tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666218922795754507.post3602272006412321709..comments2023-11-21T23:07:57.616-08:00Comments on Countercyclical: The third railUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666218922795754507.post-29826702366311053232013-05-18T05:49:19.052-07:002013-05-18T05:49:19.052-07:00No question that a private enterprise will (should...No question that a private enterprise will (should?) price its offering, such as parking, optimally for the best returns to itself. You see this being referred to regretfully by, for example, hospital trusts apologising for parking price increases imposed by the PFI companies they engage to build and run their visitors' car parks. Where parking is owned by the local authority I guess they have two competing aims. One obviously is to maximise revenues, because as you say they should not be calling on non-driving taxpayers to subsidise driving ones, or indeed drivers from other areas who don't actually pay tax to them at all, and they should be optimising the use of publicly owned assets. They wouldn't undersell spare commercial property in their portfolio, or council housing, so why parking?<br /><br />That does however compete with another obligation which is to enhance the amenity of their residents, which might well mean going easy on parking in some parts of town to support the businesses there, in the interests of their residents as customers. <br /><br />In both cases though they should be using charges and restrictions to optimise the usage of the facility. Perhaps that means slightly weighting charges against very short or very long stays because neither is economically productive - the notion that town centres benefit from free parking for the person who "pops in" for a pint of milk or a newspaper, when someone else is struggling to find a parking space near the supermarket so they can do a weekly shop, is absurd.Paul Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07929808238663838155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666218922795754507.post-65056567204331266412013-05-18T05:01:18.144-07:002013-05-18T05:01:18.144-07:00"time restrictions and charging, correctly ap..."time restrictions and charging, correctly applied, not merely don’t harm retailers, they support them, by optimising the use of parking spaces"<br /><br />This ^ spot on.<br /><br />Parking within a reasonable distance of a shopping area is a finite resource and is subject to the laws of supply and demand.<br /><br />Underprice it and you waste the resource, overprice it and you will have excess. Parking should be charged for at a rate that creates the maximum amount of revenue. This may even in fact increase the amount being spent in the shops a person going to the shops for a mars bar will not spend £1 to park for 30 mins, but a person going to buy a tablet computer will do so because proportionally it is a small cost of the journey. If parking is too cheap Mars bar buyer might prevent tablet buyer from being able to access the shops.<br /><br />People will bitch and whine about the price of parking, it doesn't mean they won't keep paying it. When revenues/occupancy reach the top of the laffer curve then you know you have the most optimally priced parking and the council is getting the best return on its asset which I would hope they are obliged to do. <br /><br />If councils don't get the best return they can on the land they own then that has to be made up elsewhere, typically council tax. This means that everyone who doesn't park is subsidising cheap parking for those who do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05661338059334158143noreply@blogger.com