Monday Musing: Feeling the squeeze – why bad parking should pay the right price

The BPA enjoys a broad membership base that includes local authorities, private parking operators, technical consultants and app providers, which allows us to see parking holistically, rather than a car park here, a shopping centre there and a few roads in between.  Car parks were built to accommodate the growing trend for car ownership and driving to a destination, such as a town centre or retail park and their size was determined by population and car ownership with some forecasting thrown in for additional measure.

Many car parks were built decades ago.  Now we have more cars, bigger cars and more discerning motorists who want to leave their vehicles in nicer places; somewhere easily accessible, with wider bays, pedestrian walkways and special requirements for parents and children.  They also want free parking.  But none of these nice things come without cost.

A car park has boundaries and can only accommodate so many vehicles and it’s all about an efficient use of space.  A good car park will have the right balance of capacity and efficiency; cramming in lots of small bays is obviously counter-productive.  Drivers are frustrated by difficult parking manoeuvres, everyone is frustrated by having to squeeze out of the car terrified of the ‘door ding’ and small bays encourage ‘Clarkson parking’ where people take two spaces instead of one.  Make bays bigger and the car park has fewer cars to generate income and this may be unsustainable for revenue and investment.

It is unlikely that those planning car parks in the 1960s and 70s would have predicted that demand for parking would outstrip supply or consumerism in town centres would rise and fall so dramatically.  The future of car parks is as uncertain today as it was then.  We may see autonomous cars that park themselves without the need of a driver, which would mean parking spaces could become smaller again.  This would increase supply, but not by much.  The environmentally aware may ditch the car altogether for shorter journeys, which would release a few more, but at present the numbers are too low to call this more than an ideology.  Many are working from home, not requiring long stay parking, but who knows how long that will last?  EVs will substitute petrol and diesel, so it looks like the car is here to stay, for another few decades at least. 

There’s no substitute for a parking space though, which means the car is the only item that can be substituted for another form of travel, whether that’s by bus, train, bicycle, scooter or walking.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government recently consulted on private parking charges inviting views on the proposed levels that would see a two-tiered system like that currently used by local councils.  A higher level is applied for serious parking contraventions, a lower level for minor ones.

Should the lower £50 level be applied and/or an unpaid tariff substituted as payment instead of a parking ticket, the motorist may not feel the squeeze in the same way that the parking operator would, which would be in lost revenue and jobs.  However, the motorist may feel the squeeze when it comes to finding somewhere to park since private car park operators may decide simply to close down, meaning fewer spaces in greater demand.

Did you know that 80% of motorists never receive a parking ticket?  Yet the perception is that parking is all about enforcement.  It shouldn’t be.  A parking ticket is meant to nudge people to do the right thing, behave in a way that doesn’t inconvenience others or cause an accident.  The statistic would appear to support the notion that the majority of motorists do consider themselves and others.  But what if the value of the parking ticket was lowered?  Would it continue to act as a deterrent or become an incentive for irrational parking because the cost of doing so is too low for people to care?  It happened last year in our coastal and tourist resorts: the press called it ‘carmageddon’, and a lack of effective parking management in Aberystwyth, Scarborough and St Albans in the past has led to calls of “bring back the traffic warden.”

As there’s no substitute for a parking space, tariffs will only rise to reflect demand, but this may encourage people to take more chances on-street or in a car park because it becomes unaffordable, and if the parking ticket is less than the tariff, motorists will naturally opt for the lowest price.

The Department for Transport on the other hand is investing in active travel, trying to encourage more walking and cycling.  If you build it, they will come, is a phrase often heard and the Highway Code will prioritise cyclists and pedestrians instead of motorised vehicles.  But changing behaviour doesn’t happen overnight or without some sort of nudge.  For individuals, travel choices are a mix of economics and practicality.  EVs are still too expensive for most, buses and trains are not always practical and walking and cycling are considered fair weather leisure pursuits.  Perhaps building leisure into our lives may be the answer, but the question remains how this will be done without an incentive.

What is clear is that government departments who are responsible for parking, albeit in different ways, appear to be pursuing contradictory policies where one favours the motorists’ purse and the other favours the environment and health.  It would make sense if they joined forces and looked at parking holistically, encouraging good behaviour and good choices.    I wonder if there’ll be a clear winner.  What would you choose?