Journalism and cycling

tomasrojo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Not falling for spin but glad to see it back on the table

Yeah, I don't begrudge people minor perks, but one that's equivalent to ... €200+ a week? Something like that? And is encouraging people to drive in streets that have severe capacity issues.

Weepsie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would be really interesting to see occupancy rates too. I visit one site in the North Quays regularly, where the car park is shared for offices and apartments. I've never seen the car park more than 40% full, any time of the day.

about 7 I know of in the IFSC that are regularly full. Why anyone would want to drive into the IFSC in the first place baffles me. It takes ages to get into, takes ages to get out of, and that's all because there is a load of traffic and not a huge amount of routes to it, and they all dump you at crap junctions that you can easily be stuck at for 5-10 mins apiece

A friend parks in my work one. I can leave work the same time as them, and be at their house quicker than them if we both leave between 4.30-5.30.

It's 15km or so.

AndrewJRenko

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, to my simple mind it seems like an absolutely classic example of benefit in kind.

It would be near impossible to allocate the benefit arising from shared spaces fairly unless you track every car entering every day.

In my last job, I had access to parking, which I used about once a month to restock my 'wardrobe' for cycling. What BIK should I have paid for that?

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

and the popular theory was that it died precisely because of opposition from civil servants.

That was the populist theory, rather than the actual practicalities of taxing it as BIK. Unless people have guaranteed parking spaces, which most civil and public servants don't, how do you tax potential access to a space? People who come by bike, bus, train etc might theoretically have access to parking. Some might only use it occasionally, as per Andrew.

If Ciaran Cuffe was being serious, rather than populist, he'd be pushing for those with reserved/ guaranteed spots who generally don't need a vehicle for their work, to pay BIK.

meeeeh

Just allow one or two free parking spaces (whatever is agreed and they should be limited to their home) for people who live in the city and make it mandatory to charge for the rest. You can do first 15/30 minutes free for popping into some shops (it would be hard to charge for five minute break at petrol station). There should be no free longer time parking in Dublin anywhere, including shopping centres on the outskirts. However parking at locations outside city serviced by public transport/cycling lanes should be cheaper.

cletus

Do you mean the likes of Liffey Valley, Blanchardstown etc.? What's the thinking on paid parking in those dedicated car parks

Grassey

meeeeh wrote:

. You can do first 15/30 minutes free for popping into some shops (it would be hard to charge for five minute break at petrol station).

In fairness there shouldn't be any free parking in public space, whether it's 5 mins or 5 hours. The 'popping in for a minute for milk and bread' is a joke and only legitimises parking on paths, double yellows, cycle lanes, bus lanes etc
Let a private space like garage or shopping centre sort out their own rates and times.

AndrewJRenko

cletus wrote: »

Do you mean the likes of Liffey Valley, Blanchardstown etc.? What's the thinking on paid parking in those dedicated car parks

'Free' parking isn't free. It just means the cost of providing and maintaining parking is spread across all customers - car users, bus users. on foot customers, cyclists - which is fundamentally unfair.


Some new retail developments have a planning condition that requires paid parking, which is reasonable. I'm not sure if this could be done retrospectively for existing shopping centres.

meeeeh

Grassey wrote: »

In fairness there shouldn't be any free parking in public space, whether it's 5 mins or 5 hours. The 'popping in for a minute for milk and bread' is a joke and only legitimises parking on paths, double yellows, cycle lanes, bus lanes etc
Let a private space like garage or shopping centre sort out their own rates and times.

You can't completely disadvantage convenience shops. Your local Centra or whatever should be able to allow you to park for 15/30 minutes to get basics. Otherwise you make it impossible for them to compete with Aldis and Tescos. Any other shopping including parking at Tesco and so on should be charged but if you make it completely illegal to do a short stop you make small shops completely unviable. It's also unworkable to police.

By the way I can't understand how parking in parking spot legitimizes illegal parking. That's just completely illogical statement.

Macy0161

Grassey wrote: »

The 'popping in for a minute for milk and bread' is a joke and only legitimises parking on paths, double yellows, cycle lanes, bus lanes etc

This is the biggest blocking of footpaths and cycle lanes I see. Often causes mayhem in the village I live, even when there is car parking to the rear of the centra, and you can see on street parking 20m up the road!

Chips Lovell

The whole point of convenience stores is that they're easy to get to, i.e. walking distance. If I had to drive to my local Centra, I may as well drive to Aldi instead, because it's cheaper.

meeeeh

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The whole point of convenience stores is that they're easy to get to, i.e. walking distance. If I had to drive to my local Centra, I may as well drive to Aldi instead, because it's cheaper.

Fair enough. Would you consider your local butcher or fishmonger should be only allowed customers who walk in? Shops where you spend 15 minutes in will never be able to compete with shops you spend an hour in if you have to pay for parking. It doesn't really matter in city centre but in suburbs where shops are a bit more scattered it makes huge difference.

Chips Lovell

I think he wasn't stating that people shouldn't be allowed drive to a convenience store, rather that they shouldn't have free parking.

As for the butchers or fishmongers, again, I wouldn't think of driving to either.

meeeeh

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think he wasn't stating that people shouldn't be allowed drive to a convenience store, rather that they shouldn't have free parking.

As for the butchers or fishmongers, again, I wouldn't think of driving to either.

But it isn't just about you. You certain amount of people to make them viable.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

You can't completely disadvantage convenience shops. Your local Centra or whatever should be able to allow you to park for 15/30 minutes to get basics. Otherwise you make it impossible for them to compete with Aldis and Tescos. Any other shopping including parking at Tesco and so on should be charged but if you make it completely illegal to do a short stop you make small shops completely unviable. It's also unworkable to police.

By the way I can't understand how parking in parking spot legitimizes illegal parking. That's just completely illogical statement.

Why should they allow free parking at all? That is encouraging people to drive, and discouraging people from walking or cycling.

Seth Brundle

https://twitter.com/nicolegelinas/status/1212331010781790208?s=19

Chips Lovell

meeeeh wrote: »

But it isn't just about you. You certain amount of people to make them viable.

I never said it was about me? I was talking about everyone.

Kaisr Sose

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would be near impossible to allocate the benefit arising from shared spaces fairly unless you track every car entering every day.

In my last job, I had access to parking, which I used about once a month to restock my 'wardrobe' for cycling. What BIK should I have paid for that?

Agree near to impossible to collect such a tax. Its a significant benefit to lots of people, especially in city centres.

Perhaps a congestion charge for urban areas 8am to 6pm? That would be fair on public and private sector who opt to drive into cities

Did they not introduce a charge on public servants /others that had employer supplied free during the regression (sic)? It was self assessed. Hardly anything was collected, as nothing was put in place to even begin monitoring it.

A difficult task to collect something like this but if you started to design a process, you could.

tomasrojo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would be near impossible to allocate the benefit arising from shared spaces fairly unless you track every car entering every day.

In my last job, I had access to parking, which I used about once a month to restock my 'wardrobe' for cycling. What BIK should I have paid for that?

Macy0161 wrote: »

That was the populist theory, rather than the actual practicalities of taxing it as BIK. Unless people have guaranteed parking spaces, which most civil and public servants don't, how do you tax potential access to a space? People who come by bike, bus, train etc might theoretically have access to parking. Some might only use it occasionally, as per Andrew.

If Ciaran Cuffe was being serious, rather than populist, he'd be pushing for those with reserved/ guaranteed spots who generally don't need a vehicle for their work, to pay BIK.

Yeah, sorry, I though the parking spaces in question were dedicated and individually allocated. A pool of shared spaces is more complicated alright.

p15574

If a work parking space within the canals is 'shared' and can't be attributed to any one person, then perhaps remove it altogether? As no-one can say they need it. If you have reason to object, then you must pay. This along with a congestion charge, and turning on-street parking into segregated cycle lanes would have the biggest impact on traffic.

CramCycle

Bumped into a girl I used to work with years ago, we have both moved on but she has a job in Sandyford now with an allocated space. She gave up cycling with the new job, even though it was closer as she has a dedicated space and if they don't use it, it is taken off them and she says she might need it occasionally. Very, very, odd.

buffalo

CramCycle wrote: »

Bumped into a girl I used to work with years ago, we have both moved on but she has a job in Sandyford now with an allocated space. She gave up cycling with the new job, even though it was closer as she has a dedicated space and if they don't use it, it is taken off them and she says she might need it occasionally. Very, very, odd.

Why didn't she park her bicycle in it?

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

Why didn't she park her bicycle in it?

Nothing to lock it too? There are more appropriate racks? someone will move it? people, including her managers would act like d1cks and say she isn't using it. 100's of reasons, I didn't question her on the decision, her mind was made up and as a former co worker who I hadn't seen in a few years, I didn't think it was an appropriate conversation piece to get into in the middle of Aldi. We moved on to kids, schools and how we preferred Aldi/Lidl to Tescos.

AndrewJRenko

p15574 wrote: »

If a work parking space within the canals is 'shared' and can't be attributed to any one person, then perhaps remove it altogether? As no-one can say they need it. If you have reason to object, then you must pay. This along with a congestion charge, and turning on-street parking into segregated cycle lanes would have the biggest impact on traffic.

It's not really addressing the issue. If you have a shared car park available on a first-come first-served basis that is typically 80% full, you really can't just close it up one day without any upfront discussion and consideration.

The problem with shared spaces is that it is not possible to fairly allocate any penalty or BIK unless you track every car movement every day. You're probably going to end up spending more on tracking systems than the actual BIK involved.

I'm not sure that congestion charges are a great idea either, as this turns transport into even more of a class issue. If you can afford to drive into town and absorb the congestion charge, or persuade your company to pay, you'll still drive.

Fully agree with you about the on-street parking spaces though. These need to be reduced dramatically.

Mickiemcfist

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not sure that congestion charges are a great idea either, as this turns transport into even more of a class issue. If you can afford to drive into town and absorb the congestion charge, or persuade your company to pay, you'll still drive.

That's a weird way of looking at it.
Pro: Lots of cars off the road, safer for VRUs, nicer city, more public & sustainable transport use, healthier air.

Con: People will be sad that only rich people can drive into the city...

If that was your angle you could say BIK is a class issue also, those who could afford it would still drive. You have to disincentivise driving & for the vast majority their pocket is the best way to do it.

Pigeon Reaper

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

If that was your angle you could say BIK is a class issue also, those who could afford it would still drive. You have to disincentivise driving & for the vast majority their pocket is the best way to do it.

Do like in other countries with odd numbers and even numbers on certain days. Half traffic and force people to use alternatives.

Mickiemcfist

Pigeon Reaper wrote: »

Do like in other countries with odd numbers and even numbers on certain days. Half traffic and force people to use alternatives.

To be fair that's a really good way of doing it.
But presumably that would still be a class issue as the odd numbered people would just pay the charge on the days they're not meant to be there.

plodder

Pigeon Reaper wrote: »

Do like in other countries with odd numbers and even numbers on certain days. Half traffic and force people to use alternatives.

one alternative being families with two cars who make sure they have one with an odd number and the other with an even number.

magicbastarder

Pigeon Reaper wrote: »

Half traffic and force people to use alternatives.

IIRC, as alluded to above, people just get second cars; i think it was Athens which tried this and had the above result.

Grassey

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/31/york-to-ban-private-cars-from-city-centre-within-three-years

The medieval city of York has announced plans to ban private car journeys from the city centre within three years in an effort to cut carbon emissions.The ban would stop all non-essential private car journeys inside York’s city walls by 2023, with an exemption for people who rely on cars such as disabled residents.

Fewer cars on York’s roads would enable faster, more reliable public transport from the suburbs and villages into the city centre. Fewer cars on the roads would make cycling feel safer and a more viable option for more people.”