Brighton and Hove City Council’s £18m parking money-spinner

Parking fees in Brighton and Hove raised more than £18 million in the last year.

The money, which came from a mixture of charges, permits and parking tickets, is a rise from the £16.8 million raised in 2009/10.

After costs were deducted, Brighton and Hove City Council made a profit of about £9.5 million.

This is before the inflation-busting rises in tariffs that the Green-led council imposed in April this year.

However local authority bosses defended the figure, saying that the surplus was used to fund concessionary |bus fares, cycle lanes and improving roads.

It admitted that parking was a difficult issue to deal with but bosses said they were committed to trying to reduce congestion in the city centre.

The figure was revealed in the city council’s annual parking |report.

In 2010/11 there was a 5.9% rise in |the number of parking tickets that |were issued – from 109,000 to 116,000.

This is despite the number of civil enforcement officers, more commonly known as wardens, falling in recent years.

Motorists said that the increase in both revenue and tickets issued was a sign that the number of cars on the streets is not dropping.

 

What the council says

Ian Davey, chairman of the council’s transport committee, said: “I am pleased to note that parking services continue to develop services in an innovative way and in response to public feedback.

“Last year a survey showed that 65% of people wanted to renew their permit online. Online renewals are now available for resident, trader and business permits and sets out the timetable for the online renewal of other permit types.

“As well as representing good customer service this type of initiative also helps to reduce traffic as residents no longer need to travel to the parking information centre at Hove Town Hall.

“The objective to ‘reduce congestion and keep traffic moving’ is also being met through a range of initiatives including the introduction of static CCTV enforcement on key routes into the city such as London Road, Lewes Road and the North Street/ Western Road corridor.

“The number of parking Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) issued in Brighton and Hove increased slightly this year from 109,000 to 116,000.

“This follows six years of falling PCN numbers.”

Coun Davey added profit from parking is spent on providing free bus passes for the elderly and disabled as well as a range of other improvement projects.

A council spokesman said: “Parking controls in Brighton and Hove are essential to keep traffic moving and provide access for residents, visitors and businesses.

“Parts of the city are amongst the most densely populated in the country. The population is estimated to increase to 283,700 by 2026 so pressure on limited parking space will continue to increase.

“Brighton and Hove is also a major tourist destination with eight million visitors annually.

“Parking plays a vital role in support of the city’s tourism strategy and managing the city’s gateways which are the first arrival point for all those coming to enjoy all that Brighton and Hove has to offer.

“Balancing the needs of residents, visitors and businesses is key to sustainable economic growth and success.”

 

What the businessman says

Stuart Wilkie, spokesman for traders in The Lanes, said: “The question is at what price are businesses losing money so the council can make its 50% profit?

“There’s no level of trader that will get that sort of profit and it comes at a time when businesses are losing trade.

“I do appreciate that the money they raise goes towards good causes and helping the vulnerable get on the bus.

“But maybe in all of this income there is room for some kind of rebate for motorists and city centre users.

“We as traders welcome any form of trade no matter how the person has got here.

“It really doesn’t matter and I’m certainly not pro-car above other forms of transport.

“I think what the traders are looking for is something from the council’s income to balance the needs of the car user with the needs of those using other transport systems.”

 

What the motorist says

Steve Percy, left, of People’s Parking Protest and a member of the city’s transport partnership, said: “If the number of tickets is going up, the permits are going up and on street income is going up then it appears to me that the number of motor cars is on the rise.

“I always thought we were going through a period where people were turning towards public transport but this seems to say otherwise.

“What bothers me is that the money made from the motorist goes to wider transport projects but I can’t think of any of the spending which favours those in cars.

“It seems to be diverted to cycling and bus projects.”

He added: “Most of those caught driving in bus lanes I imagine would be in North Street or Western Road, I can’t think of anyone that would do it on the A23 or the A259 coast road.

“I’m not surprised either as the city centre is terrible and for anyone who is not familiar with the city it’s quite easy to get into the wrong lane somewhere and end up in a bus lane.”

 

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:54pm Wed 3 Oct 12

bogs says...

I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?
I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns? bogs

2:23pm Wed 3 Oct 12

banargustrolls says...

Commendable choice of headline. This is clearly now a big part of the council's income and will no-doubt make **** sure it improves that huge figure year-on-year: using all manner of tactics that will frustrate and further infuriate the public.
Brighton is just the most ridiculous place to travel around - the cost of buses and parking is making a mockery of its inhabitants.
Commendable choice of headline. This is clearly now a big part of the council's income and will no-doubt make **** sure it improves that huge figure year-on-year: using all manner of tactics that will frustrate and further infuriate the public. Brighton is just the most ridiculous place to travel around - the cost of buses and parking is making a mockery of its inhabitants. banargustrolls

2:39pm Wed 3 Oct 12

HJarrs says...

bogs wrote:
I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?
I don'y particularly like people paying high parking charges, yet for many there are already alternatives but there is a stubborn resistance to change, despite increasing motoring charges.

The Green Party is a minority adminstration and it would be easy for Labour and the Conservatives to overturn parking charges if they so wish, but they choose not to do so. It is clear to me that they are quite happy for the Greens to take the stick for unavoidable cuts and increases to parking charges and have absolutely no intention of reversing these if they get the chance of power. Politics is a dirty game.

In the mean time, money from the parking charges is being used to pump prime investment into schemes such as the Old Shoreham Rd, Lewes Rd, changes etc, schemes that are desperately needed to move the city forward (for evey £ of council money they are generally levering in £5 to £10 of outside funding, which is pretty good by any measure). We need modal shift in this city to get large numbers of people out of cars that clog the streets and put off business and it seems to me that we are now moving that way.
[quote][p][bold]bogs[/bold] wrote: I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?[/p][/quote]I don'y particularly like people paying high parking charges, yet for many there are already alternatives but there is a stubborn resistance to change, despite increasing motoring charges. The Green Party is a minority adminstration and it would be easy for Labour and the Conservatives to overturn parking charges if they so wish, but they choose not to do so. It is clear to me that they are quite happy for the Greens to take the stick for unavoidable cuts and increases to parking charges and have absolutely no intention of reversing these if they get the chance of power. Politics is a dirty game. In the mean time, money from the parking charges is being used to pump prime investment into schemes such as the Old Shoreham Rd, Lewes Rd, changes etc, schemes that are desperately needed to move the city forward (for evey £ of council money they are generally levering in £5 to £10 of outside funding, which is pretty good by any measure). We need modal shift in this city to get large numbers of people out of cars that clog the streets and put off business and it seems to me that we are now moving that way. HJarrs

2:48pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

More Green Party propaganda from HJarrs.
You still havent explained why the Green party issued a press release stating that there was overwhelming support for the Lewes Road scheme when in fact of 31,000 people, only 4,000 responded and about 2,650 said they wanted it. 18 per cent who responded from outside the city, therefore, we actually have no idea how many of those 2,600 are not even local.
How can you live with your conscience knowing that an elected party is telling blatant lies?
And yes, the others lie too, but it doesn't make it right.
You really don't care about people just your own Green ideology and if lies support it you don't event care about that.
Shameful behaviour.
More Green Party propaganda from HJarrs. You still havent explained why the Green party issued a press release stating that there was overwhelming support for the Lewes Road scheme when in fact of 31,000 people, only 4,000 responded and about 2,650 said they wanted it. 18 per cent who responded from outside the city, therefore, we actually have no idea how many of those 2,600 are not even local. How can you live with your conscience knowing that an elected party is telling blatant lies? And yes, the others lie too, but it doesn't make it right. You really don't care about people just your own Green ideology and if lies support it you don't event care about that. Shameful behaviour. Maxwell's Ghost

2:51pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Fight_Back says...

bogs wrote:
I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?
Indeed, there's been a dangerous hole in the Old Shoreham Road going West almost opposite the tile shop which has been there months with just a few cones around it. Likewise in Goldstone Crescent works have taken weeks for a simple repair but they've dug a big hole and left it. There are numerous other examples across the city where the council are ignoring key repairs in favour of their pet projects. They certainly can't complain they don't have the money ( unless they've spent it all on barely used cycle lanes ). The Old Shoreham Road hole actually pushes cyclists out into the traffic so you'd have thought this council would have been quick to fix it.
[quote][p][bold]bogs[/bold] wrote: I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?[/p][/quote]Indeed, there's been a dangerous hole in the Old Shoreham Road going West almost opposite the tile shop which has been there months with just a few cones around it. Likewise in Goldstone Crescent works have taken weeks for a simple repair but they've dug a big hole and left it. There are numerous other examples across the city where the council are ignoring key repairs in favour of their pet projects. They certainly can't complain they don't have the money ( unless they've spent it all on barely used cycle lanes ). The Old Shoreham Road hole actually pushes cyclists out into the traffic so you'd have thought this council would have been quick to fix it. Fight_Back

3:16pm Wed 3 Oct 12

HJarrs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
More Green Party propaganda from HJarrs. You still havent explained why the Green party issued a press release stating that there was overwhelming support for the Lewes Road scheme when in fact of 31,000 people, only 4,000 responded and about 2,650 said they wanted it. 18 per cent who responded from outside the city, therefore, we actually have no idea how many of those 2,600 are not even local. How can you live with your conscience knowing that an elected party is telling blatant lies? And yes, the others lie too, but it doesn't make it right. You really don't care about people just your own Green ideology and if lies support it you don't event care about that. Shameful behaviour.
Thought I gave you a thorough critique yesterday.

I find it very easy to live with my conscience on this subject as the figures you regularly post up continue to demonstrate that most people did not feel motivated to even comment and those that did showed a majority in favour and, as we both know, this was a consultation, not a vote.

But as usual you fail to make the case why I should vote for anyone else. Will they make the radical change needed for B&H to be a better place to live? I see no sign of this. I can't understand why you and a lot of other posters wish to continue to tie future generations to a continuing dependancy on high energy and emissions transport.that is also costly when incomes will be declining for years to come. We need to build the infrastructure now to change as has already been done with great success in the Netherlands, Germany etc.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: More Green Party propaganda from HJarrs. You still havent explained why the Green party issued a press release stating that there was overwhelming support for the Lewes Road scheme when in fact of 31,000 people, only 4,000 responded and about 2,650 said they wanted it. 18 per cent who responded from outside the city, therefore, we actually have no idea how many of those 2,600 are not even local. How can you live with your conscience knowing that an elected party is telling blatant lies? And yes, the others lie too, but it doesn't make it right. You really don't care about people just your own Green ideology and if lies support it you don't event care about that. Shameful behaviour.[/p][/quote]Thought I gave you a thorough critique yesterday. I find it very easy to live with my conscience on this subject as the figures you regularly post up continue to demonstrate that most people did not feel motivated to even comment and those that did showed a majority in favour and, as we both know, this was a consultation, not a vote. But as usual you fail to make the case why I should vote for anyone else. Will they make the radical change needed for B&H to be a better place to live? I see no sign of this. I can't understand why you and a lot of other posters wish to continue to tie future generations to a continuing dependancy on high energy and emissions transport.that is also costly when incomes will be declining for years to come. We need to build the infrastructure now to change as has already been done with great success in the Netherlands, Germany etc. HJarrs

4:47pm Wed 3 Oct 12

F in L says...

'COSTS' where what NCP took in enforcement!
'COSTS' where what NCP took in enforcement! F in L

5:29pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Hoarder12345444 says...

HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote: More Green Party propaganda from HJarrs. You still havent explained why the Green party issued a press release stating that there was overwhelming support for the Lewes Road scheme when in fact of 31,000 people, only 4,000 responded and about 2,650 said they wanted it. 18 per cent who responded from outside the city, therefore, we actually have no idea how many of those 2,600 are not even local. How can you live with your conscience knowing that an elected party is telling blatant lies? And yes, the others lie too, but it doesn't make it right. You really don't care about people just your own Green ideology and if lies support it you don't event care about that. Shameful behaviour.
Thought I gave you a thorough critique yesterday. I find it very easy to live with my conscience on this subject as the figures you regularly post up continue to demonstrate that most people did not feel motivated to even comment and those that did showed a majority in favour and, as we both know, this was a consultation, not a vote. But as usual you fail to make the case why I should vote for anyone else. Will they make the radical change needed for B&H to be a better place to live? I see no sign of this. I can't understand why you and a lot of other posters wish to continue to tie future generations to a continuing dependancy on high energy and emissions transport.that is also costly when incomes will be declining for years to come. We need to build the infrastructure now to change as has already been done with great success in the Netherlands, Germany etc.
So I ask you HJarrs what is sustainable transport exactly, that isn't dependant on energy? None of it is. Buses churn out more emissions than any frugal car and do about 5mpg. Trains run on electricity which comes from power stations, which in turns are either nuclear powered or fossil fuel powered. I supposed Bicycles and walking is the only true mode of green transport. What is different in the Netherlands? Do they have flying electric cars? Trams perhaps is the only thing I can think of. You are a fool to think everything can become green when we all know 99 per cent of new cars still use a combustion engine because there is no equal alternative built yet!!


All the Greens do is come up with pathetic excuses and try to change peoples way of life with blatant nonsense that all must change and everyone must not drive cars and drive a milkfloat instead, get a grip. Cars are the cheapest and most accessible form of transport around, that is a fact, and the high amounts of cars clearly rams that home!!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: More Green Party propaganda from HJarrs. You still havent explained why the Green party issued a press release stating that there was overwhelming support for the Lewes Road scheme when in fact of 31,000 people, only 4,000 responded and about 2,650 said they wanted it. 18 per cent who responded from outside the city, therefore, we actually have no idea how many of those 2,600 are not even local. How can you live with your conscience knowing that an elected party is telling blatant lies? And yes, the others lie too, but it doesn't make it right. You really don't care about people just your own Green ideology and if lies support it you don't event care about that. Shameful behaviour.[/p][/quote]Thought I gave you a thorough critique yesterday. I find it very easy to live with my conscience on this subject as the figures you regularly post up continue to demonstrate that most people did not feel motivated to even comment and those that did showed a majority in favour and, as we both know, this was a consultation, not a vote. But as usual you fail to make the case why I should vote for anyone else. Will they make the radical change needed for B&H to be a better place to live? I see no sign of this. I can't understand why you and a lot of other posters wish to continue to tie future generations to a continuing dependancy on high energy and emissions transport.that is also costly when incomes will be declining for years to come. We need to build the infrastructure now to change as has already been done with great success in the Netherlands, Germany etc.[/p][/quote]So I ask you HJarrs what is sustainable transport exactly, that isn't dependant on energy? None of it is. Buses churn out more emissions than any frugal car and do about 5mpg. Trains run on electricity which comes from power stations, which in turns are either nuclear powered or fossil fuel powered. I supposed Bicycles and walking is the only true mode of green transport. What is different in the Netherlands? Do they have flying electric cars? Trams perhaps is the only thing I can think of. You are a fool to think everything can become green when we all know 99 per cent of new cars still use a combustion engine because there is no equal alternative built yet!! All the Greens do is come up with pathetic excuses and try to change peoples way of life with blatant nonsense that all must change and everyone must not drive cars and drive a milkfloat instead, get a grip. Cars are the cheapest and most accessible form of transport around, that is a fact, and the high amounts of cars clearly rams that home!! Hoarder12345444

6:15pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Stu says...

Went shopping in Crawley last weekend. £2.50 for 2 hours parking in County Mall. So well done Green Party, you have driven me to driving all that way up the M23 and pumping out far more CO2 than I would have done going into Brighton.
Went shopping in Crawley last weekend. £2.50 for 2 hours parking in County Mall. So well done Green Party, you have driven me to driving all that way up the M23 and pumping out far more CO2 than I would have done going into Brighton. Stu

7:54pm Wed 3 Oct 12

HJarrs says...

Stu wrote:
Went shopping in Crawley last weekend. £2.50 for 2 hours parking in County Mall. So well done Green Party, you have driven me to driving all that way up the M23 and pumping out far more CO2 than I would have done going into Brighton.
Now that is just silly. You spend a gallon of petrol at £6 per gallon. I think you just fancied the drive.
[quote][p][bold]Stu[/bold] wrote: Went shopping in Crawley last weekend. £2.50 for 2 hours parking in County Mall. So well done Green Party, you have driven me to driving all that way up the M23 and pumping out far more CO2 than I would have done going into Brighton.[/p][/quote]Now that is just silly. You spend a gallon of petrol at £6 per gallon. I think you just fancied the drive. HJarrs

8:06pm Wed 3 Oct 12

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
bogs wrote:
I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?
I don'y particularly like people paying high parking charges, yet for many there are already alternatives but there is a stubborn resistance to change, despite increasing motoring charges.

The Green Party is a minority adminstration and it would be easy for Labour and the Conservatives to overturn parking charges if they so wish, but they choose not to do so. It is clear to me that they are quite happy for the Greens to take the stick for unavoidable cuts and increases to parking charges and have absolutely no intention of reversing these if they get the chance of power. Politics is a dirty game.

In the mean time, money from the parking charges is being used to pump prime investment into schemes such as the Old Shoreham Rd, Lewes Rd, changes etc, schemes that are desperately needed to move the city forward (for evey £ of council money they are generally levering in £5 to £10 of outside funding, which is pretty good by any measure). We need modal shift in this city to get large numbers of people out of cars that clog the streets and put off business and it seems to me that we are now moving that way.
I spoke to a member of the Transport Planning team today and She told me they didn't have enough money to build Bridges for Pedestrians and Cyclists.£18million added to Grants that are obtainable would go a long way towards building an infrastructure at the Gyratory that would get Pedestrians and Cyclists across this busy intersection.If the City wants to go forward it needs to look at long term solutions rather than a short term fix.Why does everything have to be constructed at ground level?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bogs[/bold] wrote: I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?[/p][/quote]I don'y particularly like people paying high parking charges, yet for many there are already alternatives but there is a stubborn resistance to change, despite increasing motoring charges. The Green Party is a minority adminstration and it would be easy for Labour and the Conservatives to overturn parking charges if they so wish, but they choose not to do so. It is clear to me that they are quite happy for the Greens to take the stick for unavoidable cuts and increases to parking charges and have absolutely no intention of reversing these if they get the chance of power. Politics is a dirty game. In the mean time, money from the parking charges is being used to pump prime investment into schemes such as the Old Shoreham Rd, Lewes Rd, changes etc, schemes that are desperately needed to move the city forward (for evey £ of council money they are generally levering in £5 to £10 of outside funding, which is pretty good by any measure). We need modal shift in this city to get large numbers of people out of cars that clog the streets and put off business and it seems to me that we are now moving that way.[/p][/quote]I spoke to a member of the Transport Planning team today and She told me they didn't have enough money to build Bridges for Pedestrians and Cyclists.£18million added to Grants that are obtainable would go a long way towards building an infrastructure at the Gyratory that would get Pedestrians and Cyclists across this busy intersection.If the City wants to go forward it needs to look at long term solutions rather than a short term fix.Why does everything have to be constructed at ground level? rolivan

8:15pm Wed 3 Oct 12

HJarrs says...

Hoarder12345444 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote: More Green Party propaganda from HJarrs. You still havent explained why the Green party issued a press release stating that there was overwhelming support for the Lewes Road scheme when in fact of 31,000 people, only 4,000 responded and about 2,650 said they wanted it. 18 per cent who responded from outside the city, therefore, we actually have no idea how many of those 2,600 are not even local. How can you live with your conscience knowing that an elected party is telling blatant lies? And yes, the others lie too, but it doesn't make it right. You really don't care about people just your own Green ideology and if lies support it you don't event care about that. Shameful behaviour.
Thought I gave you a thorough critique yesterday. I find it very easy to live with my conscience on this subject as the figures you regularly post up continue to demonstrate that most people did not feel motivated to even comment and those that did showed a majority in favour and, as we both know, this was a consultation, not a vote. But as usual you fail to make the case why I should vote for anyone else. Will they make the radical change needed for B&H to be a better place to live? I see no sign of this. I can't understand why you and a lot of other posters wish to continue to tie future generations to a continuing dependancy on high energy and emissions transport.that is also costly when incomes will be declining for years to come. We need to build the infrastructure now to change as has already been done with great success in the Netherlands, Germany etc.
So I ask you HJarrs what is sustainable transport exactly, that isn't dependant on energy? None of it is. Buses churn out more emissions than any frugal car and do about 5mpg. Trains run on electricity which comes from power stations, which in turns are either nuclear powered or fossil fuel powered. I supposed Bicycles and walking is the only true mode of green transport. What is different in the Netherlands? Do they have flying electric cars? Trams perhaps is the only thing I can think of. You are a fool to think everything can become green when we all know 99 per cent of new cars still use a combustion engine because there is no equal alternative built yet!!


All the Greens do is come up with pathetic excuses and try to change peoples way of life with blatant nonsense that all must change and everyone must not drive cars and drive a milkfloat instead, get a grip. Cars are the cheapest and most accessible form of transport around, that is a fact, and the high amounts of cars clearly rams that home!!
You are spot on for some of the points. I think that there is a good opportunity for encouraging a lot of the short journies made in the city by car to foot and bike. Good for health, environment and pocket. Ok, I don't realistically expect most baby boomers or those over 40 to suddenly pick up a bike or walk a couple of miles each way a day, often too old to change and set in their ways, but younger people should definately be encouraged and given the choice from an early age and provided with the infrastructure to safely and conveniently walk or cycle.

I made a point about a high energy, high cost dependancy. Cars are marvelous products that are really useful for some tasks. I am certainly not anti-car,I drive occasionally myself, I just recognise that we have designed a life over the last 60 years or so to be over dependant on them. I accept that there will always be those that need them. But cars costs thousands a year to run and then there is the environmental cost. So why not design out the need for everyone to own a car? Take Groningen in the Netherlands as a good example, where this process has been going on for 30 years, a vast reduction in car journies compared to laise faire and a very pleasant environment for a B&H sized city.

Nobody I know and certainly no Green Party literature I have seen has ever said nobody can have a car or must not drive that to suggest that is just childish.
[quote][p][bold]Hoarder12345444[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: More Green Party propaganda from HJarrs. You still havent explained why the Green party issued a press release stating that there was overwhelming support for the Lewes Road scheme when in fact of 31,000 people, only 4,000 responded and about 2,650 said they wanted it. 18 per cent who responded from outside the city, therefore, we actually have no idea how many of those 2,600 are not even local. How can you live with your conscience knowing that an elected party is telling blatant lies? And yes, the others lie too, but it doesn't make it right. You really don't care about people just your own Green ideology and if lies support it you don't event care about that. Shameful behaviour.[/p][/quote]Thought I gave you a thorough critique yesterday. I find it very easy to live with my conscience on this subject as the figures you regularly post up continue to demonstrate that most people did not feel motivated to even comment and those that did showed a majority in favour and, as we both know, this was a consultation, not a vote. But as usual you fail to make the case why I should vote for anyone else. Will they make the radical change needed for B&H to be a better place to live? I see no sign of this. I can't understand why you and a lot of other posters wish to continue to tie future generations to a continuing dependancy on high energy and emissions transport.that is also costly when incomes will be declining for years to come. We need to build the infrastructure now to change as has already been done with great success in the Netherlands, Germany etc.[/p][/quote]So I ask you HJarrs what is sustainable transport exactly, that isn't dependant on energy? None of it is. Buses churn out more emissions than any frugal car and do about 5mpg. Trains run on electricity which comes from power stations, which in turns are either nuclear powered or fossil fuel powered. I supposed Bicycles and walking is the only true mode of green transport. What is different in the Netherlands? Do they have flying electric cars? Trams perhaps is the only thing I can think of. You are a fool to think everything can become green when we all know 99 per cent of new cars still use a combustion engine because there is no equal alternative built yet!! All the Greens do is come up with pathetic excuses and try to change peoples way of life with blatant nonsense that all must change and everyone must not drive cars and drive a milkfloat instead, get a grip. Cars are the cheapest and most accessible form of transport around, that is a fact, and the high amounts of cars clearly rams that home!![/p][/quote]You are spot on for some of the points. I think that there is a good opportunity for encouraging a lot of the short journies made in the city by car to foot and bike. Good for health, environment and pocket. Ok, I don't realistically expect most baby boomers or those over 40 to suddenly pick up a bike or walk a couple of miles each way a day, often too old to change and set in their ways, but younger people should definately be encouraged and given the choice from an early age and provided with the infrastructure to safely and conveniently walk or cycle. I made a point about a high energy, high cost dependancy. Cars are marvelous products that are really useful for some tasks. I am certainly not anti-car,I drive occasionally myself, I just recognise that we have designed a life over the last 60 years or so to be over dependant on them. I accept that there will always be those that need them. But cars costs thousands a year to run and then there is the environmental cost. So why not design out the need for everyone to own a car? Take Groningen in the Netherlands as a good example, where this process has been going on for 30 years, a vast reduction in car journies compared to laise faire and a very pleasant environment for a B&H sized city. Nobody I know and certainly no Green Party literature I have seen has ever said nobody can have a car or must not drive that to suggest that is just childish. HJarrs

8:59pm Wed 3 Oct 12

HJarrs says...

rolivan wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
bogs wrote:
I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?
I don'y particularly like people paying high parking charges, yet for many there are already alternatives but there is a stubborn resistance to change, despite increasing motoring charges.

The Green Party is a minority adminstration and it would be easy for Labour and the Conservatives to overturn parking charges if they so wish, but they choose not to do so. It is clear to me that they are quite happy for the Greens to take the stick for unavoidable cuts and increases to parking charges and have absolutely no intention of reversing these if they get the chance of power. Politics is a dirty game.

In the mean time, money from the parking charges is being used to pump prime investment into schemes such as the Old Shoreham Rd, Lewes Rd, changes etc, schemes that are desperately needed to move the city forward (for evey £ of council money they are generally levering in £5 to £10 of outside funding, which is pretty good by any measure). We need modal shift in this city to get large numbers of people out of cars that clog the streets and put off business and it seems to me that we are now moving that way.
I spoke to a member of the Transport Planning team today and She told me they didn't have enough money to build Bridges for Pedestrians and Cyclists.£18million added to Grants that are obtainable would go a long way towards building an infrastructure at the Gyratory that would get Pedestrians and Cyclists across this busy intersection.If the City wants to go forward it needs to look at long term solutions rather than a short term fix.Why does everything have to be constructed at ground level?
Actually, I do agree with you in principal. It did occur to me and I did put in the consultation that the development at Preston Barracks could spanover the Lewes Rd, the area over the road could be either park and a route between university buildings or additional building land. It would cost a fair amount but would create "new" land. They are doing this near Liverpool St Station in London over the railway tracks and I have seen a similar scheme in Switzerland. The council couldn't pay as they don't have that sort of money.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bogs[/bold] wrote: I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?[/p][/quote]I don'y particularly like people paying high parking charges, yet for many there are already alternatives but there is a stubborn resistance to change, despite increasing motoring charges. The Green Party is a minority adminstration and it would be easy for Labour and the Conservatives to overturn parking charges if they so wish, but they choose not to do so. It is clear to me that they are quite happy for the Greens to take the stick for unavoidable cuts and increases to parking charges and have absolutely no intention of reversing these if they get the chance of power. Politics is a dirty game. In the mean time, money from the parking charges is being used to pump prime investment into schemes such as the Old Shoreham Rd, Lewes Rd, changes etc, schemes that are desperately needed to move the city forward (for evey £ of council money they are generally levering in £5 to £10 of outside funding, which is pretty good by any measure). We need modal shift in this city to get large numbers of people out of cars that clog the streets and put off business and it seems to me that we are now moving that way.[/p][/quote]I spoke to a member of the Transport Planning team today and She told me they didn't have enough money to build Bridges for Pedestrians and Cyclists.£18million added to Grants that are obtainable would go a long way towards building an infrastructure at the Gyratory that would get Pedestrians and Cyclists across this busy intersection.If the City wants to go forward it needs to look at long term solutions rather than a short term fix.Why does everything have to be constructed at ground level?[/p][/quote]Actually, I do agree with you in principal. It did occur to me and I did put in the consultation that the development at Preston Barracks could spanover the Lewes Rd, the area over the road could be either park and a route between university buildings or additional building land. It would cost a fair amount but would create "new" land. They are doing this near Liverpool St Station in London over the railway tracks and I have seen a similar scheme in Switzerland. The council couldn't pay as they don't have that sort of money. HJarrs

10:53pm Wed 3 Oct 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

You are a cheeky devil Hjarrs, in this town it is more likely to be the 35s and overs who cycle regulalry.
I honestly don't know what planet you are on. It's those born after the 1980s who are less likely to cycle.
In the company I work for 78 per cent of the cyclists are over 35 and despite various offers, incentives and help to cycle those under 35 are just not interested.
Also I've had students living next door to me for 12 years and out of 44 students only two in that time have cycled.
They all order cabs which I find astonishing.
When I've asked why they don't have bikes they just say Brighton is too hilly, which is incredible when the Lewes Road is one of the flattest places, although the streets around are hilly, but once you reach a good level of fitness it's a good daily challenge and it's a breeze.
Sadly HJarrs, with 60 per cent of under 35s obese in the UK, with men more likely to be obese, the chances of increasing cycling are extremely low.
You are a cheeky devil Hjarrs, in this town it is more likely to be the 35s and overs who cycle regulalry. I honestly don't know what planet you are on. It's those born after the 1980s who are less likely to cycle. In the company I work for 78 per cent of the cyclists are over 35 and despite various offers, incentives and help to cycle those under 35 are just not interested. Also I've had students living next door to me for 12 years and out of 44 students only two in that time have cycled. They all order cabs which I find astonishing. When I've asked why they don't have bikes they just say Brighton is too hilly, which is incredible when the Lewes Road is one of the flattest places, although the streets around are hilly, but once you reach a good level of fitness it's a good daily challenge and it's a breeze. Sadly HJarrs, with 60 per cent of under 35s obese in the UK, with men more likely to be obese, the chances of increasing cycling are extremely low. Maxwell's Ghost

11:26pm Wed 3 Oct 12

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
rolivan wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
bogs wrote:
I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?
I don'y particularly like people paying high parking charges, yet for many there are already alternatives but there is a stubborn resistance to change, despite increasing motoring charges.

The Green Party is a minority adminstration and it would be easy for Labour and the Conservatives to overturn parking charges if they so wish, but they choose not to do so. It is clear to me that they are quite happy for the Greens to take the stick for unavoidable cuts and increases to parking charges and have absolutely no intention of reversing these if they get the chance of power. Politics is a dirty game.

In the mean time, money from the parking charges is being used to pump prime investment into schemes such as the Old Shoreham Rd, Lewes Rd, changes etc, schemes that are desperately needed to move the city forward (for evey £ of council money they are generally levering in £5 to £10 of outside funding, which is pretty good by any measure). We need modal shift in this city to get large numbers of people out of cars that clog the streets and put off business and it seems to me that we are now moving that way.
I spoke to a member of the Transport Planning team today and She told me they didn't have enough money to build Bridges for Pedestrians and Cyclists.£18million added to Grants that are obtainable would go a long way towards building an infrastructure at the Gyratory that would get Pedestrians and Cyclists across this busy intersection.If the City wants to go forward it needs to look at long term solutions rather than a short term fix.Why does everything have to be constructed at ground level?
Actually, I do agree with you in principal. It did occur to me and I did put in the consultation that the development at Preston Barracks could spanover the Lewes Rd, the area over the road could be either park and a route between university buildings or additional building land. It would cost a fair amount but would create "new" land. They are doing this near Liverpool St Station in London over the railway tracks and I have seen a similar scheme in Switzerland. The council couldn't pay as they don't have that sort of money.
So how was the money raised for the 2 projects you mention do you know?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bogs[/bold] wrote: I'm trying to think of a road that has been improved by these clowns?[/p][/quote]I don'y particularly like people paying high parking charges, yet for many there are already alternatives but there is a stubborn resistance to change, despite increasing motoring charges. The Green Party is a minority adminstration and it would be easy for Labour and the Conservatives to overturn parking charges if they so wish, but they choose not to do so. It is clear to me that they are quite happy for the Greens to take the stick for unavoidable cuts and increases to parking charges and have absolutely no intention of reversing these if they get the chance of power. Politics is a dirty game. In the mean time, money from the parking charges is being used to pump prime investment into schemes such as the Old Shoreham Rd, Lewes Rd, changes etc, schemes that are desperately needed to move the city forward (for evey £ of council money they are generally levering in £5 to £10 of outside funding, which is pretty good by any measure). We need modal shift in this city to get large numbers of people out of cars that clog the streets and put off business and it seems to me that we are now moving that way.[/p][/quote]I spoke to a member of the Transport Planning team today and She told me they didn't have enough money to build Bridges for Pedestrians and Cyclists.£18million added to Grants that are obtainable would go a long way towards building an infrastructure at the Gyratory that would get Pedestrians and Cyclists across this busy intersection.If the City wants to go forward it needs to look at long term solutions rather than a short term fix.Why does everything have to be constructed at ground level?[/p][/quote]Actually, I do agree with you in principal. It did occur to me and I did put in the consultation that the development at Preston Barracks could spanover the Lewes Rd, the area over the road could be either park and a route between university buildings or additional building land. It would cost a fair amount but would create "new" land. They are doing this near Liverpool St Station in London over the railway tracks and I have seen a similar scheme in Switzerland. The council couldn't pay as they don't have that sort of money.[/p][/quote]So how was the money raised for the 2 projects you mention do you know? rolivan

7:28am Thu 4 Oct 12

davyboy says...

in actual fact, the buses are not that expensive, when you factor in the running costs of a car, and the price of parking. it is around £4 for a day ticket on the bus, and about that per hour to park. no contest really, and if you are going to do supermarket shopping, all their car parks are free
in actual fact, the buses are not that expensive, when you factor in the running costs of a car, and the price of parking. it is around £4 for a day ticket on the bus, and about that per hour to park. no contest really, and if you are going to do supermarket shopping, all their car parks are free davyboy

8:02am Thu 4 Oct 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Davyboy your calculations are based on one person, one car.
If you are a two adult two teenagers family the bus fare into town would be about £17 and if you live up on some of the estates, a 25 minute walk to a bus stop.
A car can carry five passengers, do 45mpg etc
Still more convenient and cheaper than public transport which is why this country will never, ever see a wholesale change in how people move about no matter how many bike lanes or parking charges increase.
My trip by car to Birmingham return about £45 petrol. By train a few weeks earlier £200. Yes £200 leaving off peak in the evening returning off peak.
Scandalous.
Davyboy your calculations are based on one person, one car. If you are a two adult two teenagers family the bus fare into town would be about £17 and if you live up on some of the estates, a 25 minute walk to a bus stop. A car can carry five passengers, do 45mpg etc Still more convenient and cheaper than public transport which is why this country will never, ever see a wholesale change in how people move about no matter how many bike lanes or parking charges increase. My trip by car to Birmingham return about £45 petrol. By train a few weeks earlier £200. Yes £200 leaving off peak in the evening returning off peak. Scandalous. Maxwell's Ghost

6:26pm Thu 4 Oct 12

PorkBoat says...

HJarrs wrote:
Hoarder12345444 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote: More Green Party propaganda from HJarrs. You still havent explained why the Green party issued a press release stating that there was overwhelming support for the Lewes Road scheme when in fact of 31,000 people, only 4,000 responded and about 2,650 said they wanted it. 18 per cent who responded from outside the city, therefore, we actually have no idea how many of those 2,600 are not even local. How can you live with your conscience knowing that an elected party is telling blatant lies? And yes, the others lie too, but it doesn't make it right. You really don't care about people just your own Green ideology and if lies support it you don't event care about that. Shameful behaviour.
Thought I gave you a thorough critique yesterday. I find it very easy to live with my conscience on this subject as the figures you regularly post up continue to demonstrate that most people did not feel motivated to even comment and those that did showed a majority in favour and, as we both know, this was a consultation, not a vote. But as usual you fail to make the case why I should vote for anyone else. Will they make the radical change needed for B&H to be a better place to live? I see no sign of this. I can't understand why you and a lot of other posters wish to continue to tie future generations to a continuing dependancy on high energy and emissions transport.that is also costly when incomes will be declining for years to come. We need to build the infrastructure now to change as has already been done with great success in the Netherlands, Germany etc.
So I ask you HJarrs what is sustainable transport exactly, that isn't dependant on energy? None of it is. Buses churn out more emissions than any frugal car and do about 5mpg. Trains run on electricity which comes from power stations, which in turns are either nuclear powered or fossil fuel powered. I supposed Bicycles and walking is the only true mode of green transport. What is different in the Netherlands? Do they have flying electric cars? Trams perhaps is the only thing I can think of. You are a fool to think everything can become green when we all know 99 per cent of new cars still use a combustion engine because there is no equal alternative built yet!!


All the Greens do is come up with pathetic excuses and try to change peoples way of life with blatant nonsense that all must change and everyone must not drive cars and drive a milkfloat instead, get a grip. Cars are the cheapest and most accessible form of transport around, that is a fact, and the high amounts of cars clearly rams that home!!
You are spot on for some of the points. I think that there is a good opportunity for encouraging a lot of the short journies made in the city by car to foot and bike. Good for health, environment and pocket. Ok, I don't realistically expect most baby boomers or those over 40 to suddenly pick up a bike or walk a couple of miles each way a day, often too old to change and set in their ways, but younger people should definately be encouraged and given the choice from an early age and provided with the infrastructure to safely and conveniently walk or cycle.

I made a point about a high energy, high cost dependancy. Cars are marvelous products that are really useful for some tasks. I am certainly not anti-car,I drive occasionally myself, I just recognise that we have designed a life over the last 60 years or so to be over dependant on them. I accept that there will always be those that need them. But cars costs thousands a year to run and then there is the environmental cost. So why not design out the need for everyone to own a car? Take Groningen in the Netherlands as a good example, where this process has been going on for 30 years, a vast reduction in car journies compared to laise faire and a very pleasant environment for a B&H sized city.

Nobody I know and certainly no Green Party literature I have seen has ever said nobody can have a car or must not drive that to suggest that is just childish.
How many long, steep hills are there in Groningen? Most of Brighton isn't cyclist friendly. You have to be determined and dedicated to cycle around here every day. I've been to the Netherlands, and their cycle lanes are set well apart from the traffic, not just a white line painted in the road. Unless the hills are flattened, most people just aint going to cycle everywhere.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hoarder12345444[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: More Green Party propaganda from HJarrs. You still havent explained why the Green party issued a press release stating that there was overwhelming support for the Lewes Road scheme when in fact of 31,000 people, only 4,000 responded and about 2,650 said they wanted it. 18 per cent who responded from outside the city, therefore, we actually have no idea how many of those 2,600 are not even local. How can you live with your conscience knowing that an elected party is telling blatant lies? And yes, the others lie too, but it doesn't make it right. You really don't care about people just your own Green ideology and if lies support it you don't event care about that. Shameful behaviour.[/p][/quote]Thought I gave you a thorough critique yesterday. I find it very easy to live with my conscience on this subject as the figures you regularly post up continue to demonstrate that most people did not feel motivated to even comment and those that did showed a majority in favour and, as we both know, this was a consultation, not a vote. But as usual you fail to make the case why I should vote for anyone else. Will they make the radical change needed for B&H to be a better place to live? I see no sign of this. I can't understand why you and a lot of other posters wish to continue to tie future generations to a continuing dependancy on high energy and emissions transport.that is also costly when incomes will be declining for years to come. We need to build the infrastructure now to change as has already been done with great success in the Netherlands, Germany etc.[/p][/quote]So I ask you HJarrs what is sustainable transport exactly, that isn't dependant on energy? None of it is. Buses churn out more emissions than any frugal car and do about 5mpg. Trains run on electricity which comes from power stations, which in turns are either nuclear powered or fossil fuel powered. I supposed Bicycles and walking is the only true mode of green transport. What is different in the Netherlands? Do they have flying electric cars? Trams perhaps is the only thing I can think of. You are a fool to think everything can become green when we all know 99 per cent of new cars still use a combustion engine because there is no equal alternative built yet!! All the Greens do is come up with pathetic excuses and try to change peoples way of life with blatant nonsense that all must change and everyone must not drive cars and drive a milkfloat instead, get a grip. Cars are the cheapest and most accessible form of transport around, that is a fact, and the high amounts of cars clearly rams that home!![/p][/quote]You are spot on for some of the points. I think that there is a good opportunity for encouraging a lot of the short journies made in the city by car to foot and bike. Good for health, environment and pocket. Ok, I don't realistically expect most baby boomers or those over 40 to suddenly pick up a bike or walk a couple of miles each way a day, often too old to change and set in their ways, but younger people should definately be encouraged and given the choice from an early age and provided with the infrastructure to safely and conveniently walk or cycle. I made a point about a high energy, high cost dependancy. Cars are marvelous products that are really useful for some tasks. I am certainly not anti-car,I drive occasionally myself, I just recognise that we have designed a life over the last 60 years or so to be over dependant on them. I accept that there will always be those that need them. But cars costs thousands a year to run and then there is the environmental cost. So why not design out the need for everyone to own a car? Take Groningen in the Netherlands as a good example, where this process has been going on for 30 years, a vast reduction in car journies compared to laise faire and a very pleasant environment for a B&H sized city. Nobody I know and certainly no Green Party literature I have seen has ever said nobody can have a car or must not drive that to suggest that is just childish.[/p][/quote]How many long, steep hills are there in Groningen? Most of Brighton isn't cyclist friendly. You have to be determined and dedicated to cycle around here every day. I've been to the Netherlands, and their cycle lanes are set well apart from the traffic, not just a white line painted in the road. Unless the hills are flattened, most people just aint going to cycle everywhere. PorkBoat

6:50pm Thu 4 Oct 12

nocando says...

Yep, everybody babbling on, bickering, complaining and consistently overlooking the obvious solution again and again.
Scooters and motorbikes. Problem solved at the drop of a hat. What is it with you lot, I've never heard of such a bunch of thickos. Affordable, low emission, congestion busting, rapid transport solutions are staring you in the face but yet still you refuse to even acknowledge it or mention it in your feeble arguments. Derrrr.
What a bunch of idiots.
Yep, everybody babbling on, bickering, complaining and consistently overlooking the obvious solution again and again. Scooters and motorbikes. Problem solved at the drop of a hat. What is it with you lot, I've never heard of such a bunch of thickos. Affordable, low emission, congestion busting, rapid transport solutions are staring you in the face but yet still you refuse to even acknowledge it or mention it in your feeble arguments. Derrrr. What a bunch of idiots. nocando

6:52am Fri 5 Oct 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

HJarrs lived in Hanover. He rolls down a short hill into town.
That's why he has the luxury of bleating on about short journeys by foot.
He doesn't come from Brighton and Hove so doesn't have any experience of living in Hangleton or Coldean or having elderly family dotted all over town and having to buzz all over the place picking up prescriptions from surgeries then walking two miles to the pharmacy then back up another hill to drop it off then back home over the other side of town.
His judgements are based on inexperience and also having the luxury of wealth, time and location.
However, HJarrs when you have more kids, at different schools and your parents and in laws start getting older and more help I bet you and your partner get a little more experienced about life.
Walk in other people's shoes.
HJarrs lived in Hanover. He rolls down a short hill into town. That's why he has the luxury of bleating on about short journeys by foot. He doesn't come from Brighton and Hove so doesn't have any experience of living in Hangleton or Coldean or having elderly family dotted all over town and having to buzz all over the place picking up prescriptions from surgeries then walking two miles to the pharmacy then back up another hill to drop it off then back home over the other side of town. His judgements are based on inexperience and also having the luxury of wealth, time and location. However, HJarrs when you have more kids, at different schools and your parents and in laws start getting older and more help I bet you and your partner get a little more experienced about life. Walk in other people's shoes. Maxwell's Ghost

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree