_____
From: Cathy.phillpotts [mailto:xxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xx.xx]
Sent: 16 February 2009 21:12
To: Jones, Mandy
Cc: xxxxxx.xxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Subject: Objection to Westminster Charging for Parking Ref 5303/ALJ
Please find below the BMF's objection to motorcycles being charged for parking.
Objection to Westminster Motorcycle Bay parking charges - Ref 5303/ALJ
Although some consultation with MAG and the BMF did take place, there was no public consultation via notices at the bays before the experiment was implemented.
Initial discussions promised increased security and more bays where needed as a benefit - however very few bays have had security railing added.
The notices informing the public of the process for objecting to the experiment since charging has started have not been continuously and consistently displayed at motorcycle bays.
National and regional policy makers are encouraging motorcycle use (by exempting mcs from congestion charging and allowing access to TfL bus lanes) so why is Westminster introducing a scheme that could discourage motorcycle use?
The scheme discriminates against hearing impaired people who are unable to pay by phone. Although it is possible to pay by text, the text system has been known to fail and therefore people who think they have paid get penalty notices.
The scheme is disadvantageous to shift workers working at times when public transport is not accessible / available. In addition it is not socially inclusive as it penalises those on low incomes who are more likely to have bought a scooter in order to get cheap transport to work. The parking charges will create a significant increase in the travel costs of motorcycle commuting at a time when people are experiencing greatly increased living costs. Although there are long term payment options that work out cheaper, this may not be possible for those on lower wages (and therefore they are penalised and end up paying more). Having purchased a season ticket gives no guarantee of a parking space - so some riders have paid for a facility that is not actually available.
Encouraging powered two wheeler use instead of car use is a positive step toward reducing congestion and pollution, and introducing parking charges just discourages motorbike use. This could lead to increasing the accident rate as there is now evidence that shows that the more motorcyclists there are on the road, the less likely it is that a rider will have an accident. Encouraging mc use should assist in reducing the accident rate and make it safer for all riders.
The cost of setting up motorcycle parking bays is a one off fee. According to Westminster Council's own figures, this cost £302,000. Yet the amount of money collected through the charges to date £2,272,000. This would appear to contradict the excuse that the charge was required to set up new facilities.
Other councils (i.e. Camden) have successfully created additional secure motorcycle parking bays without having to introduce a charge scheme (Ref Motorcycle Parking Strategy, Dec 2006, sect 3.5). If Camden can do this then Westminster should be able to offer the same facilities.
There is still a shortage of spaces in key areas, like Hanover Square and other streets off Oxford Street, but the council has not indicated how many further spaces will be created using the additional funds, if any, as the council clearly refers to control of motorcycle use by control of parking despite being a more efficient use of space and resources.
The scheme has no traffic management benefits and as mentioned above, reducing motorcycle numbers is likely to increase the accident rate. In addition, the so-called experiment seems designed only to reduce demand for parking and not to test any hypothesis. There have already been experiments concerning charged parking in Westminster which were a profound failure as the bays were deserted. The schemes has no road safety benefits and only appears to be a revenue raiser.