Parking Meter Charges, London (Hansard, 1 August 1963)

§ Mr. Marples

I have received a letter from the Standing Joint Committee of the R.A.C., A.A. and R.S.A.C. This letter and the full reply which has been sent were in the following terms:

16th July, 1963.

The Secretary,

Ministry of Transport,

St. Christopher House,

Southwark Street, S.E.I.

Dear Sir,

The motoring organisations are gravely concerned at last week's statement by the Minister of Transport that meter charges in the West End may be very substantially increased—possibly by as much as four-fold or more in the West End of London. Many 'phone calls and letters havebeen received by the motoring organisations from their members preponderantly protesting—often in the strongest possible terms—at such an excessive increase. There can be no justification for penalising law-abiding short-term parkers in order to deal with the problems caused by those who park for longer periods.

It is much regretted that the Minister decided to make this announcement without prior consultation with the motoring organisations, thus departing from normal policy when important 158W decisions affecting the interests of motorists are about to be taken.

It is hoped that the Minister will be prepared to reconsider his proposals having regard to the strong feelings which they have aroused. To proceed on the basis announced last week would inevitably alienate the sympathies of a large section of the motoring public, whose co-operation is important in any plans to improve traffic conditions in London.

Yours faithfully,

D. R. GRAIG,

A. J. A. LEE,

Joint Secretaries.

The Joint Secretaries,

The Standing Joint Committee of the R.A.C., A.A. and R.S.A.C.,

66 Whitcomb Street,

London, W.C.2.

31st July, 1963.

Gentlemen,

I am directed by the Minister of Transport to refer to your letter of 16th July about the proposals he announced recently, and explained in the booklet "Parking—the next stage", for making controlled parking schemes in London more effective and introducing control into new areas where it is needed.

The Minister notes that your Committee have addressed themselves solely to one feature of his proposals, that is the proposed increase of some meter charges. He notes too that your Committee's comments seem to take no account of many of the considerations discussed in the booklet. He feels therefore that it would be helpful if I were to remind the Committee why the Minister considers these changes desirable.

First, the increases would not be general throughout London. In fact, on the basis tentatively outlined in the booklet, rather less than half the meters in the London area would be increased in price; rather more than half would be left at the present prices or made cheaper.

In the areas where an increase is proposed—that is roughly the West End, Holborn and the City of London—it is at present virtually impossible to find an empty parking bay through most of the day. The Minister has had many complaints about this. They come from a great variety of people, businessmen, commercial travellers, visitors to hospitals and so on. Many of them have incurred £2 penalties for parking illegally rather than miss important appointments. It is in their interest and the public interest that they should be able to find convenient short-term parking space near the places they want to visit. It is precisely in order to help these people that the Minister has proposed to increase charges in these areas.

Studies have shown that one of the principal reasons why there is insufficient empty space is that some people, selfishly or thoughtlessly, are taking up more than a fair share of meter time. By meter feeding, or exchanging places ("musical meters") they deny the use of meters to many of the people for whom they were intended—the short-term 159W parkers. Where space on the highway is limited and the demand high, it is clearly better—and in the general interest—for a parking bay to be occupied usefully by several people in the course of a day than for one to monopolise it for a good deal of the day. The availability of convenient short-term parking space is a positive aid to commercial life and a benefit to the community as a whole. The Minister's proposals are aimed at this end.

The Minister recognises that there is a natural temptation for people to park on the highway for long periods if they can and that there is an obvious incentive to do so in the areas where the shortage of meter space is most acute because it is much cheaper to park on the street than off it. It is significant that there are more than 2,000 empty spaces every day in car parks and garages, in or very near these areas. If they were occupied by motorists who now park on the streets for long periods and so deprive short-term parkers of space, it would be possible for some 16,000 additional short-term parkers a day to use the meters.

The Minister has considered asking the police to stamp out meter feeding by increasing their enforcement effort. But this would require a very great deal of manpower—far more than the police could spare or recruit. And it would still not be a complete solution. 'Musical meters' is not illegal and could not reasonably be made so. Moreover, the Minister is sure it is better to remove the cause of these practices than to try to punish people for indulging in them. In other words, prices must be adjusted so as to bring demand and supply nearer together and also to provide the right incentive for long-term parkers to leave their vehicle in the proper place—off the highway.

The Minister notes that your Committee has suggested recently that more off-street car parks should be provided at 'reasonable' or 'acceptable' rates. If the suggestion is that off-street parking should be provided below the economic or market price, the Minister is unable to agree. He sees no reason why motorists should expect to pay less for parking space than it costs to provide it. Private enterprise could not be expected to run car parks at a loss and the Minister sees no good reason to encourage local authorities to subsidise their car parks at the expense of ratepayers. With regard to the amount of off-street parking space, the Minister feels sure your Committee is aware of many of the achievements and plans of local authorities and private enterprise. Some local authorities have been criticised for not making use of their surplus meter revenues. But, in fact most of them have already incurred, or are committed to, expenditure substantially in excess of what they have received. Some have had difficulty in acquiring suitable sites but are now making satisfactory progress. Since meters were first installed in London, more than 4,000 additional public off-street car spaces have been provided. But although many more are under construction or are firmly planned, both by local authorities and private enterprise, the progress needed will not be maintained if car parks, when completed, stand half-empty because they are undercut 160W by on-street parking. As has been mentioned, there are at the present time over 2,000 empty spaces every day in car parks in or very near the busiest places. It is essential to adjust the price relationship between on and off-street parking, if new car parks are to be built and used.

Your letter speaks of the effect of increasing meter charges as "penalising law-abiding short-term parkers". The Minister finds this hard to understand. He proposes to increase charges where—and onlywhere—the would-be short-term parker at present during most of the day has to waste a good deal of time (and money) cruising around looking for an empty bay, or is compelled to incur a £2 penalty or sometimes even both. The increased charges are designed to help these motorists by making space available without long search. Letters sent to the Minister, or published in the Press, have welcomed the changes for just this reason.

Many people have overlooked the proposal to keep a unit parking fee of sixpence. This means that many short-term parkers would pay little, if anything, more than they do now. For instance, where charges are doubled, half an hour's parking would cost only 6d., as it does now; and an hour and a half 1s. 6d., compared with the present charge of 1s. At a rate of two shillings an hour it would be possible to park for a quarter of an hour for 6d. half an hour for 1s., and so on. And there would always be the chance of being able to use unexpired time on a meter without having to pay at all—another of the Minister's proposals. It is the long-term parker, the meter feeders and others who prevent the proper use of the bays for short-term parking, who would be discouraged by the increase in fees.

Your Committee expresses regret that the motorising organisations were not consulted before the Minister's proposals were announced. I am to point out, however, that these are only proposals. They were made public so that the Minister could receive the comments of all who are interested. He has invited local authorities to submit their comments to him. Copies were at the same time sent to the motoring organisations, whose views, as well as those of other representative bodies, will be welcomed. If your Committee feels that it would like to discuss the proposals in general, or any aspect of them, he will be glad to arrange for his hon. Adviser on London Traffic, Sir Alex Samuels, and senior officials to receive a deputation.

The Minister notes that the motoring organisations have received telephone calls and letters protesting against the proposed increase of some meter charges. He has received some himself. But he has also received a good many letters welcoming his comprehensive proposals These include not only the proposal to increase some meter charges, but also proposals to decrease some, to provide more parking space in existing zones, to give free "tag-end" parking and to have parking control without meters (and with preference for residents) in some less busy areas. The Minister hopes that his proposals will be judged as a whole. The underlying purpose, as with all his traffic measures, is to help 161W road-users—and indeed the community—generally. He has noted with some pleasure that many responsible newspapers and periodicals have already considered his proposals for adjustng charges in the context of his proposals as a whole in this way, and have welcomed them.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your obedient Servant,

E. S. Ainley.