Great Western Coffee Shop

Appears from Feb 1st 2009 the station car parks at Bodmin/Liskeard will become pay & display  :(

Time for the Bodmin & Wenford Railway to look into connecting services from Bodmin General?

For a station in the middle of nowhere with a small car park, ridiculous access and bus service, Bodmin Forestway can ill afford to charge people what will be ^4-odd an hour.

And Falmouth Docks, mainly due to the new student accomodation that was built right next to it and all the students using the station car park!

Most people who park at Bodmin Parkway are car sharers going to Plymouth who contribute NOTHING to the railway so charge away as far as i'm concerned!  ;D

I went to Bodmin Parkway in early December, by 9:45 all spaces were full up, and cars were on the pavements and the approach road, i had to park on the approach road too!

Mark

As a Parkway station, id say it makes sense to pay!

If they are going to start charging people expensive rates to park there and get the train, some will decide to just spend it on fuel and take the car to their destination.

Fair point, Zoe: just an example, but when FGW started charging for parking at Yatton, a lot of people started to drive on to Nailsea, parking there free (but just adding to the existing problem of overcrowding in that car park)!  ::)

All station car parks should be free for NR passengers. Entrance (or exit ;D ) to the car parks should be prevented to non rail users wherever possible (barriers and tokens obtained when tickets bought).

Zoe is right. THe fares are already sky high. This will add insult to injury.

Liskeard to Plymouth is ^8 return during the morning peak for a journey of just under 25 mins. Add to this a couple of pounds parking and yes, its a total rip off.

and a weekly season is about ^25 for a journey that is a nightmare by car! all FGW stations on the mainline charge ^2 peak parking and ^1.20 off-peak not bank braking but will help to the upkeep of the car parks!

What upkeep of the car parks - it is just land that you park a car on. Virtually no upkeep at all as the railway owns the land. More ridiculous charges for hard up communters.

Liskeards main car park hasnt even got lighting!!

Would a system whereby you pay ^5 to park, and upon buying a National Rail ticket can retrieve ^4 back or something depending on the cost of the ticket, not be more suitable?

The idea of a parkway station is that you can drive there and park and take the train.  If it's going to cost to park there some people will just drive and not take the train or drive to a less suitable station that has free parking.

Maybe so, but Bodmin Parkway car park is full of car sharers cars by 0800 so people actually catching a train can't park!

Excellent suggestion, devon_metro!  Parking for those actually travelling by train is encouraged: parking for those taking the mickey by parking at the station but then driving anyway (by car sharing) is discouraged.

Agreed, vacman: we still have a problem with parking at Nailsea - if people experience problems parking at the station, what encouragement is there for them to travel by train?  I'm sure many take the view that they might as well drive all the way into Bristol.

I think there would be too much admin in that.

Maybe it should just be, if you buy a season ticket you can purchase an add on for car parking at the origin station that works out to something like a ^1 per working day.

But then that only benefits season ticket holders and is likely to discourage less regular users. Many supermarkets run a similar system to that suggested so there are examples out there that can be copied. The admin side of it is of course a problem, especially at unmanned stations or outside staffing hours. To overcome that, a pay on exit scheme could easily be implemented by where those with a rail ticket insert it into the machine first (on platform if need be) and only pay a pound. Those without pay ^5.

What about when you buy a ticket you request a car park coupon if you are actually travelling on a train.

Anyone else who is not travelling should pay to park

I guess though that people will just buy a ticket to the next station which for example, Liskeard - Coombe a massive ^1.80 Peak Time ;)

The season ticket idea from ollie is good, then walk up passengers could get a refund on their parking when buying tickets. Would be quite simple to implement.

Er, not quite,Tiverton Parkway is ^4 and ^2 and I suspect that there is a lot of variation depending on what FGW are in competition with locally i.e NCP,  council run car parks etc.

Well to Park in Plymouth it's a very nice ^6.50 per day.


BUT FGW don't do there homework, Wessex Trains started to charge for Car Parking at Bodmin Parkway and got in TROUBLE as there's seems to be an Agreement that Parking at Bodmin Parkway is FREE.
So anyone paying too park at Bodmin, it might be worthwlhile keeping your parking tickets.

I think you'll find the free parking was part of the funding that Wessex got for the refurbishment, probably expired when Wessex franchise expired! Richard B should know...... over to you richard

You've hit the nail on the head, Vacman.  As I understood it, it was always an informal agrement anyway.

Not necessarily: the car park at Nailsea & Backwell station, for example, is owned by the local council.

Lets looks at teh bigger picture here. If the presence of the parkway station encourages car-sharers to park there then that is great.  Car-sharing is great for congestion and the environment.   there is only a problem if rail passengers have nowhere to park but surely the solution is to increase the number of spaces rather than go down a route that discourages car-sharing.  ICRC, some of the parkway car-parks were (part) funded by council money anyway so couldn't the extensions come out of the council's "tackling congestion by encoyraging car-sharing budget"

Chiltern Railways encourage car sharing, by allowing FREE parking if 3 rail users use one car.

Interestingly, the station car park at Nailsea & Backwell is right next to the station - which is in turn half way between the centres of Nailsea and Backwell.  In theory, the only people who would park there are those catching trains.  However, we found that when the TOC started charging for parking at Yatton, many commuters merely drove on to Nailsea and parked there, free (and saved themselves the intermediate train fare!).  Also, for more years than I care to remember, the local council have been trying to expand the car park: the problem is, it's surrounded by privately owned land, so the council can't just 'wave a magic wand' to create more spaces.

Sorry if this seems negative: it's certainly not - I'm just pointing out the very practical problems with what you have suggested.

Chris  ;)

Anyone know if these charges have freed up spaces at the stations?

Mark

but why should the railway subsidise it? at the end of the day the railway is a business-like it or lump it and all these people who say its wrong to make a profit from a public service are talking crap, Tesco provide a more vital public service (we all need to eat or we'll die!) but no one moans about them profiting from it!

I'm sure council tax payers would not mind a small additional  premium in exchange for the right to park at stations for 'free'.  ;)

In all seriousness though, as Vacman points out, the railway is a business, with a duty to its shareholders. Whether or not free parking could prove cost effective would be the subject of much contention, but Chiltern's car share idea is a good and constructive one.  However, if we look at the degree of integration of public transport/local authorities in our European neighbours, the clumsy and piecemeal privatisation of our own transport systems appears even more badly advised than it did when instigated.

The charges planned to be introduced at Bodmin and Liskeard from Feb 1st 2009 have been DROPPED due to local council intervention!!

Because, unlike Tescos, the railway is subsidised by the taxpayer (even TOCs that pay a permium to the DfT are subsidised by the government grant to NR) as are its competitors (buses, cars, planes).  The taxpayer doesn't subsidise the railway to assist its shareholders it subsidises the railway because it provides a social and economic benefit.  It thesefore doesn't really bother me that some of my tax is going to FGW who are indirectly using to to subsidise car-sharing in Devon because a rail service and car sharing are both good things and both reduce road congestion.  If FGW exclude car sharers from the car park and the result is that car-sharing falls my tax will be indirectly subsidising a company that causes more road congestion and I would not be happy with that if it could be avoided!  Why should I subsidise a company without a social conscience who thinks that it can operate in a vacuum from wider socieity.  On the other hand, if full car parks are discouraging rail travel then that is a serious problem.

The only real answer of course is to extend the carpark (paid for with contributions from both the TOC and the tax payer).  The answer is not for the railways to operate in their silo and ignore the world outside.  If the railway is really only about making money for its shareholders then does Vacman also object to the industry having to spend extra money complying with planning laws, spending cash on preserving listed buildings, or paying taxes?

It would also be very foolish for a company so reliant on public subsidy to alienate the public by appearing meanspirited.

Bodmin parkway is in cornwall, not Devon! I stand by my post though, My tax (and I pay bloody loads of it) also goes to subsidse the likes of the airlines, railway station car parks are there for one thing and thats for rail passengers not car sharers, there is no more room at Bodmin to extend the car park and effectively car sharers parking there are losing the railway business!

How can it be bad for the railway? It frees up spaces so even more rail users can park!

Erm, sorry, Btline, but I agree with vacman on this.

Whether we are looking at Bodmin Parkway or Nailsea & Backwell, the fact of the matter is - there are a limited number of car parking spaces available.  If some of those spaces are taken up by those who park one car, just so they can get into another car and then drive into town, it means that particular space is no longer available for someone who actually wants to catch a train.

And our local council have placed cheery notices, threatening ^70 charges to those who park outside the specified spaces, in our station car park.

I think they should perhaps charge ^70 to those who rather selfishly use up a parking space in the station car park, but don't actually use the station: it's 'free' to those who do?

C.  ::)

Economic dichotomy? A 'privatised' industry, accountable to shareholders, but supported by the public purse.  Money for huge capital investment can only be obtained from private finance, but the tax-payer picks up the tab for the 'social and economic benefits' via subsidies.  Whilst this strategy has seemingly served other major industries and even government initiatives, the devil is in the detail and its inadequacies are painfully exposed in this debate on a relatively minor issue.

I think that this is what Christain Wolmar calls "lets pretend capitalism".    I have absolutely no problem with people profiting from the railway (all of the staff make money out of the railway afterall.  You wouldn't expect them to work for nothing so why expect an investor to lend his money to the industry for nothing in return?) but the current system neither sets the market free nor focuses solely on public service.  It is a complet muddle which is neither the best for the company profits, the passenger or the tax-payer.


 

I don't understand. ???

With car sharing, three people turn up in one car, park and take the train.

Without car sharing, three peope turn up in three cars, parking and take the train.

A loss of two spaces, and potentially six rail users. I think Chiltern have got it right.

I think its like: 3 people turn up in 3 separate cars, leave 2 in the car park, then Drive 1 to Plymouth, reather than catching the train.

Mark

Yes, but they won't get free parking unless they take the train.

And if necessary, put barriers at the exit of the car park, so you have to flash a valid ticket/pass before you can leave.

I still think it is a very good idea.

The problem with Bodmin Parkway is, people park there then travel to Bodmin, to save money on the car park in the town centre, so only paying for one car instead of two. Bodmin Parkway needs the car park charges brought in; as it is absolute chaos, with cars parked along the entrance road, people leaving their cars there for holidays for two to three weeks, and the regular commuters, especially during the summer. So if you arrive after 8am you can be lucky to get an official car park space.
So people use the twenty minute spaces to park in, they also park in the disabled bays, even if they are not disabled, the bus turning circle is a very common parking space, even though it is labelled that you can be clamped.
Last year there was a camper van in the car park, and they used the car park as the base for their holiday, using the toilets for washing facilities.

But they all get free car parking! the car sharers aren't catching the train or paying anything!

If councils want to encourage car sharing, perhaps they should provide car parks for this purpose?

Of course part of the problem at places like Bodmin Parkway is that the obvious solution to the problem is considered too costly and that is to have a car park attendant who can collect money from non train passengers clamp cars in the bus turning turning circle and issue tickets to people overstaying in the 20 minute bays (except when trains are late and they are meeting someone) and disabled bays.

You can't police a carpark effectively without staff. It's intersting that most private carparks are manned and policed (usually agressively see Maidenhead Advertiser re Overstaying in the shopping complex in Stafferton Way) but council and railway ones aren't.

Absoluetly,  that is the only real solution to this issue. 

The concept A, is that the need exists to perform a public service and also make money from the exercise.  If this is then split,  into parts B and not-B, then the parts form a dichotomy: they are mutually exclusive, since, (seemingly), no part of B is contained in not-B and vice-versa, and they are jointly exhaustive, since they cover all of A, and together again give A.  ;D




 

perhaps you could explain the rules of Mornington Crescent with that level of clarity?  :)

Either way, the charges are still going to be introduced, it's just been delayed.

This is a perfect illustration of the weird parallel world the people at FGW inhabit.

If Sainsbury's started to charge you for using their carpark, you'd decamp to a competitor.

But of course, FGW has no competitor.

So once again - now the threat of Franchise Withdrawal has been removed - it seems like they're back to their old tricks.

Which is not called Mornington Crescent. 

It bears the name "now where else can we screw the passenger?"

It was tongue in cheek, so probably not.  ;D

If you want clarity, see vacman's post above. ;)

but you wouldn't park in Tesco car park to go to Sainsburys

Sorry, I'll say it again. ::)

Easy solution - put a barrier at the exit of the car park!

Then make car parking free, where you can only exit the car park with a season ticket/token etc. No ticket? ^25 fine.

I have had occasion to park my camper van at Bodmin Parkway.  In doing so, I always ensure that I am using the rail service and that I hold a valid ticket.  Surely, any charge levied upon genuine travellers could be recouped by a corresponding reduction in train fare, much as happens at some Somefield supermarkets.   


Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. 
(Matthew VII, v. 12)

Don't be too vexed Brother vacman.  I was only attempting to develop your excellent point re Tesco and Sainsbury which you made above.

"In My Father's house are many mansions."--John 14:2

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/cornishguardian/Warning-street-chaos-rail-users-try-miss-charge/article-777170-detail/article.html

A link to the introduction of parking charges at Liskeard.

It appears Cornwall County Council paid a large amount of money to upgrade the car parks and Wessex trains agreed no parking charges. First have discontinued this arrangement,

"A considerable amount of money was made available through Cornwall County Council to upgrade and improve the parking facilities at Liskeard station when Wessex Trains held the franchise, and at that time it was agreed in principle that in return for this no parking charges would be levied. First Great Western's policy is somewhat different, and they will not agree to continue this arrangement."

Then, in my opinion, FGW should be obliged to reimburse the council (i.e. the public who funded the improvements) for the money spent on upgrading the car park. The general public's money should not end up in the pockets of to the shareholders of FGW.

The "deal" was made with Wessex trains, not FGW, you lot sound like Del boy "I gave him your word"........ ;)

So who are the "plonkers" in the story - the council for carrying out the work, the taxpayers for funding it or the users?

0:53 ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqts3kBZ3t4

The money that was spent by the council, was used not just to upgrade the car park, but to improve the facilities allowing better integration between forms of public transport. I believe it was known as the riviera project, not all the money came from the county council, there were some external partners. The aims for Bodmin parkway and Liskeard were:

Improves access to everyday facilities for the mobility impaired.

Improves safety for travellers.

Reduces crime and fear of crime at stations.

Encourages use of public transport.

Assists in local economic regeneration.

Promotes sustainable tourism.

In which case the council was already trying to encourage use of public transport, and the parking charges will definitely assist in this regard. I know it is not nice to have car parking charges introduced, but you have to consider the charges in other regions, which is considerably higher.

But I expect what will happen is passenger numbers increase at other stations where there are no parking charges such as Par, Lostwithiel, St Germans or Saltash. The parking charges are not to bad if the cost of public transport is cheaper than parking at the station, otherwise it is a money making mechanism for FGW. I know that the entrance road to Bodmin Parkway is not the best, maybe the parking charges can be used to improve the condition of the road.

Have these charges been introduced yet?

Msrk

Liskeard & Bodmin parkway parking ticket Machine now installed just require electric supply.

Falmouth Docks Charges start on Monday 27th April.