Forum Topic

"some secret cabal of councillors did not sit round flicking through specifications of pay and display machines to find the one that would fleece visitors the most"They had a responsibility to protect residents in this regards which they failed to do. Whether this was due to neglect or malign intent isn't really something I could comment on."I'm not sure what the "unwanted parking" you refer to is"I mean when you visit a meter and are forced to pay for more parking time than you actually need"I also note that around half the borough - presumably the less affluent half - have no access to cars"This is probably an incorrect assumption. Nationally there is little correlation between car ownership and wealth. London has the lowest level of car ownership and is one of the wealthiest parts of the country. The national statistics database may give a ward by ward breakdown of car ownership to provide a detailed local picture but your age is probably a more important indicator of whether or not you own a car as opposed to your income."Hammersmith & Fulham is one of the biggest investors in public transport, cycle lanes...-all funded through revenue from parking, incidentally - is a credit to the administration. "That money is spent in a worthwhile fashion does not excuse sharp practise in its collection."Should the council be looking at adapting or replacing these machines over a reasonable period?  Yes"Excellent. Are you going to take and steps to expedite this?

Karen Cooper ● 7246d

With the greatest of respect Alan, some secret cabal of councillors did not sit round flicking through specifications of pay and display machines to find the one that would fleece visitors the most.  It's simply not the case.The "regressive" issue is one that very much depends on your outlook; if you regard it as a "tax" then you reach the view you hold.  But if you regard parking as a commodity, then presumably food pricing is regressive because each item costs the same and therefore wealthier people can buy more or better quality versions of the item.  I'm fairly certain that a pay and display machine that charges motorists dependent on their income doesn't exist - but if it did it would be wrong to use it because the value of a parking space for a prince's car is precisely the same as for a pauper's.  I don't think it's contentious to state that parking space is a precious commodity in H&F.I'm not sure what the "unwanted parking" you refer to is - (I presume you don't mean you want parking bays taken out?!); suffice it to say that parking zones have only been introduced where a majority (usually a large majority) of residents want them.  I also note that around half the borough - presumably the less affluent half - have no access to cars. That Hammersmith & Fulham is one of the biggest investors in public transport, cycle lanes, safe routes to school and roads are among the best paved and surfaced in London  among a myriad of other transport initiatives - all funded through revenue from parking, incidentally - is a credit to the administration. But to get back to the original purpose of this thread, do I believe that pay and display machines should ideally provide change?  Yes.  Are the machines able to at present? No.  Can they be adapted to be able to do so?  I don't know.  Should the council be looking at adapting or replacing these machines over a reasonable period?  Yes.

Adam Gray ● 7246d