't use, via taxation. Some I'm happier about than others, this one I'd be happy about,

Around the security aspect, you'd expect there to be savings in paperwork for police forces due to a reduction in thefts. It could be nice to be able to cycle places, on a nice bike, without having to carry your own bodyweight in locks.


----------



## spen666 (1 Aug 2010)

snorri said:


> We already have the situation of money being paid by amongst others those who can't even afford a car paying to save car owners the full costs of running their £10K+ cars.
> That's not what I want.




So you want to make the poor subsidise another group?


how about those using the facilities pay for it - radical idea eh? Not really, you are advocating it for motorists, but then arguing against it for cyclists by saying it should be subsidised.


----------



## snorri (1 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> So you want to make the poor subsidise another group?
> 
> 
> how about those using the facilities pay for it - radical idea eh? Not really, you are advocating it for motorists, but then arguing against it for cyclists by saying it should be subsidised.


I did not suggest the poor should subsidise anything, I have not spoken in favour of subsidising private motoring.
Just cannot understand why you should appear to condone the continued subsidisation of private motoring whilst at the same time opposing a subsidy to an eco friendly activity like commuter cycling.


----------



## MartinC (2 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> So where is the funding for the bike parking coming from




The same place the funding for free car parking (and other subsidised facilities for cars) comes from. Why is this difficult to understand?


----------



## Riverman (3 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> So you want to make the poor subsidise another group?
> 
> 
> how about those using the facilities pay for it - radical idea eh? Not really, you are advocating it for motorists, but then arguing against it for cyclists by saying it should be subsidised.



Spen this isn't meant as a dig at you, I'm just trying to work out why you have such strong feelings about incentives for bike use particularly those incentives that help the poor. I noticed some of your comments on this thread and can't help but notice the similarity with some of your opinions here. The thread is about offering free broadband to families in deprived areas.


----------



## spen666 (4 Aug 2010)

Riverman said:


> Spen this isn't meant as a dig at you, I'm just trying to work out why you have such strong feelings about incentives for bike use particularly those incentives that help the poor. I noticed some of your comments on this thread and can't help but notice the similarity with some of your opinions here. The thread is about offering free broadband to families in deprived areas.




.... you have not answered the key question as to where the money to offer this scheme free at point of use is going to come from? The scheme will cost money to operate. Who is going to pay these costs?


You can try to divert the issue by referring to other irrelevant issues, but this won't fund the scheme


Deal with the elephant in the room


----------



## Riverman (4 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> .... you have not answered the key question as to where the money to offer this scheme free at point of use is going to come from? The scheme will cost money to operate. Who is going to pay these costs?
> 
> 
> You can try to divert the issue by referring to other irrelevant issues, but this won't fund the scheme
> ...



Yes I have spen. I've mentioned several ways it could be paid for. Can anyone else back me up on this, without me having to repeat them again? It's getting a bit tiring having to repeat myself to be honest.


----------



## MartinC (4 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> .... you have not answered the key question as to where the money to offer this scheme free at point of use is going to come from? The scheme will cost money to operate. Who is going to pay these costs?
> 
> 
> You can try to divert the issue by referring to other irrelevant issues, but this won't fund the scheme
> ...




Many motoring schemes are free at the point of use and paid for out of general taxation. They cost billions of pounds. It doesn't seem unreasonable to pay for the piffling (by comparison) costs of cycling parking schemes in the same way especially as they may produce a cost saving in other areas of public spending.

The real elephant in the room is the enormous subsidy the taxpayer provides for car use.


----------



## spen666 (4 Aug 2010)

Riverman said:


> Yes I have spen. I've mentioned several ways it could be paid for. Can anyone else back me up on this, without me having to repeat them again? It's getting a bit tiring having to repeat myself to be honest.



You have not answered the question.

you have made glib remarks about others paying for it without identifying where the money is to come from?

If Local authorities are to pay for this, then is it to be from increases in council tax?, increase business rates? Cut to services-perhaps stopping emptying bins or reducing road maintenance?

If to be paid for from central government funding, then do you want to increase taxes to fund this scheme?
Perhaps you want to cut services - perhaps reduce drugs available for cancer treatment?
Cut expenditure in other way - reduce the wages paid to nurses?, reduce invalidity benefits?


You talk about removing "subsidies", without ever identifying what these "subsidies" are or how you are going to remove them.

Deal with the elephant in the room, not avoid the issue.

This scheme has to be funded somehow.


No one disputes the idea of secured parking is a good idea, but unless it is paid for, it is not going to happen


----------



## spen666 (4 Aug 2010)

MartinC said:


> Many motoring schemes are free at the point of use and paid for out of general taxation. They cost billions of pounds. It doesn't seem unreasonable to pay for the piffling (by comparison) costs of cycling parking schemes in the same way especially as they may produce a cost saving in other areas of public spending.
> 
> The real elephant in the room is the enormous subsidy the taxpayer provides for car use.



Martin, You seem to miss the point here. This is a debate about paying for a new expense

You seem to think that the scheme should be subsidised / paid for out of general taxation. So you are either advocating increasing taxation to raise the costs of such a scheme or are you advocating cuts to services?

The new money needs to come from somewhere


----------



## Riverman (4 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> You have not answered the question.
> 
> you have made glib remarks about others paying for it without identifying where the money is to come from?
> 
> ...



We're in a 'climate of cuts' at the moment. Budgets across the country are being cut not to pay for these schemes but to reduce our national levels of debt. If we can cut services, some budgets by almost 40% to pay off this debt, of course we can cut other services to pay for measly amount of money we'd need to pay for the safe storage facility fees.

We can do other things to raise revenue. We can increase the congestion charge. We can increase taxes on aviation, we can increase taxes in a lot of places if we wish. You've even had a few tax payers say on this thread that they would be very happy if they knew their taxes were paying fo rthese things.

You seem to be under this illusion that this is a 'subsidy'. It is a basic public service that should be paid for through tax expenditure, like road surfacing etc. Why do we pay to subsidise for public transport that's often being run in private hands anyway?



> No one disputes the idea of secured parking is a good idea, but unless it is paid for, it is not going to happen



It is paid for. It's paid for through tax etc The majority of the country runs off the back of public expenditure and as said some of these taxes are being used to fund schemes far less worthy than this. How about using all the billions we've saved from scrapping ID cards? How about scrapping trident etc etc... Just where do your priorities lie spen? Because it doesn't sound to me like your priorities lie with increasing access FOR EVERYONE to basic cycling facilities.




> perhaps reduce drugs available for cancer treatment?Cut expenditure in other way - reduce the wages paid to nurses?, reduce invalidity benefits?



Okay this is just ridiculous. Why do you feel the need to give such completely outlandish examples? It's sensationalist to the extreme. I tell you what though, there would be far less cancer in society if many more people were using cycling as their main form of transport. And less cancer means less need for drugs! and less need to spend money on drugs.... is it so hard to make these connections? it seems quite simple to me. More people cycling, more people doing exercise, less obesity therefore less cancer risk... less need for expensive cancer drugs = less public spending on healthcare...

As for reducing the wages of nurses... where did that come from? Why the need to single professions out here? They'd be the last person to have their pay cut on my watch. 

And again spen, more people cycling, less people needing invalidity benefits. I imagine many people at that end of the income spectrum are using bikes to get around anyway btw. i certainly think cycling could help people with mental health problems and £1.50 a day is rather a lot of money if you have to exist on a giro.


----------



## spen666 (4 Aug 2010)

lots of words Riverman , but no answer to the question

Where is the money going to come from to pay for this?

You talk about cutting taxes, increasing services etc

Byh cutting taxes you are creating the bizarre situation where some of the poorest people in society including those who cannot afford to buy even a supermarket bike are being expected to subsidize people ridsing bikes that can easily cost £1k +.

Alternatively, you are taking services from those similarily poor people to pay for the bike parking of those who can afford expensive bikes.

Hardly equitable?




You also seem to miss the point that to use the tube to get into Central London is going to cost you far more than the cost of cycle parking at £1.50 per day. The miniumum zone 1 single fare on tube is £1.80 each way or £3.60 return. So to cycle to work is going to save money, even if paying the £1.50 parking cost. There is therefore no need to subsidise the bike parking for the rich or the poor.

Let the users pay the costs rather than expecting others to pick up your costs.

Your arguments are full of fancy words, but the barriers you claim exist to prevent cycling to work do not exist in reality when you take into account the savings made on public transport costs,


----------



## MacB (4 Aug 2010)

Spen, there are multiple ways in which, free at point of use, secure cycle parking can be claimed to pay for itself. Reduced congestion, healthier people, less polution, less bike crime etc. But it's a chicken and egg scenario as the cost savings are correlated to useage and no-one has a crystal ball. Maybe the lack of facility is just a smokescreen used by those who have no intention of ever actually cycling.

There are journeys I don't make by bike due to concerns about bike security.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> You are living in cloud cuckoo land.
> 
> I repeat my question, where is the money going to come from to provide & run these facilities
> 
> ...


the choice is between massive expenditure on roads and underground railways and less expenditure on cycling. With the added bonus that we cut our carbon output. 

And, as for equity....who cares? Seriously. Taxes are not equitable. They're not supposed to be equitable.


----------



## Riverman (4 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> lots of words Riverman , but no answer to the question
> 
> Where is the money going to come from to pay for this?
> 
> ...




Spen you're getting a bit desperate now. No where did I say I wanted to tax the poor to pay for these facilities. I even said I'd be perfectly happy with a system charging combined with means testing, although free at the point of use is preferable.



> You also seem to miss the point that to use the tube to get into Central London is going to cost you far more than the cost of cycle parking at £1.50 per day. The miniumum zone 1 single fare on tube is £1.80 each way or £3.60 return. So to cycle to work is going to save money, even if paying the £1.50 parking cost. There is therefore no need to subsidise the bike parking for the rich or the poor.
> Let the users pay the costs rather than expecting others to pick up your costs.
> 
> Your arguments are full of fancy words, but the barriers you claim exist to prevent cycling to work do not exist in reality when you take into account the savings made on public transport costs,



If anyone is living in "cloud cuckoo land" that quote just proved it's you. Who in their right mind thinks cycling is the same experience as using public transport. I also notice how you quote the zone one cost rather than the zone one and two cost.

Using public transport may be a headache but it's relatively straightforward. You wait for a bus, you pay your fare you sit down. You make a connection, you sit down etc. Maybe you have to do a bit of walking in between but that's it.

A bike requires an initial investment i.e.- a bike, an investment which can be quite considerable for someone on a low income. It requires maintenance costs, which for the unsavvy types can be considerable. There's also the conditions in which you're cycling. You don't have to put up with those *'costs'* on public transport, costs such as being freezing cold, having to fight against winds, dodgy drivers putting your life at risk etc. For some people cycling also requires training which again can be considered a cost. 


You're sweaty when you get to your destination, you have to wear different clothes sometimes and may have to invest in extra clothing.

And we're rewarded for putting up with all that shoot, for lowering our carbon footprint and lowering our chances of being a burden on the NHS, by being charged to park our bikes securely? 

It's no wonder people feel disenfranchised.

As for taxes, there are times when people should be taxed for being irresponsible. For using the bus or a car for example and increasing carbon emissions and lowering the quality of air in London, when you're perfectly able to use a bike to get to work instead. Those are fair taxes imo. People who can be bothered to put the effort in to use a bike to get to work, should be richly rewarded not penalised when they want to prevent their bike being stolen.


----------



## spen666 (4 Aug 2010)

Erm Riverman what planet are you on.

You want the parking subsidized from taxes- these are paid by the poor as well as the rich. Those poor peopole who can't afford a bike and are working for minimum wages will be subsidising the bike parking for those who can afford expensicve bikes.

I'd happily quote the travel costs from zone 3 to Zone 1 it is more than £1.80 for a zone one journet. so for example someone cycling from say Stratford in xone 3 to Zone 1 is going to save far more than the £2.10 per day that someone cycling within zone 1 alone would save - even after paying for parking of bike. Yet despite the cyclist saving money already you are claiming people can't afford to pay for the bike parking? 

Now you are saying people can't afford to cycle because of the initial cost of buying a bike. Well in that case, the cost of parking the bike is irrelevant as these poor people won't have a bike anyway. Tell you what lets give everyone bikes, cycling equipment, free parking, showers etc. The money will magically appear from no where in your cloud cuckoo land.

These facilities need to be paid for and still you will not say how they are to be paid for. Subsidies have to come from somewhere- either increasding taxes or reducing other services. Both of which are going to affect the poor


----------



## Riverman (4 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> Erm Riverman what planet are you on.
> 
> You want the parking subsidized from taxes- these are paid by the poor as well as the rich. Those poor peopole who can't afford a bike and are working for minimum wages will be subsidising the bike parking for those who can afford expensicve bikes.
> 
> ...




This is getting quite tiring now as you're not bothering to read things I've written previously. I made clear reference to the cost of season tickets and the yearly cost of this service. It is expensive even when you take the cost of a season ticket into account. This would suggest it is overpriced.

And again, I'll repeat that no where have I said poor people should be taxed to pay for this service. So please stop using that to try and construct some sort of argument.

I've also said I support charging for the services as long as there is means testing although as I have said I think free at the point of use is preferable.



I have also said again and again how these things could be paid for. It's not my fault you keep ignoring it. Does anyone else think Spen is just ignoring almost everything I say?


----------



## spen666 (4 Aug 2010)

Riverman said:


> This is getting quite tiring now as you're not bothering to read things I've written previously. I made clear reference to the cost of season tickets and the yearly cost of this service. It is expensive even when you take the cost of a season ticket into account. This would suggest it is overpriced.
> 
> And again, I'll repeat that no where have I said poor people should be taxed to pay for this service. So please stop using that to try and construct some sort of argument.


So where is this magic money going to come from to pay you for your hardship in cycling?


you are right, it is getting tiring now.

It is very tiring asking the same question as to where the money is going to appear from to pay the costs up front of setting up such a scheme and running the scheme




Mythical FUTURE savings do not pay the costs that are needed to set up the scheme. Those costs need to come from somewhere.

Perhaps the money fairy will pay these costs? If not are you going to increase taxes which will have an effect on poor people making them poorer or are you going to cut services to find the money? Of course cutting services will affect poor people as well.


----------



## Riverman (4 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> So where is this magic money going to come from to pay you for your hardship in cycling?
> 
> 
> you are right, it is getting tiring now.
> ...



There's about a million ways you could raise the money to pay for the scheme, bearing in mind that in the long term the scheme should pay for itself. Especially if London is able to avoid the £300 million pound fine it will get from the EU if pollution levels in London remain as they are. Something I have mentioned previously. Personally I think raising the congestion charge slightly or increasing aviation taxes would help to pay for it, or using various other streams of income I have suggested. The point is, people should not be having to pay for secure cycle storage if they can't afford it. it's totally inequitable to suggest so, it's very unfair. Why the hell should some poor person have to risk having their bike nicked? Whilst those on higher incomes bear a tiny cost to prevent this? To protect their shiney bikes which let's be honest here spen they can do without. If a poor person loses their bike, it can be very damaging to their lives.

The service should be there to look after everyone who cycles, not just the rich. 

Lastly I'm not someone who believes in massive cuts to the public sector to help reduce the deficit, I'm someone who believes in tax rises, particularly those that hit the very wealthy, and modest cuts to the public sector to reduce the deficit.

Funding secure cycling facilities is a really good thing in these kinda times as more and more people will be eager to take up cycling as they find themselves unemployed etc. It's quite likely bike crime will increase too if we don't ensure the facilities are there to prevent it.


----------



## MartinC (5 Aug 2010)

spen666 said:


> Martin, You seem to miss the point here. This is a debate about paying for a new expense
> 
> You seem to think that the scheme should be subsidised / paid for out of general taxation. So you are either advocating increasing taxation to raise the costs of such a scheme or are you advocating cuts to services?
> 
> The new money needs to come from somewhere




I'm not sure it's me that's missing the point. It could be paid for for by simply removing a minute fraction of the subsidy provided from taxation for car use. For example cancelling one road "improvement" scheme could pay for it for many years.

You're playing the old game of insisting that the status quo is maintained by requiring anyone who proposes a change to detail exactly how it's implemented but avoiding justifying how the current situation is maintained.

The last time I saw an analysis of government figures it showed that each car in the country was being subsidised by about £2000 per annum. Can you justify why this shouldn't be changed?


----------



## spen666 (5 Aug 2010)

Riverman said:


> There's about a million ways you could raise the money to pay for the scheme, bearing in mind that in the long term the scheme should pay for itself. Especially if London is able to avoid the £300 million pound fine it will get from the EU if pollution levels in London remain as they are. Something I have mentioned previously. Personally I think raising the congestion charge slightly or increasing aviation taxes would help to pay for it, or using various other streams of income I have suggested.




So you increase these taxes- that's fine - not going to argue on the raising of these taxes.
Now you have raised £x million pounds in taxes. How can you justify spending this on a luxury like cycle parking rather than say more teachers or drugs to treat say cancer patients or reducing hospital waiting times?



> The point is, people should not be having to pay for secure cycle storage if they can't afford it. it's totally inequitable to suggest so, it's very unfair. Why the hell should some poor person have to risk having their bike nicked? Whilst those on higher incomes bear a tiny cost to prevent this? To protect their shiney bikes which let's be honest here spen they can do without. If a poor person loses their bike, it can be very damaging to their lives.


 As already explaineed this idea of not being able to afford cycle parking is a nonsense as cycling to work would be cheasper than any form of transport people are using now - eg zone 1 return on tube = £3.60 parking for bike =£1.50. Still leaves a net £2.60 per day minimum saving. If travelling from outside zone 1. savings will be more


> The service should be there to look after everyone who cycles, not just the rich.
> 
> Lastly I'm not someone who believes in massive cuts to the public sector to help reduce the deficit, I'm someone who believes in tax rises, particularly those that hit the very wealthy, and modest cuts to the public sector to reduce the deficit.
> 
> Funding secure cycling facilities is a really good thing in these kinda times as more and more people will be eager to take up cycling as they find themselves unemployed etc. It's quite likely bike crime will increase too if we don't ensure the facilities are there to prevent it.



People will not be cycling into central London if they are not working there and if they are there & not working, they are unlikely to be needing to leave their bikes unattended are they?


----------



## Riverman (5 Aug 2010)

> N





> ow you have raised £x million pounds in taxes. How can you justify spending this on a luxury like cycle parking rather than say more teachers or drugs to treat say cancer patients or reducing hospital waiting times?




This is such a completely ludicrous argument. This has nothing to do with cancer drugs. The budget for this would be entirely seperate from it, it would be part of public transport. You could make the above argument about just about everything we spend public money on that is why it's ludicrous spen. But if we spend money on this we might not have enough money to pay for this, or this or this or this... It is ludicrous bordering on insanity to suggest paying for this will affect whether we can pay for cancer drugs.

It reminds me a bit of the people who argue that we shouldn't spending money on prescription heroin for heroin addicts because we might not be able to pay for cancer drugs even though the evidence shows that heroin prescription is a very effective form of treatment for heroin addicts and pays for itself through reduced crime rates. The people who object to it hate heroin addicts, this they should be made to suffer and use this ludicrous cancer drug funding argument to try and deny them treatment.
 


> People will not be cycling into central London if they are not working there and if they are there & not working, they are unlikely to be needing to leave their bikes unattended are they?




I'd have thought people cycle into central London to do lots of things.......... 




like you know... shopping, going to a restaurant, doing the groceries, going to see people. going to the park..... Do they even have to have a reason to go there?


By the in regards to cycle into work, which is actually not what this topic is meant to be about, it would be perfectly resonable to require large businesses in London to build secure cycle storage for their employees.

This however this is a public service for everyone to use spen, not just people cycling into work. The fact this simple point has been lost on you even though we've been discussing it over eight pages gives me an indication that you have been missing a very basic point throughout this discussion.


----------



## decca234uk (31 Aug 2010)

I've just come back from cycle friendly Munster and parking is free for cyclists all round the city.


----------

