Anger at the end of park and ride

SAD: The scene at Worcester's park and ride in Perdiswell yesterday

FENCED OFF: Temporary steel fencing around the site

DESERTED: The scene mid-morning yesterday

STOP: More fencing to stop people getting in

First published in News
Last updated
Worcester News: Tom Edwards Exclusive by , Political Reporter

FURIOUS bus users turned up at Worcester's park and ride yesterday without realising it had been scrapped - and said they were driving into the city instead.

It came as these sad images show what is left of the mothballed Perdiswell site - a ghost town surrounded by ugly steel fencing aimed at keeping travellers and squatters away.

Yesterday was the first week day since 2001 that Worcester has not had a park and ride running into the city centre - and despite massive publicity around its closure it didn't prevent commuters turning up expecting to get on a bus.

Contractors working on behalf of Worcestershire County Council spent the weekend placing temporary metal fences around the site and blockading off all the entrances.

Your Worcester News can also exclusively reveal how the mammoth security operation, which includes patrolling of the site, is costing around £3,000 per month.

It also emerged yesterday that a raft of scaffolding will be erected around the reception to make it impossible to enter.

An eery silence greeted a steady trickle of motorists who had pulled in yesterday without realising it had shut.

Driver Nigel Rowley, 61, of Claines, said: "I was only going to use it to get into town for some shopping but I may as well drive now.

"It makes no sense to me. I was only on a bus last week and it was packed, so I don't know what's gone wrong.

"If the council was losing too much money why not put the prices up? All of us would pay a bit more to keep it going."

Fellow motorist Fran Bramwell, 57, of Woodland Road, Perdiswell, who works part-time in retail, said: "I can't believe it, it's ridiculous.

"I could drive every day but I don't want to pay the parking prices in Worcester or spend time trying to find a free space, this was ideal.

"It's terribly sad to see what's happened. It will never come back I suspect."

Perdiswell's final park and ride service left the site at 6.30pm on Saturday, following the controversial closure decision in June.

County Hall's opposition Labour group says it was not surprised commuters turned up.

Labour Councillor Paul Denham said: "People who use it regularly will be miffed.

"I talked to the contractors and was told current the fencing is a temporary measure, they are looking to erect permanent fencing around the entire site and place scaffolding around the reception to 'protect it' - clearly no expense is being spared.

"Think of all the millions spent on that site over the years, and now it's been fenced off."

Councillor John Smith, cabinet member for transport, said: "We've made it secure for obvious reasons - we have to be careful and ensure the site is protected.

"I did guess we'd have a few commuters turn up for the first couple of weeks, but it's been publicised everywhere."

He added: “Numerous articles have appeared in both the press and broadcast media, including several stories in the Worcester News.

“Paid-for-advertisements across the county's media have also been taken over the last few weeks, which has again included space in the Worcester News.

“In addition the changes have been promoted via the council's website homepage, social media, signs have been in place at the Perdiswell site for the last few weeks, on-board buses and street signage references are no longer in place.”

The park and ride's usage peaked in 2008 at 450,000 yearly, but it has been in steady decline ever since.

Last year it was used 274,935 times, costing 68p per passenger and it lost £186,000.

The council says some days just 200 cars used the facility, which lead to the Conservative administration deciding to close it as part of £1.6 million of transport cuts.

The land is owned by Worcester City Council, but under the lease deal County Hall has to keep it secure.

The lease runs until January 2015, by which time keeping it safe will have cost £15,000.

The Sixways park and ride, which goes to Worcestershire Royal Hospital during weekdays, is still operating under a reduced timetable.

The county council took away its entire subsidy for the Sixways service, which was used 66,000 times a year, but it is still running, albeit less frequently, after hospital bosses and LMS Travel struck a deal.

The number of departures from Sixways have been cut from 51 to 42 in order for it to still be in operation.

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:42am Tue 2 Sep 14

3thinker says...

Hopefully they'll have the common sense to keep it mothballed so future and more enlightened administrations at County and City can re-open it in 5 years time when the City is at grid-lock for most of the working day due to the massive expansion of the City.
Hopefully they'll have the common sense to keep it mothballed so future and more enlightened administrations at County and City can re-open it in 5 years time when the City is at grid-lock for most of the working day due to the massive expansion of the City. 3thinker
  • Score: 25

11:00am Tue 2 Sep 14

Raniator says...

There is plentiful parking in the city centre. Yes, the traffic is somewhat busy on occasion but that mostly down to the idiotic timings of the roadworks.

I can not see the point in Worcester tax payers having to fund a dying service. Let's be honest, where any of those Park and Ride buses actually busy?
There is plentiful parking in the city centre. Yes, the traffic is somewhat busy on occasion but that mostly down to the idiotic timings of the roadworks. I can not see the point in Worcester tax payers having to fund a dying service. Let's be honest, where any of those Park and Ride buses actually busy? Raniator
  • Score: -24

11:25am Tue 2 Sep 14

Raniator says...

Ahh, the classic 'vote down' button. Blinkered by sheep-like following of general public opinion with no evidence or opinion of your own.

When I was unlucky enough to have to use the Park and Ride buses (read: buzzes, for most of you), I was greeted with miserable drivers and an empty bus. Sure, 'mothball' it all you want but have an idea, or at least some experience, of what you are talking about.
Ahh, the classic 'vote down' button. Blinkered by sheep-like following of general public opinion with no evidence or opinion of your own. When I was unlucky enough to have to use the Park and Ride buses (read: buzzes, for most of you), I was greeted with miserable drivers and an empty bus. Sure, 'mothball' it all you want but have an idea, or at least some experience, of what you are talking about. Raniator
  • Score: -29

11:28am Tue 2 Sep 14

mrloverman says...

Anger!! Furious!! Mammoth!! TRAVELLERS!!!!! Why the endless hype and exaggerations?
Anger!! Furious!! Mammoth!! TRAVELLERS!!!!! Why the endless hype and exaggerations? mrloverman
  • Score: 21

11:33am Tue 2 Sep 14

saucerer says...

Only in Worcester could we have a failed park & ride scheme, but when you look at how this county's roads and transport are managed by Worcestershire county council's highways bods its failure comes as no surprise really. Park & rides work well in other towns and cities, some brilliantly, but not in Worcester.

The location was always its death knell. The A38 is a main corridor in to Worcester but it was only going to capture people travelling along that road, and really that only meant people from Droitwich and Bromsgrove and nothing more. It was never going to be successful in drawing people from the M5 or the A449 towards that part of the city because the site was just too far off the beaten track for commuters/visitors. It was easier and quicker just to head down the main roads in Worcester city centre. And for many people living in that part of Worcester, if they were going to use a bus, the 144 and part of the 31 services follow exactly the same route as the park & ride buses and is as quick.

If the park & ride site for north Worcester was built near, say, Claines island or the Mercedes dealer for example, it would have worked. It'd have captured commuters/visitors from the A449, A38 and M5 with ease as the site would have been easily accessible. And if the price was right too, that'd be an added incentive too.
Only in Worcester could we have a failed park & ride scheme, but when you look at how this county's roads and transport are managed by Worcestershire county council's highways bods its failure comes as no surprise really. Park & rides work well in other towns and cities, some brilliantly, but not in Worcester. The location was always its death knell. The A38 is a main corridor in to Worcester but it was only going to capture people travelling along that road, and really that only meant people from Droitwich and Bromsgrove and nothing more. It was never going to be successful in drawing people from the M5 or the A449 towards that part of the city because the site was just too far off the beaten track for commuters/visitors. It was easier and quicker just to head down the main roads in Worcester city centre. And for many people living in that part of Worcester, if they were going to use a bus, the 144 and part of the 31 services follow exactly the same route as the park & ride buses and is as quick. If the park & ride site for north Worcester was built near, say, Claines island or the Mercedes dealer for example, it would have worked. It'd have captured commuters/visitors from the A449, A38 and M5 with ease as the site would have been easily accessible. And if the price was right too, that'd be an added incentive too. saucerer
  • Score: 54

12:10pm Tue 2 Sep 14

skychip says...

Park and ride works in lots of towns but somehow we can't seem to manage them, suppose the cost of parking is too cheap.
Park and ride works in lots of towns but somehow we can't seem to manage them, suppose the cost of parking is too cheap. skychip
  • Score: -5

12:10pm Tue 2 Sep 14

truth must out says...

FURIOUS bus users turned up at Worcester's park and ride yesterday without realising it had been scrapped - and said they were driving into the city instead.

Only furious because they don't keep up with the news, and were embarrassed at turning up to a site that was closed.
FURIOUS bus users turned up at Worcester's park and ride yesterday without realising it had been scrapped - and said they were driving into the city instead. Only furious because they don't keep up with the news, and were embarrassed at turning up to a site that was closed. truth must out
  • Score: 29

12:35pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Redhillman says...

saucerer wrote:
Only in Worcester could we have a failed park & ride scheme, but when you look at how this county's roads and transport are managed by Worcestershire county council's highways bods its failure comes as no surprise really. Park & rides work well in other towns and cities, some brilliantly, but not in Worcester.

The location was always its death knell. The A38 is a main corridor in to Worcester but it was only going to capture people travelling along that road, and really that only meant people from Droitwich and Bromsgrove and nothing more. It was never going to be successful in drawing people from the M5 or the A449 towards that part of the city because the site was just too far off the beaten track for commuters/visitors. It was easier and quicker just to head down the main roads in Worcester city centre. And for many people living in that part of Worcester, if they were going to use a bus, the 144 and part of the 31 services follow exactly the same route as the park & ride buses and is as quick.

If the park & ride site for north Worcester was built near, say, Claines island or the Mercedes dealer for example, it would have worked. It'd have captured commuters/visitors from the A449, A38 and M5 with ease as the site would have been easily accessible. And if the price was right too, that'd be an added incentive too.
Summed up perfectly!
[quote][p][bold]saucerer[/bold] wrote: Only in Worcester could we have a failed park & ride scheme, but when you look at how this county's roads and transport are managed by Worcestershire county council's highways bods its failure comes as no surprise really. Park & rides work well in other towns and cities, some brilliantly, but not in Worcester. The location was always its death knell. The A38 is a main corridor in to Worcester but it was only going to capture people travelling along that road, and really that only meant people from Droitwich and Bromsgrove and nothing more. It was never going to be successful in drawing people from the M5 or the A449 towards that part of the city because the site was just too far off the beaten track for commuters/visitors. It was easier and quicker just to head down the main roads in Worcester city centre. And for many people living in that part of Worcester, if they were going to use a bus, the 144 and part of the 31 services follow exactly the same route as the park & ride buses and is as quick. If the park & ride site for north Worcester was built near, say, Claines island or the Mercedes dealer for example, it would have worked. It'd have captured commuters/visitors from the A449, A38 and M5 with ease as the site would have been easily accessible. And if the price was right too, that'd be an added incentive too.[/p][/quote]Summed up perfectly! Redhillman
  • Score: 20

1:59pm Tue 2 Sep 14

PrivateSi says...

Take £5 a week off JSA / ESA & Tax Breaks and give everyone a local bus pass...
Take £5 a week off JSA / ESA & Tax Breaks and give everyone a local bus pass... PrivateSi
  • Score: 6

2:05pm Tue 2 Sep 14

PrivateSi says...

.... that £250 million a year to local bus companies nationwide... Enough for them to survive and BE USED MORE.
.... that £250 million a year to local bus companies nationwide... Enough for them to survive and BE USED MORE. PrivateSi
  • Score: 8

3:55pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Perfman says...

saucerer wrote:
Only in Worcester could we have a failed park & ride scheme, but when you look at how this county's roads and transport are managed by Worcestershire county council's highways bods its failure comes as no surprise really. Park & rides work well in other towns and cities, some brilliantly, but not in Worcester.

The location was always its death knell. The A38 is a main corridor in to Worcester but it was only going to capture people travelling along that road, and really that only meant people from Droitwich and Bromsgrove and nothing more. It was never going to be successful in drawing people from the M5 or the A449 towards that part of the city because the site was just too far off the beaten track for commuters/visitors. It was easier and quicker just to head down the main roads in Worcester city centre. And for many people living in that part of Worcester, if they were going to use a bus, the 144 and part of the 31 services follow exactly the same route as the park & ride buses and is as quick.

If the park & ride site for north Worcester was built near, say, Claines island or the Mercedes dealer for example, it would have worked. It'd have captured commuters/visitors from the A449, A38 and M5 with ease as the site would have been easily accessible. And if the price was right too, that'd be an added incentive too.
You mean like the other Park and Ride facility at Six Ways for instance?
[quote][p][bold]saucerer[/bold] wrote: Only in Worcester could we have a failed park & ride scheme, but when you look at how this county's roads and transport are managed by Worcestershire county council's highways bods its failure comes as no surprise really. Park & rides work well in other towns and cities, some brilliantly, but not in Worcester. The location was always its death knell. The A38 is a main corridor in to Worcester but it was only going to capture people travelling along that road, and really that only meant people from Droitwich and Bromsgrove and nothing more. It was never going to be successful in drawing people from the M5 or the A449 towards that part of the city because the site was just too far off the beaten track for commuters/visitors. It was easier and quicker just to head down the main roads in Worcester city centre. And for many people living in that part of Worcester, if they were going to use a bus, the 144 and part of the 31 services follow exactly the same route as the park & ride buses and is as quick. If the park & ride site for north Worcester was built near, say, Claines island or the Mercedes dealer for example, it would have worked. It'd have captured commuters/visitors from the A449, A38 and M5 with ease as the site would have been easily accessible. And if the price was right too, that'd be an added incentive too.[/p][/quote]You mean like the other Park and Ride facility at Six Ways for instance? Perfman
  • Score: 7

4:52pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Anthony Green says...

So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it.
Council logic?
So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it. Council logic? Anthony Green
  • Score: 10

5:49pm Tue 2 Sep 14

CHANDBRUSH says...

They want people not to use cars, they want people to shop in Worcester so they cut car parking space and cancel park and ride What a muddled pathetic bunch could not run a party in a brewery.
They want people not to use cars, they want people to shop in Worcester so they cut car parking space and cancel park and ride What a muddled pathetic bunch could not run a party in a brewery. CHANDBRUSH
  • Score: 14

6:14pm Tue 2 Sep 14

old misery says...

Any news on the cat?
Any news on the cat? old misery
  • Score: 9

6:51pm Tue 2 Sep 14

19joshua87 says...

First Midland Red will be happy.
First Midland Red will be happy. 19joshua87
  • Score: -3

7:42pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Jabbadad says...

The Park & Ride being in the wrong place was recognised when the present site was being planned. But as typical politicians they ignored the scores of letters in this paper and various campaigns mostly pointing to a site on Blackpole Industrial Site, which would have captured the traffic from the Motorway and Kidderminster areas. But the so called experts won the day. But having said this it was quite a success with really large numbers using this facility, so what did Geraghty and the CONservative posse do seeing a Cash Cow They Hiked the Charges up and by doing so drove (no pun intended) the customers away. In fact looking from a business plan perspective the loss of income from those users who left , more than offset any additional income from the increased charges, and BEST OF ALL the drivers who previously used the Park & Ride then went to park in town. So a great move from the Councils involved as we will now see all the additional cars cramming into the City.
As to the Woosh buses they were driven by exceptionally polite drivers Female & Male , and were kept very clean indeed. FIRST BUSES TAKE NOTE.
The Park & Ride being in the wrong place was recognised when the present site was being planned. But as typical politicians they ignored the scores of letters in this paper and various campaigns mostly pointing to a site on Blackpole Industrial Site, which would have captured the traffic from the Motorway and Kidderminster areas. But the so called experts won the day. But having said this it was quite a success with really large numbers using this facility, so what did Geraghty and the CONservative posse do seeing a Cash Cow They Hiked the Charges up and by doing so drove (no pun intended) the customers away. In fact looking from a business plan perspective the loss of income from those users who left , more than offset any additional income from the increased charges, and BEST OF ALL the drivers who previously used the Park & Ride then went to park in town. So a great move from the Councils involved as we will now see all the additional cars cramming into the City. As to the Woosh buses they were driven by exceptionally polite drivers Female & Male , and were kept very clean indeed. FIRST BUSES TAKE NOTE. Jabbadad
  • Score: 14

9:40pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Anthony Green says...

I was hoping for some news on the cat
I was hoping for some news on the cat Anthony Green
  • Score: 5

10:05pm Tue 2 Sep 14

sunnside says...

lets hope the city shops feel the pinch because shoppers have gone else where then maybe the council will have a re think and re open the park and ride and prove yet again that another major **** up has been made by this brilliant bunch of people who call themselves the council (clear them out and save a fortune)
lets hope the city shops feel the pinch because shoppers have gone else where then maybe the council will have a re think and re open the park and ride and prove yet again that another major **** up has been made by this brilliant bunch of people who call themselves the council (clear them out and save a fortune) sunnside
  • Score: 1

10:22pm Tue 2 Sep 14

naturelover68 says...

it wasn't ever properly done. they should have built more round city boundaries and then closed a lot of the car parks in city centre and made few left short term parking - that way people would be forced to use it. Worked ok in oxford and other places.
it wasn't ever properly done. they should have built more round city boundaries and then closed a lot of the car parks in city centre and made few left short term parking - that way people would be forced to use it. Worked ok in oxford and other places. naturelover68
  • Score: 4

10:48pm Tue 2 Sep 14

CJH says...

naturelover68 wrote:
it wasn't ever properly done. they should have built more round city boundaries and then closed a lot of the car parks in city centre and made few left short term parking - that way people would be forced to use it. Worked ok in oxford and other places.
We're not Oxford or other places.
[quote][p][bold]naturelover68[/bold] wrote: it wasn't ever properly done. they should have built more round city boundaries and then closed a lot of the car parks in city centre and made few left short term parking - that way people would be forced to use it. Worked ok in oxford and other places.[/p][/quote]We're not Oxford or other places. CJH
  • Score: 1

10:54pm Tue 2 Sep 14

3thinker says...

CJH wrote:
naturelover68 wrote:
it wasn't ever properly done. they should have built more round city boundaries and then closed a lot of the car parks in city centre and made few left short term parking - that way people would be forced to use it. Worked ok in oxford and other places.
We're not Oxford or other places.
Perhaps something Worcester should aspire to. It'd certainly enhance property values, quality of life and at least maintain congestion at current levels.
[quote][p][bold]CJH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]naturelover68[/bold] wrote: it wasn't ever properly done. they should have built more round city boundaries and then closed a lot of the car parks in city centre and made few left short term parking - that way people would be forced to use it. Worked ok in oxford and other places.[/p][/quote]We're not Oxford or other places.[/p][/quote]Perhaps something Worcester should aspire to. It'd certainly enhance property values, quality of life and at least maintain congestion at current levels. 3thinker
  • Score: 5

11:06pm Tue 2 Sep 14

CYNIC_AL says...

No photo of the aforementioned 'angry motorists' stood at the fenced off entrance with either a) their arms folded... b) a homemade sign... or c) both? Disappointed WN, very disappointed...
No photo of the aforementioned 'angry motorists' stood at the fenced off entrance with either a) their arms folded... b) a homemade sign... or c) both? Disappointed WN, very disappointed... CYNIC_AL
  • Score: 10

11:26pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Perfman says...

Anthony Green wrote:
So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it.
Council logic?
£186,000 lost running the service which is £15,500 per month, so £3000 to maintain the site until the lease ends is cheap!
[quote][p][bold]Anthony Green[/bold] wrote: So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it. Council logic?[/p][/quote]£186,000 lost running the service which is £15,500 per month, so £3000 to maintain the site until the lease ends is cheap! Perfman
  • Score: 6

11:30pm Tue 2 Sep 14

Perfman says...

Perfman wrote:
Anthony Green wrote:
So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it.
Council logic?
£186,000 lost running the service which is £15,500 per month, so £3000 to maintain the site until the lease ends is cheap!
The lease runs until January 2015, by which time keeping it safe will have cost £15,000. So 5 months @ £3000 per month instead of five months @ £15,500 per month (total £77,500). Does it make sense now???
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anthony Green[/bold] wrote: So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it. Council logic?[/p][/quote]£186,000 lost running the service which is £15,500 per month, so £3000 to maintain the site until the lease ends is cheap![/p][/quote]The lease runs until January 2015, by which time keeping it safe will have cost £15,000. So 5 months @ £3000 per month instead of five months @ £15,500 per month (total £77,500). Does it make sense now??? Perfman
  • Score: 3

11:48pm Tue 2 Sep 14

CYNIC_AL says...

A perfect site for Worcester City FC to build their new stadium. Either that or another new supermarket which of course - our city so desperately needs...
A perfect site for Worcester City FC to build their new stadium. Either that or another new supermarket which of course - our city so desperately needs... CYNIC_AL
  • Score: 7

11:56pm Tue 2 Sep 14

3thinker says...

Perfman wrote:
Anthony Green wrote:
So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it.
Council logic?
£186,000 lost running the service which is £15,500 per month, so £3000 to maintain the site until the lease ends is cheap!
Add in the congestion, health, pollution tax and other costs associated with increased traffic going into the City Centre and the total cost to us taxpayers won't be much different. More so when traffic increases as the City expands.

Despite what people think there's an excess of parking in the City Centre for most of the time. I sense the parkland ride closure has a s much to do with the new administration at the Guildhall thinking it can actually raise total parking incomes despite a few reductions in parking fees. Perhaps something to consider when you're next stuck in a traffic jam.

In a City the size of Worcester and with the road structure we have there is only one real way to reduce congestion and that's to decrease car journeys. So far the City and County have encouraged more to drive into the City (popular certainly), by a bit of a reduction in parking costs; removed the park and ride; cut bus services; reduced the cycle infrastructure budget to £nil. Meanwhile there are plans to massively grow the City and even the County's Highway engineers expect that despite what they can do to increase capacity on the road network the City will be at gridlock for most of the working day and within 5 years.

What I find quite amazing is that our key local politicians don't have the vision to recognise that they need to plan for the future.

Equally we as car drivers need to recognise that for every journey we and others can be encouraged to make in anything other than a car with a single occupant and outside 'rush hour' means less traffic and more parking space. Perhaps time to think more positively of those who are willing to walk, cycle, take the bus or car share rather than seem them as lesser mortals who don't deserve to be on the roads?
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anthony Green[/bold] wrote: So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it. Council logic?[/p][/quote]£186,000 lost running the service which is £15,500 per month, so £3000 to maintain the site until the lease ends is cheap![/p][/quote]Add in the congestion, health, pollution tax and other costs associated with increased traffic going into the City Centre and the total cost to us taxpayers won't be much different. More so when traffic increases as the City expands. Despite what people think there's an excess of parking in the City Centre for most of the time. I sense the parkland ride closure has a s much to do with the new administration at the Guildhall thinking it can actually raise total parking incomes despite a few reductions in parking fees. Perhaps something to consider when you're next stuck in a traffic jam. In a City the size of Worcester and with the road structure we have there is only one real way to reduce congestion and that's to decrease car journeys. So far the City and County have encouraged more to drive into the City (popular certainly), by a bit of a reduction in parking costs; removed the park and ride; cut bus services; reduced the cycle infrastructure budget to £nil. Meanwhile there are plans to massively grow the City and even the County's Highway engineers expect that despite what they can do to increase capacity on the road network the City will be at gridlock for most of the working day and within 5 years. What I find quite amazing is that our key local politicians don't have the vision to recognise that they need to plan for the future. Equally we as car drivers need to recognise that for every journey we and others can be encouraged to make in anything other than a car with a single occupant and outside 'rush hour' means less traffic and more parking space. Perhaps time to think more positively of those who are willing to walk, cycle, take the bus or car share rather than seem them as lesser mortals who don't deserve to be on the roads? 3thinker
  • Score: 8

1:41am Wed 3 Sep 14

Rita Jelfs says...

3thinker, the extra costs you talk about such as congestion, pollution, health, etc are 'externalities' that are not paid for by the taxpayer, but by the individual who they affect, in the short term. So 'externalities' aren't adequately measured, except perhaps by an increase in asthma or other health affects. In the short-term, a large increase in parking costs, or no parking space, will be the signal that will change driving behaviour. In the short-term the Council's more interested in parking fees to fill up the coffers? So economic signals, not moralising is the only thing that will work at the moment.
3thinker, the extra costs you talk about such as congestion, pollution, health, etc are 'externalities' that are not paid for by the taxpayer, but by the individual who they affect, in the short term. So 'externalities' aren't adequately measured, except perhaps by an increase in asthma or other health affects. In the short-term, a large increase in parking costs, or no parking space, will be the signal that will change driving behaviour. In the short-term the Council's more interested in parking fees to fill up the coffers? So economic signals, not moralising is the only thing that will work at the moment. Rita Jelfs
  • Score: 1

1:47am Wed 3 Sep 14

Biggles says...

If it was liked and needed, it'd have been used.

It wasn't so it has gone ..........good !

You aren't going to uninvent the private motor car, and that would appear to be what most people want to use.
If it was liked and needed, it'd have been used. It wasn't so it has gone ..........good ! You aren't going to uninvent the private motor car, and that would appear to be what most people want to use. Biggles
  • Score: 3

9:42am Wed 3 Sep 14

Perfman says...

3thinker wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Anthony Green wrote:
So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it.
Council logic?
£186,000 lost running the service which is £15,500 per month, so £3000 to maintain the site until the lease ends is cheap!
Add in the congestion, health, pollution tax and other costs associated with increased traffic going into the City Centre and the total cost to us taxpayers won't be much different. More so when traffic increases as the City expands.

Despite what people think there's an excess of parking in the City Centre for most of the time. I sense the parkland ride closure has a s much to do with the new administration at the Guildhall thinking it can actually raise total parking incomes despite a few reductions in parking fees. Perhaps something to consider when you're next stuck in a traffic jam.

In a City the size of Worcester and with the road structure we have there is only one real way to reduce congestion and that's to decrease car journeys. So far the City and County have encouraged more to drive into the City (popular certainly), by a bit of a reduction in parking costs; removed the park and ride; cut bus services; reduced the cycle infrastructure budget to £nil. Meanwhile there are plans to massively grow the City and even the County's Highway engineers expect that despite what they can do to increase capacity on the road network the City will be at gridlock for most of the working day and within 5 years.

What I find quite amazing is that our key local politicians don't have the vision to recognise that they need to plan for the future.

Equally we as car drivers need to recognise that for every journey we and others can be encouraged to make in anything other than a car with a single occupant and outside 'rush hour' means less traffic and more parking space. Perhaps time to think more positively of those who are willing to walk, cycle, take the bus or car share rather than seem them as lesser mortals who don't deserve to be on the roads?
One important item missing from your argument - the money will not be coming out of Council funds, so an overall drop in cost!
[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anthony Green[/bold] wrote: So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it. Council logic?[/p][/quote]£186,000 lost running the service which is £15,500 per month, so £3000 to maintain the site until the lease ends is cheap![/p][/quote]Add in the congestion, health, pollution tax and other costs associated with increased traffic going into the City Centre and the total cost to us taxpayers won't be much different. More so when traffic increases as the City expands. Despite what people think there's an excess of parking in the City Centre for most of the time. I sense the parkland ride closure has a s much to do with the new administration at the Guildhall thinking it can actually raise total parking incomes despite a few reductions in parking fees. Perhaps something to consider when you're next stuck in a traffic jam. In a City the size of Worcester and with the road structure we have there is only one real way to reduce congestion and that's to decrease car journeys. So far the City and County have encouraged more to drive into the City (popular certainly), by a bit of a reduction in parking costs; removed the park and ride; cut bus services; reduced the cycle infrastructure budget to £nil. Meanwhile there are plans to massively grow the City and even the County's Highway engineers expect that despite what they can do to increase capacity on the road network the City will be at gridlock for most of the working day and within 5 years. What I find quite amazing is that our key local politicians don't have the vision to recognise that they need to plan for the future. Equally we as car drivers need to recognise that for every journey we and others can be encouraged to make in anything other than a car with a single occupant and outside 'rush hour' means less traffic and more parking space. Perhaps time to think more positively of those who are willing to walk, cycle, take the bus or car share rather than seem them as lesser mortals who don't deserve to be on the roads?[/p][/quote]One important item missing from your argument - the money will not be coming out of Council funds, so an overall drop in cost! Perfman
  • Score: 2

9:59am Wed 3 Sep 14

3thinker says...

Perfman wrote:
3thinker wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Anthony Green wrote:
So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it.
Council logic?
£186,000 lost running the service which is £15,500 per month, so £3000 to maintain the site until the lease ends is cheap!
Add in the congestion, health, pollution tax and other costs associated with increased traffic going into the City Centre and the total cost to us taxpayers won't be much different. More so when traffic increases as the City expands.

Despite what people think there's an excess of parking in the City Centre for most of the time. I sense the parkland ride closure has a s much to do with the new administration at the Guildhall thinking it can actually raise total parking incomes despite a few reductions in parking fees. Perhaps something to consider when you're next stuck in a traffic jam.

In a City the size of Worcester and with the road structure we have there is only one real way to reduce congestion and that's to decrease car journeys. So far the City and County have encouraged more to drive into the City (popular certainly), by a bit of a reduction in parking costs; removed the park and ride; cut bus services; reduced the cycle infrastructure budget to £nil. Meanwhile there are plans to massively grow the City and even the County's Highway engineers expect that despite what they can do to increase capacity on the road network the City will be at gridlock for most of the working day and within 5 years.

What I find quite amazing is that our key local politicians don't have the vision to recognise that they need to plan for the future.

Equally we as car drivers need to recognise that for every journey we and others can be encouraged to make in anything other than a car with a single occupant and outside 'rush hour' means less traffic and more parking space. Perhaps time to think more positively of those who are willing to walk, cycle, take the bus or car share rather than seem them as lesser mortals who don't deserve to be on the roads?
One important item missing from your argument - the money will not be coming out of Council funds, so an overall drop in cost!
Correct.

Motorists will end up paying for the extra time and cost stuck in jams.

Businesses will pay in added delays, lost business and reduced efficiency.

The NHS and Social Services (and residents) will pay in additional costs associated with the adverse health impacts from more air and noise pollution.
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anthony Green[/bold] wrote: So taxpayer funds a loss making Park & Ride service, then taxpayer funds £3,000 per month to mothball it. Council logic?[/p][/quote]£186,000 lost running the service which is £15,500 per month, so £3000 to maintain the site until the lease ends is cheap![/p][/quote]Add in the congestion, health, pollution tax and other costs associated with increased traffic going into the City Centre and the total cost to us taxpayers won't be much different. More so when traffic increases as the City expands. Despite what people think there's an excess of parking in the City Centre for most of the time. I sense the parkland ride closure has a s much to do with the new administration at the Guildhall thinking it can actually raise total parking incomes despite a few reductions in parking fees. Perhaps something to consider when you're next stuck in a traffic jam. In a City the size of Worcester and with the road structure we have there is only one real way to reduce congestion and that's to decrease car journeys. So far the City and County have encouraged more to drive into the City (popular certainly), by a bit of a reduction in parking costs; removed the park and ride; cut bus services; reduced the cycle infrastructure budget to £nil. Meanwhile there are plans to massively grow the City and even the County's Highway engineers expect that despite what they can do to increase capacity on the road network the City will be at gridlock for most of the working day and within 5 years. What I find quite amazing is that our key local politicians don't have the vision to recognise that they need to plan for the future. Equally we as car drivers need to recognise that for every journey we and others can be encouraged to make in anything other than a car with a single occupant and outside 'rush hour' means less traffic and more parking space. Perhaps time to think more positively of those who are willing to walk, cycle, take the bus or car share rather than seem them as lesser mortals who don't deserve to be on the roads?[/p][/quote]One important item missing from your argument - the money will not be coming out of Council funds, so an overall drop in cost![/p][/quote]Correct. Motorists will end up paying for the extra time and cost stuck in jams. Businesses will pay in added delays, lost business and reduced efficiency. The NHS and Social Services (and residents) will pay in additional costs associated with the adverse health impacts from more air and noise pollution. 3thinker
  • Score: 1

1:49pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Rita Jelfs says...

When Police Stations are closing, A & E Departments are overwhelmed, GPs are overwhelmed, I would suggest that the last things that the County Councils are worried about are parking congestion. Important local services have had to be cut across the board. Until government debt is reduced to a manageable level, County Councils have no cash and few options. Congestion will be low priority, regardless of the increasing effects. Get used to it for a few years.
When Police Stations are closing, A & E Departments are overwhelmed, GPs are overwhelmed, I would suggest that the last things that the County Councils are worried about are parking congestion. Important local services have had to be cut across the board. Until government debt is reduced to a manageable level, County Councils have no cash and few options. Congestion will be low priority, regardless of the increasing effects. Get used to it for a few years. Rita Jelfs
  • Score: 4

3:15pm Wed 3 Sep 14

liketoknow says...

CYNIC_AL wrote:
No photo of the aforementioned 'angry motorists' stood at the fenced off entrance with either a) their arms folded... b) a homemade sign... or c) both? Disappointed WN, very disappointed...
no they had a disappointed cat this time. he's legs weren't folded either.
[quote][p][bold]CYNIC_AL[/bold] wrote: No photo of the aforementioned 'angry motorists' stood at the fenced off entrance with either a) their arms folded... b) a homemade sign... or c) both? Disappointed WN, very disappointed...[/p][/quote]no they had a disappointed cat this time. he's legs weren't folded either. liketoknow
  • Score: 2

3:39pm Wed 3 Sep 14

PrivateSi says...

Comparing Worcester to EVESHAM would be a better idea than to OXFORD!! We need another BRIDGE, possibly 1 more car park and park'n'ride only at CHRISTMAS...
Comparing Worcester to EVESHAM would be a better idea than to OXFORD!! We need another BRIDGE, possibly 1 more car park and park'n'ride only at CHRISTMAS... PrivateSi
  • Score: -3

3:46pm Wed 3 Sep 14

3thinker says...

Rita Jelfs wrote:
When Police Stations are closing, A & E Departments are overwhelmed, GPs are overwhelmed, I would suggest that the last things that the County Councils are worried about are parking congestion. Important local services have had to be cut across the board. Until government debt is reduced to a manageable level, County Councils have no cash and few options. Congestion will be low priority, regardless of the increasing effects. Get used to it for a few years.
Not sure what Police and NHS problem s have to do with the County Council, but you do make a valid point about getting use to and adjusting our behaviours to cope with congestion. To get to levels experienced when the schools are off would only mean a 10% reduction in car journeys at peak times. Its not rocket science and there are lots of low & no cost ways to get this sort of reduction in traffic volumes. Instead the City and County seem to be hell bent on doing the opposite and encouraging more to drive around the City.
[quote][p][bold]Rita Jelfs[/bold] wrote: When Police Stations are closing, A & E Departments are overwhelmed, GPs are overwhelmed, I would suggest that the last things that the County Councils are worried about are parking congestion. Important local services have had to be cut across the board. Until government debt is reduced to a manageable level, County Councils have no cash and few options. Congestion will be low priority, regardless of the increasing effects. Get used to it for a few years.[/p][/quote]Not sure what Police and NHS problem s have to do with the County Council, but you do make a valid point about getting use to and adjusting our behaviours to cope with congestion. To get to levels experienced when the schools are off would only mean a 10% reduction in car journeys at peak times. Its not rocket science and there are lots of low & no cost ways to get this sort of reduction in traffic volumes. Instead the City and County seem to be hell bent on doing the opposite and encouraging more to drive around the City. 3thinker
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Wed 3 Sep 14

snailmale says...

old misery wrote:
Any news on the cat?
The cat has been retained to produce a strategy which will cater for Worcester's transport needs up to 2050 and beyond. The thinking is that he can't do any worse than the present 'experts', and he'll do it for a bowl of milk and a dish of KiteKat.
[quote][p][bold]old misery[/bold] wrote: Any news on the cat?[/p][/quote]The cat has been retained to produce a strategy which will cater for Worcester's transport needs up to 2050 and beyond. The thinking is that he can't do any worse than the present 'experts', and he'll do it for a bowl of milk and a dish of KiteKat. snailmale
  • Score: 4

8:04pm Wed 3 Sep 14

Dave Farmer says...

How could anyone ever have passed the original proposals? What a complete waste of money! Well done again Worcester County Council... P155 the money down the drains. We should have a choice as to whether we pay council tax based on the performance of the governing council. I would choose to pay ZERO. Millions paid out to shuttle a few people half a mile down the road?? Ridiculous, ludicrous and should be criminal.
How could anyone ever have passed the original proposals? What a complete waste of money! Well done again Worcester County Council... P155 the money down the drains. We should have a choice as to whether we pay council tax based on the performance of the governing council. I would choose to pay ZERO. Millions paid out to shuttle a few people half a mile down the road?? Ridiculous, ludicrous and should be criminal. Dave Farmer
  • Score: 1

9:00pm Sun 7 Sep 14

ukcaddyman says...

The park and ride should never have been allowed to fail. If there was a shortfall of revenue then it should have been the people of Worcester who should have been given the option of paying more or letting it fail.
When you look at this site now surrounded by fencing and the cost of this and the resulting deterioration that will happen is it a disgrace that the council allowed this to happen. How long before the site is invaded by travellers caravans. The fencing will not keep them out. Add the cost of clearing the site up an legal bills and keeping it going may not have been that bad. Let the people of Worcester decide if this should reopen. We should be given the option of a vote. If not vote out the Councilors who decided it was a good idea to close it. Power to the people !.
The park and ride should never have been allowed to fail. If there was a shortfall of revenue then it should have been the people of Worcester who should have been given the option of paying more or letting it fail. When you look at this site now surrounded by fencing and the cost of this and the resulting deterioration that will happen is it a disgrace that the council allowed this to happen. How long before the site is invaded by travellers caravans. The fencing will not keep them out. Add the cost of clearing the site up an legal bills and keeping it going may not have been that bad. Let the people of Worcester decide if this should reopen. We should be given the option of a vote. If not vote out the Councilors who decided it was a good idea to close it. Power to the people !. ukcaddyman
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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