Parking fees for bikes?

[BigSteev]

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]

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]

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



This isn't something you can blame on Boris. It's a local authority thing.



We charge for other health related things, such as gyms and swimming pools, dentists and prescriptions. Health isn't something that the state does for you - it's something that you have to take responsibility for yourself.

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.

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]

£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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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



So does charging for gyms make no snese? Or charging for swimming pools? Both of these provide benefits to wider society as well as the individual.



I think you're cranking up the rhetoric without understanding the context here. We're talking about cycle parking in London. The research shows that the overwhelming majority of cyclists in London are not the poorest of the population - in fact they tend to be amongst the better off.

And it is the bikes being ridden by this group of people who are most at risk of being stolen, as they have a resale value and London bike thieves are quite discerning. On the whole, London cyclists can afford to pay £1.50 a day for parking and many would happily do so - which is why such schemes are so popular.



We charge for car parking - including for hybrids. If your criteria are used, then why shouldn't low emmission car drivers argue that they should get free secure parking?

Not everything can be free. We have other priorities, such as education, health services, the elderly and the homeless, which have a far more legitimate demand on the public purse than cyclists.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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