Do workplace parking charges increase rail usage?

[edwin_m]

My wife was an NHS staff member and it was a mandatory condition of her job that she drove. This was because she did home visits. The NHS trust still charged her eighty quid a

That's more a comment on NHS pay levels than on the provision for parking.

The problem, of course, is that many NHS treatments are not delivered locally. For anything complicated there has been a move to regional centres of excellence which specialise in certain treatments, rather than having local hospitals do a little bit of everything.

Recent example: my 10yo headbutted a goalpost when she was playing football in the school playground in the Lake District, and lost her two front teeth. Treatment took place at the nearest specialist dental hospital- 95 miles away in Newcastle. Given her village has one bus a week- summer Saturdays only- "take public transport" doesn't really work. This is not an uncommon situation.

It also assumes the hospital is conveniently situated for public transport. Some hospitals are. But many are not, even in big cities.

And that's one of the many examples of poor co-ordination between the planning of land use and transport. But the fuel and other costs of getting there would have been far more than the parking fee when you arrived.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's more a comment on NHS pay levels than on the provision for parking

It isn't really, it's a comment on how unfair it is that NHS staff must drive to work and are then charged for the privilege.

But the fuel and other costs of getting there would have been far more than the parking fee when you arrived.

Indeed, but you rather miss the salient point that public transport is not available for a lot of people. There's no public transport in the village my daughter lives in, and even if there was it would be very unlikely to be frequent enough to tie in with hospital appointments 100 miles away. So you have to drive, the question is how far; you may as well drive to the hospital door.

nd that's one of the many examples of poor co-ordination between the planning of land use and transport.

Most hospitals are not in city centres, which affects public transport provision. Given the lack of orbital bus services in UK towns and cities, most people will be at least two bus rides away from their hospital, if not more.

You will see the same issue with many employment opportunities, which are now increasingly in out-of-town business parks. Most people will not be on a direct bus route, so you're looking at two or more bus rides in each direction. Or you could drive in a quarter of the time. And to answer the original question even more, this is even more of an issue with rail travel, which predominantly serves city centres. A bus to the train station, a train and then another bus is not an attractive proposition for most people.

 

[urbophile]

So you'd charge visitors at the new deterrent rate too?

No, I was thinking of the general public (in situations where the hospital was a convenient parking place for other venues).

 

[urbophile]

That's more a comment on NHS pay levels than on the provision for parking.

And that's one of the many examples of poor co-ordination between the planning of land use and transport. But the fuel and other costs of getting there would have been far more than the parking fee when you arrived.

Hospitals are a bad example to use though. A hospital may be ideally sited for road access from a wide area, which is what is important bearing in mind the difficulties of rural public transport. Even a city hospital may be (probably is) a centre for specialisms treating people from well beyond the immediate area. Staff and visitors for whom public transport is a reasonable option are probably in the minority. Planning must take this into account. Shopping centres and industrial estates, by contrast, should be sited with public transport in mind.