Parking fees for bikes?

[snorri]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.... 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

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]

.... 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

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]

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]

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]

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?[/uote]


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

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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,

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]

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]

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

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?