POLICY COMMISSION MEETING

Meeting	Policy Commission for Economy, Tourism, Regeneration and Transport
Ref	E.PC.21/9/05
Date	21 September 2005
Time	18.00hrs
Place	Committee Room 1, County Hall, Newport
Purpose of meeting	Formal public meeting
Attendance	Commission	Cllrs George Brown (Commissioner), Henry Adams, Ivan Bulwer, Jonathan Fitzgerald-Bond, Charles Hancock, John Hobart, Lora Peacey-Wilcox
	Cabinet	Cllr Dawn Cousins – Cabinet Member for Care, Health and Housing Cllr Barry Abraham – Cabinet Members for Safer Communities
	Secretariat	Cllr David Pugh Cllr Alan Wells
	Other Councillors	Cllr David Williams - Commissioner, Policy Commission for Safer Communities
	Officers	Mr Gareth Hughes Mr Stephen Matthews Miss Louise Biggs, Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) Team Miss April West, O&S Team
	Stake holders	Mr Steve Porter Mr David Woracker
	Apologies	None
Agenda Items
1. To receive evidence from Cllr J S Fitzgerald-Bond	Key points: Ø The aim of the scheme is to create an affordable annual permit. Ø In relation to the £50 parking permit, several assumptions were described by Cllr Fitzgerald Bond. The permit could: o Be valid for stays up to 4 hours per visit to a car park o Be valid only for council car parks (with possible exceptions as determined by the review) o Be priced £50 per year (£35 per year concessionary rate) o Not protect permit holders from existing penalties o Not guarantee a parking space o Be non-transferable o Be replaceable if lost (at a charge of £10) o Be partially redeemable (for a £10 fee) Ø A cost to the Council of £450,000 would be the worst case scenario, based on the above assumptions. Ø All car parks can be seen as short stay car parks, although some have a longer stay extension to this. Ø In the UK, the cost of bus and train fares over time has increased and the cost of car use has decreased.
2. To receive a Evidence from Mr Gareth Hughes	Key points: Mr Hughes gave a power point presentation containing the following key points: Ø Subject to several assumptions and the results of a car parking survey, the proportion of income lost depending upon frequency of visit and amount spent on car park fees has been calculated. The assumptions are that: o The demand for on-street parking will remain unaffected. o The increase in car parking income during summer months is due to tourists. o Usage patterns are otherwise unchanged. Ø The possible introduction of a £1 bus ticket may affect existing permit sales. Ø The cost to the Council of an ‘all day’ permit is predicted at 1.1 million. Ø There has been no price rise in car parking fees since August 2003 Ø The exact demand for the permits is not yet known although the convenience factor may lead to an increased take-up Ø The projected sales for an off-street permit with current prices = 6,556 and with a current prices but four hours maximum stay = 5,752
3. To receive evidence from Mr Stephen Matthews	Key points: Ø Making car parking less expensive is not nationally ‘normal’ but this needs to be looked at in the context of other policies, economic prosperity and regeneration. Ø One of the most difficult questions to address will be whether the permits change travel patterns Ø The government have set targets for reducing traffic growth, limiting growth to 3% per year. This target is set out in the Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2) Ø Monitoring and surveys will be required to understand the impact of the permit. Ø Visitors find current car park prices very reasonable. Ø There will be a cost of changing the signs in all the car parks and a very clear explanation of exactly what the permits entitle the holder to will need to be made. Ø The council could re-invest monies received from the permit into the highways network. Ø The permit would not guarantee a car parking space for holders. Ø Does the Council wish to create multi-storey car parks in order to provide more space? Ø There is a need to find alternative ways to administer car parks. Ø People will continue to use the highways network until the delay becomes unacceptable to them. Ø The permit may encourage short stay users to stay longer thus reducing the turnover of short stay car parking spaces. Ø The Council may need to consider alternative ways of administering car parks. Ø The permits would not increase the number of vehicles on the road but may change the times at which people make their journeys. It is up to demand management techniques to control this.
4. To receive evidence from Cllr David Williams	Cllr Williams gave evidence on his commission’s project on decriminalised parking: Ø There may be fewer off-street car parking spaces available.
5. To receive evidence from Mr David Woracker, IW Transport 2000	Mr Woracker gave a power point presentation containing the following key points: Ø Car parking usually has an negative price elasticity (the change in price of parking will result in a less than proportional shift in demand for parking). Ø There is a need to make it clear as to what exactly the permit entitles the holder to, e.g. on-street vs. off-street parking. Ø All transport decisions have implications and so all possible consequences of introducing a £50 parking permit must be considered, such as a modal shift away from walking and bus usage and an increase in congestion. Ø If the permit only allowed 4 hours parking people may stay for 4 hours and then move to another car park (‘musical car parks’) thus increasing congestion. Ø Variable message signs are a short term and expensive measure to counteract congestion. Ø Price elasticity can be defined as a ratio of the percentage change in quantity demanded to the percentage change in price. If this ration is less than 1, then the (proportional) change in demand is less than the change in price and the product or service is said to be price inelastic, as is the case with public transport. The £1 bus fare has an elasticity of less than -1. What is the elasticity of demand for Council car parks and is there evidence that is more than -1? Ø Keeping tariffs simple will reduce the cost of coin counting. E.g. rather than charging £1.70, charge £2. Ø Should the number of car parks in Newport be decreased in order to encourage people to use local shops? Ø Surveys by the AA, RAC and others have shown that motorists are less resistant to higher parking charges if the money is dedicated to spending on alternatives. Ø Would the land currently used for car parking be better used for another purpose? Ø It is not good to be dependant upon petrol. More money would stay within the local economy if spent upon bus fares rather than upon cars. Ø We are currently the local authority with the highest rates of walking in the UK. Ø To ease congestion more cycle and walk ways could be provided, more jobs could be situated in the main towns, the £1 flat fare and concessions could be extended to island trains and pedestrian priority lanes could be created in towns between bus and rail stations.
6. To receive evidence from Mr Steve Porter, Quality Transport Partnership	Key points: Ø £100 would be a better price for the parking permit. Ø Variable permits which encourage journeys to peripheral towns might be helpful
Action required	To investigate other Local Authorities in relation to the £50 parking permit	Overview and Scrutiny team