Park-ride closure ‘not answer’ (From Swindon Advertiser)

800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user

Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year.

lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

If every park and ride user had to drive into town, just imagine what adding a thousand more cars to the gridlock would be like.

this is what will happen if the park and ride closes, not to mention the thamesdown bus driver redundancies that will quickly follow.

I had to use my car to travel across town during rush hour last week, my route from peatmoor to Motorolla to Elgin to the town centre to old town, to wroughton took me 1 hour 42 mins to do, and all because of the intense gridlock along every road I had to use. Along the way, I saw the park and ride bus stuck in traffic, because motorists were using up all of the bus lane, blocking its route.

Adding a thousand more vehicles will heavily increase pollution, increase the number of accidents, increase road rage, and will be totally bad for Swindon.

SBC, please please listen to common sense, and keep the park and ride open.

NoseyNeighbour wrote:
If every park and ride user had to drive into town, just imagine what adding a thousand more cars to the gridlock would be like. this is what will happen if the park and ride closes, not to mention the thamesdown bus driver redundancies that will quickly follow. I had to use my car to travel across town during rush hour last week, my route from peatmoor to Motorolla to Elgin to the town centre to old town, to wroughton took me 1 hour 42 mins to do, and all because of the intense gridlock along every road I had to use. Along the way, I saw the park and ride bus stuck in traffic, because motorists were using up all of the bus lane, blocking its route. Adding a thousand more vehicles will heavily increase pollution, increase the number of accidents, increase road rage, and will be totally bad for Swindon. SBC, please please listen to common sense, and keep the park and ride open.

you want it, then thats easy, just fork out £413.75 of your own money / year.

NoseyNeighbour wrote:
If every park and ride user had to drive into town, just imagine what adding a thousand more cars to the gridlock would be like. this is what will happen if the park and ride closes, not to mention the thamesdown bus driver redundancies that will quickly follow. I had to use my car to travel across town during rush hour last week, my route from peatmoor to Motorolla to Elgin to the town centre to old town, to wroughton took me 1 hour 42 mins to do, and all because of the intense gridlock along every road I had to use. Along the way, I saw the park and ride bus stuck in traffic, because motorists were using up all of the bus lane, blocking its route. Adding a thousand more vehicles will heavily increase pollution, increase the number of accidents, increase road rage, and will be totally bad for Swindon. SBC, please please listen to common sense, and keep the park and ride open.

It doesnt bother me so why should I pay for it?

You want it - you bloody pay for it.

1) Campaign begins with a 'C'. Learn to spell.

2) I fail to understand why said user would feel unsafe parking in a car park, monitored by attendants and cctv, but feels safe standing on the side of a road in the open air while waiting for a bus?

3) I'm sure more than 800 people use the P&R - just that's the number of people that signed the petition - therefore the cost per head is less.

4) Perhaps people may be more inclined to use the park and ride if the bus drivers were polite, courteous and did not drive like they're in a car chase!

5) Do they really mean that it will "save" 331k? Surely it doesn't cost much more than that to run it - don't the fares off-set this cost?

IRofE wrote:
800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user

Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year.

lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

Easy...

£1 on the bus fare.

Add a couple more stops.

Allow non P&R users to use the buses at off peak times.

Even make the buses cross town, Groundwell -> Croft and Croft -> Groundwell. That'd make the P&R more useful.

Fewer cars on the roads is better for everyone. Especially the car drivers who don't have the benefir of P&R.

Al Smith wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

Easy... £1 on the bus fare. Add a couple more stops. Allow non P&R users to use the buses at off peak times. Even make the buses cross town, Groundwell -> Croft and Croft -> Groundwell. That'd make the P&R more useful. Fewer cars on the roads is better for everyone. Especially the car drivers who don't have the benefir of P&R.

Having a P&R in town defies its own very existence.
P&R is actually causing more pollution and traffic congestion at a cost of £331K to the Taxpayers.
If necessary lets have a Town referendum on this subject and lets see what the general town population have to say....

IRofE - this referendum (and countless others that you seem to want!) alone would pay for the cost of the park and ride!

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
IRofE - this referendum (and countless others that you seem to want!) alone would pay for the cost of the park and ride!

I would rather pay for Democracy than Demagogy! and dont you doubt that Swindonians have a lot more common sense that most money wasting politicians. We might not be smart but we know how to run a house budget and thats all you need to make sensible decisions.

IRofE wrote:

Al Smith wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

Easy... £1 on the bus fare. Add a couple more stops. Allow non P&R users to use the buses at off peak times. Even make the buses cross town, Groundwell -> Croft and Croft -> Groundwell. That'd make the P&R more useful. Fewer cars on the roads is better for everyone. Especially the car drivers who don't have the benefir of P&R.

Having a P&R in town defies its own very existence.
P&R is actually causing more pollution and traffic congestion at a cost of £331K to the Taxpayers.
If necessary lets have a Town referendum on this subject and lets see what the general town population have to say....

IRofE - Give me proof that it causes more pollution and congestion - facts and figures please, not opinion.

My claim of fewer cars on the road is easily supported. Lets assume that the 800 signatures only equates to 200 cars (half the number of parking spaces). That's still 200 fewer cars driving through/to the town centre. The P&R bus runs 4 times an hour during the 12 hours it's open that's 48 return bus trips. Still less than the 200 return car trips.

I'm a car driver (for whom P&R is non-starter) and for 100% selfish reasons I'd like to see more P&R as it might cut a few minutes off my car journey. P&R at J15, J16 and Stratton would suit me just fine.

Oh and I have P&R, it's just that it happens to be the Oxford one.

Actually I'd suggest most people are NOT capable of running a house budget which is why the country is in the mess that it is currently in!

I agree with IRofE earlier comment, the cost needs to be covered by the users. Privatise it, I'm sure it would not be difficult to turn a profit with 800 customers, but don't close something which not only makes sense but which improves the quality of the air we breathe and the speed with which we can all move around the town. I agree with Al Smith above.

Al Smith wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Al Smith wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

Easy... £1 on the bus fare. Add a couple more stops. Allow non P&R users to use the buses at off peak times. Even make the buses cross town, Groundwell -> Croft and Croft -> Groundwell. That'd make the P&R more useful. Fewer cars on the roads is better for everyone. Especially the car drivers who don't have the benefir of P&R.

Having a P&R in town defies its own very existence. P&R is actually causing more pollution and traffic congestion at a cost of £331K to the Taxpayers. If necessary lets have a Town referendum on this subject and lets see what the general town population have to say....

IRofE - Give me proof that it causes more pollution and congestion - facts and figures please, not opinion. My claim of fewer cars on the road is easily supported. Lets assume that the 800 signatures only equates to 200 cars (half the number of parking spaces). That's still 200 fewer cars driving through/to the town centre. The P&R bus runs 4 times an hour during the 12 hours it's open that's 48 return bus trips. Still less than the 200 return car trips. I'm a car driver (for whom P&R is non-starter) and for 100% selfish reasons I'd like to see more P&R as it might cut a few minutes off my car journey. P&R at J15, J16 and Stratton would suit me just fine. Oh and I have P&R, it's just that it happens to be the Oxford one.

Facts? costing £331k to the community
200 more cars on the road cost nothing!
Now if you ask you question correctly, yes a P&R outside Town centre makes sense. Having a P&R in town is non-sense:
relocate it yes, scrap it yes, keep it as it is No

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Actually I'd suggest most people are NOT capable of running a house budget which is why the country is in the mess that it is currently in!

Most people are sensible with money.
exception being Bankers and Politicians. If you read comments, you will see that most people have something very interesting to say, it is shame that our politics still think of us as uneducated idiots.

Interesting that people here want to see it closed because it will save the council money.
If you're driving in and there are more cars on the road and less spaces to park in then it will end up costing you, not the council, more money. More petrol will be spent on driving for longer times in less efficient stop start traffic and greater distances travelled looking for parking spaces. On top of that, more council tax will need to be taken to pay for the repairing faster degredation of road surfaces caused by higher traffic volumes.

Mind you, what would I know, I'm a cyclist and I enjoy looking at the miserable faces of drivers stuck in traffic jams. They all look so funny.

IRofE - can't agree, keep it where it is, on the outskirts of town but give it to someone who knows what they are doing! Obviously the current owners don't know how to run it to make a profit so they fall back on the good old council tax payers, and that I don't agree with. It needs to be cheaper that a town centre car park or they will drive by and block up the town centre, but cheap enough to attract business - it's not rocket science - but beyond the council and bus companies obviously.

forcryingoutloud wrote:
IRofE - can't agree, keep it where it is, on the outskirts of town but give it to someone who knows what they are doing! Obviously the current owners don't know how to run it to make a profit so they fall back on the good old council tax payers, and that I don't agree with. It needs to be cheaper that a town centre car park or they will drive by and block up the town centre, but cheap enough to attract business - it's not rocket science - but beyond the council and bus companies obviously.

Who uses P&R?

commuters
Shoppers

1.where do the commuters come from?
2.Where are the places of work?
3.Which shops are being visited?

Relocate parking so that commuters avoid city traffic and cut they journey time & Distance

Amend the buses route to serve the area of employement during the week

Amend the buses route to serve to shopping area

This is not rocket science indeed Make the P&R suit people needs and not the other way round.

NoseyNeighbour wrote:
If every park and ride user had to drive into town, just imagine what adding a thousand more cars to the gridlock would be like. this is what will happen if the park and ride closes, not to mention the thamesdown bus driver redundancies that will quickly follow. I had to use my car to travel across town during rush hour last week, my route from peatmoor to Motorolla to Elgin to the town centre to old town, to wroughton took me 1 hour 42 mins to do, and all because of the intense gridlock along every road I had to use. Along the way, I saw the park and ride bus stuck in traffic, because motorists were using up all of the bus lane, blocking its route. Adding a thousand more vehicles will heavily increase pollution, increase the number of accidents, increase road rage, and will be totally bad for Swindon. SBC, please please listen to common sense, and keep the park and ride open.

The figures the council are looking at are:

800 x £7.20 p/d (Brunel West car park) = £28800 p/w x let's say 50 weeks = £1.44m p/a. That's why the council want to shut it, so they can rip people off by making them park in town.

IRofE wrote:
800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user

Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year.

lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

According to your argument people should pay for what they want to use. Using that logic then people should not pay for things they do not use.

So, I do not use the libraries in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use the street lighting in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use any of the parks in the town so can I have my money back for that?

And the list goes on..........

Your posts are getting more and more bizarre by the day.

I have already written at length on this subject and do not intend to repeat this again. However I would ask previous posters to this story if they have considered the following:

800 people have signed a petition, does this represent 100% of users of the Park & Ride or a proportion of them?

£331k is a stated saving in the first year (for which I have been unable so far to establish a basis), savings in the following year are considerably smaller (somewhere around £40-50k, it is in the SBC Cabinet Agenda notes from December).

The 'Moonrakers' roundabouts are operating at considerably above capacity at peak times, hence the congestion, adding another 25 or so private cars per 15 minute period will inevitably add to this and increase journey times for all road users.

A commonly held view is that public transport should be cheaper as in some other European countries - this can only be acheived through higher subsidies, the money has to come from somewhere!

What other services could be cut or mothballed if they are being underused? - some roads?, some pavements?, some pedestrian crossings?, some libraries? - none of these facilities make a profit for SBC, but in the case of the first three many people will make use of them on a daily basis somewhere in the Borough.

It would be useful to have a few additional facts.
Does anybody know what the average number of cars parked at the Groundwell P&R are, per day, on a monday to Friday is? and the same for a saturday?
What is the average number of people per car, arriving at the P&R on a weekday? and on a saturday?

Have SBC said where they get the figure of £331,000 from. Has anyone independent body checked the figure.
What would the fare per journey be if the service had to cover its own running costs?

IRofE you are one of the most arrogant gits I have ever come across. many people are unable to afford a car, or, if they do have one cant afford a second one so they have to use the bus service.

Just to stuff all you ignorant and stupid road hogs I hope the government makes the Road Fund License £2,000 a year and then lets see if you can afford it.

NoseyNeighbour wrote:
If every park and ride user had to drive into town, just imagine what adding a thousand more cars to the gridlock would be like. this is what will happen if the park and ride closes, not to mention the thamesdown bus driver redundancies that will quickly follow. I had to use my car to travel across town during rush hour last week, my route from peatmoor to Motorolla to Elgin to the town centre to old town, to wroughton took me 1 hour 42 mins to do, and all because of the intense gridlock along every road I had to use. Along the way, I saw the park and ride bus stuck in traffic, because motorists were using up all of the bus lane, blocking its route. Adding a thousand more vehicles will heavily increase pollution, increase the number of accidents, increase road rage, and will be totally bad for Swindon. SBC, please please listen to common sense, and keep the park and ride open.

The ridiculous rush our traffic is mainly caused by stupid bloody bus lanes!
Ban The Bus Lane

Swindons town centre isn't big enough to make park and ride work anyway, its just as easy to drive in, even at peak times I would hardly call the traffic gridlocked, and its made a lot worse by SBC's 'traffic management ideas'. Its a town not a city, we dont need P&R especially at the costs outlined above, lets face it who, ouside those who live in the legoland suburbs of our town wants to come here anyway?

Captain Sensible wrote:
Swindons town centre isn't big enough to make park and ride work anyway, its just as easy to drive in, even at peak times I would hardly call the traffic gridlocked, and its made a lot worse by SBC's 'traffic management ideas'. Its a town not a city, we dont need P&R especially at the costs outlined above, lets face it who, ouside those who live in the legoland suburbs of our town wants to come here anyway?

Now thats complete tripe! Bath is a city, it has 3 park and rides, but had a population of 80,000, and Swindon Centre has approximately the same size main shopping area, and similar number of offices. Swindon, although still classed as a town, whas a much higher population of 155,000 and growing. This means Swindon has twice as many people living here.
Want to see gridlocked? go take a look around moonrakers during rush hour, and cheyney manor area and then try telling us it isnt gridlocked.
We need the park and ride, so instead of binning it, SBC and Thamesdown should work out a new way of operating it at a lower cost.

Big deal its gridlocked around the Moonrakers for half an hour every morning and evening. So what? Why pay more to park a car then sit in a bus in the same traffic that you can sit in the comfort of your own car in. And I say again, apart from to work, why the hell would anyone want to come into Swindons godforsaken hole of a town 'centre'?

This is a treble win for the Council.

Save £331,000 by closing the park and ride, make countless thousands from increased parking revenues due to the increase in cars parking in the town centre AND they'll get to be able to usher in the Congestion Charge under the guise that the town centre has become far more congested and it's the 'only' way to solve the problem.

Mind you, if the petition to save the P&R could only get 800 signatures, we can probably assume that only around 500 to 600 (at most) actually use the service regularly.

That being the case, I'm afraid £331,000 of our money does seem a lot to be spending on one minority group.

£331,000 is a very steep figure for one security guard, since May 2007 P&R has been the commercial responsibility of the bus company, the council would have closed it then if they had their way, so this figure has nothing to do with the P&R service, it is only to secure the grounds of the P&R site, maintain the toilets etc, so why does it cost so much to do that? Good on Sarah for taking the touble to drive to the P&R and save congestion in our town centre, most people could not be bothered and thats the main reson for the P&R not being used nothing to do with cost, bus drivers, buses, change, etc etc it is simply because people do not want to use the bus quite often because it would be beneath them and it is more convenient to take the car. But I do hope they keep the P&R service and one day maybe expand the service to make the town centre traffic free as is enjoyed in other towns.

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

According to your argument people should pay for what they want to use. Using that logic then people should not pay for things they do not use. So, I do not use the libraries in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use the street lighting in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use any of the parks in the town so can I have my money back for that? And the list goes on.......... Your posts are getting more and more bizarre by the day.

I am a strong believer in that the users should be the payers, what is bizarre about it?
would you accept to pay £100 gas /month when you use only £50?
Is this still bizarre to you?

IRofE wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

According to your argument people should pay for what they want to use. Using that logic then people should not pay for things they do not use. So, I do not use the libraries in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use the street lighting in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use any of the parks in the town so can I have my money back for that? And the list goes on.......... Your posts are getting more and more bizarre by the day.

I am a strong believer in that the users should be the payers, what is bizarre about it? would you accept to pay £100 gas /month when you use only £50? Is this still bizarre to you?

IRofE it is very bizarre, as grumpy said we dont all use services we all pay for, how on earth would you work out who uses precisely what and to what extent to have council tax tailor made for each individual, as grumpy said, Bizarre!!

nansview wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

According to your argument people should pay for what they want to use. Using that logic then people should not pay for things they do not use. So, I do not use the libraries in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use the street lighting in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use any of the parks in the town so can I have my money back for that? And the list goes on.......... Your posts are getting more and more bizarre by the day.

I am a strong believer in that the users should be the payers, what is bizarre about it? would you accept to pay £100 gas /month when you use only £50? Is this still bizarre to you?

IRofE it is very bizarre, as grumpy said we dont all use services we all pay for, how on earth would you work out who uses precisely what and to what extent to have council tax tailor made for each individual, as grumpy said, Bizarre!!

Not Bizarre at all, Council tax isn't something that we have to accept. I oppose the funding of the few when the majority of us are struggling. You might like paying it and you might enjoy some benefits, I do not and lets being clear here. If people were asked about it, you would get a very similar answer.
The SBC needs to cut and maintain essential services and concentrate on providing value for money.end of

IRofE wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

According to your argument people should pay for what they want to use. Using that logic then people should not pay for things they do not use. So, I do not use the libraries in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use the street lighting in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use any of the parks in the town so can I have my money back for that? And the list goes on.......... Your posts are getting more and more bizarre by the day.

I am a strong believer in that the users should be the payers, what is bizarre about it?
would you accept to pay £100 gas /month when you use only £50?
Is this still bizarre to you?

You still don't get it do you?

It's all about either paying for what you actually use (which would be almost impossible to administer) or everyone paying a share of everything, which is the system at the moment.

IRofE I dont enjoy paying c/tax any more than you do, and for the record I have never used P&R, but do think that it is a vital service. You didnt answer how on earth would you work out a tailor made council tax scheme, so if you do not pay towards the library you can not enter it, if you do not pay the refuse collection bit, your bins will not be emptied, endless list of services to be worked out for each house in Swindon, then you may get different members of a household needing different services, and how on earth could all this be worked out, policed and delivered, it is a ridiculous proposal!

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

According to your argument people should pay for what they want to use. Using that logic then people should not pay for things they do not use. So, I do not use the libraries in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use the street lighting in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use any of the parks in the town so can I have my money back for that? And the list goes on.......... Your posts are getting more and more bizarre by the day.

I am a strong believer in that the users should be the payers, what is bizarre about it? would you accept to pay £100 gas /month when you use only £50? Is this still bizarre to you?

You still don't get it do you? It's all about either paying for what you actually use (which would be almost impossible to administer) or everyone paying a share of everything, which is the system at the moment.

users = payers
I and most people arent sponsoring, I might sound harsh, but I DO NOT work to fund other peoples lives.

nansview wrote:
IRofE I dont enjoy paying c/tax any more than you do, and for the record I have never used P&R, but do think that it is a vital service. You didnt answer how on earth would you work out a tailor made council tax scheme, so if you do not pay towards the library you can not enter it, if you do not pay the refuse collection bit, your bins will not be emptied, endless list of services to be worked out for each house in Swindon, then you may get different members of a household needing different services, and how on earth could all this be worked out, policed and delivered, it is a ridiculous proposal!

I disagree, with all modern and spying powers of our beloved SBC, it is very easy to actually pay for what you use, believe me "they" (council and other nice utilities)know where to find you if you owe them somethings
Now, you think it is difficult only because it is in the interest of authorities that you think that way.

IRofE wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

According to your argument people should pay for what they want to use. Using that logic then people should not pay for things they do not use. So, I do not use the libraries in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use the street lighting in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use any of the parks in the town so can I have my money back for that? And the list goes on.......... Your posts are getting more and more bizarre by the day.

I am a strong believer in that the users should be the payers, what is bizarre about it? would you accept to pay £100 gas /month when you use only £50? Is this still bizarre to you?

You still don't get it do you? It's all about either paying for what you actually use (which would be almost impossible to administer) or everyone paying a share of everything, which is the system at the moment.

users = payers
I and most people arent sponsoring, I might sound harsh, but I DO NOT work to fund other peoples lives.

Of course you fund other peoples lives and not just your own - how naive can you get?

Who do you think pays pensions etc. if it isn't you and other tax payers? Who pays NHS staff? Who pays for the police, etc., etc.? Do you want me to continue?

You haven't got a clue have you?

IRofE wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

According to your argument people should pay for what they want to use. Using that logic then people should not pay for things they do not use. So, I do not use the libraries in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use the street lighting in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use any of the parks in the town so can I have my money back for that? And the list goes on.......... Your posts are getting more and more bizarre by the day.

I am a strong believer in that the users should be the payers, what is bizarre about it? would you accept to pay £100 gas /month when you use only £50? Is this still bizarre to you?

You still don't get it do you? It's all about either paying for what you actually use (which would be almost impossible to administer) or everyone paying a share of everything, which is the system at the moment.

users = payers I and most people arent sponsoring, I might sound harsh, but I DO NOT work to fund other peoples lives.

Given the amount of time you appear to spend commenting on this website you clearly have very little spare time to do any work!

I take it if you are employed that you aren't leaving all these comments on your employers time - after all I assume they would not be in business to pay you to conduct your personal business... ...i.e. as you say yourself paying for something that you, the user, should be paying for in and with your own time.

John Smith II wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote: 800 users, cost to Swindon taxpayers = £331000 / 800users = £413.75/user Do I need to say more? if users want to keep it, they can fund it : £413.75 each/year. lets see if they will continue with their petition then.

According to your argument people should pay for what they want to use. Using that logic then people should not pay for things they do not use. So, I do not use the libraries in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use the street lighting in the town so can I have my money back for that? I do not use any of the parks in the town so can I have my money back for that? And the list goes on.......... Your posts are getting more and more bizarre by the day.

I am a strong believer in that the users should be the payers, what is bizarre about it? would you accept to pay £100 gas /month when you use only £50? Is this still bizarre to you?

You still don't get it do you? It's all about either paying for what you actually use (which would be almost impossible to administer) or everyone paying a share of everything, which is the system at the moment.

users = payers I and most people arent sponsoring, I might sound harsh, but I DO NOT work to fund other peoples lives.

Given the amount of time you appear to spend commenting on this website you clearly have very little spare time to do any work! I take it if you are employed that you aren't leaving all these comments on your employers time - after all I assume they would not be in business to pay you to conduct your personal business... ...i.e. as you say yourself paying for something that you, the user, should be paying for in and with your own time.

Am self employed you moron!

With an attitude like that I can well understand that if you are self employed you must have a lot of time on your hands!

Without being too rude and getting too personal , it is no wonder IRofE is self employed, I don't think many employers would employee someone so self opinionated and full of it. He or she seems to have a lot to say on everything and never seems to be that happy, unless he just likes winding people up and going against the grain.

John Smith II wrote:
With an attitude like that I can well understand that if you are self employed you must have a lot of time on your hands!

Am not a politician, and I dont work to be popular, so I can live with it.

thistakesthebiscuit wrote:
Without being too rude and getting too personal , it is no wonder IRofE is self employed, I don't think many employers would employee someone so self opinionated and full of it. He or she seems to have a lot to say on everything and never seems to be that happy, unless he just likes winding people up and going against the grain.

Please be rude and personal, make my day.

Our Council has never been very good at balancing the books--and do not listen to common sense as they do not have the time or inclination to do so. P+Rides can be successful but not in the form we have. We have no major tourist sites of note--nor a shopping centre of repute. What we have is a shambles of a road system and a good general bus system. Perhaps if the current P+R is coverted to a hub bus station with car parking to serve all areas with reduced parking fees on production of parking ticket and a service where folks can get to any part of the town people will use it--not just the league of out of town workers. Return the spring gardens car parking to public parking and maybe our priveleged COUNCIL workers from out of town will also use the P+R then.

IRofE wrote:

John Smith II wrote:
With an attitude like that I can well understand that if you are self employed you must have a lot of time on your hands!

Am not a politician, and I dont work to be popular, so I can live with it.

Congratulations - you've succeeded at something then!

Always Grumpy wrote:

IRofE wrote:

John Smith II wrote: With an attitude like that I can well understand that if you are self employed you must have a lot of time on your hands!

Am not a politician, and I dont work to be popular, so I can live with it.

Congratulations - you've succeeded at something then!

you seem to enjoy my comments, would you be in need of a penfriend?
LOL

"£331,000 is a very steep figure for one security guard"

Nobody is really saying that, apart from Councillor Montaut. Of course it doesn't cost that much.

Of course, neither can on security guard guard the place 24 hours a day all year round.

I would imagine the councillor will contract out the security and probably pay around £75k-£100k per annum to a private security firm who will need to employ at least four men to do the job, pay their NI, uniform them, have all the H&S checks, insurance, pay taxes on their profits and all the rest.

The idea that one man would be given a third of a million pounds to protect the closed down P&R is blatant lunacy, which means it's hardly surprising that the inference came from a Labour councillor.

A proposal to build a new Park & Ride at Commonhead was expected to cost £2,000,000 in 2005 (approx).

Presumably, the Wroughton and Copse sites cost similar sums, so we have therefore spent £4,000,000 on moth balled facilities and £millions more on bus lanes.

Moth balling the site may save £331,000 but it will also wave goodbye to our £4,000,000 plus investment.

Another solution would be to save money by running it properly !!! Why run buses 12 hours a day when the site is primarily used by commuters? Outside of rush hour, why not divert a regular bus route via the Park and Ride? Why not charge per car rather than per bus passenger? - anyone car sharing may as well drive into town and park as it will be cheaper than 2 bus fares. Why not allow non-P&R users to use the P&R bus therefore subsidising the service?

I think the real answer has nothing to do with P&R. SBC wants to increase town centre parking revenue. Ditch the P&R this year and put up parking charges next year. Anyway, it will all be irrelevant soon, as commuters will be able to sail into town on the new canal.

I would be interested to hear what enviroMENTAList David Cameron thinks about a Tory council closing (err ... I mean mothballing) this form of sustainable transport. A source at SBC told me that the original cabinet report referred to closing the P&R but was hastily reworded to say mothballing. Freudian Slip?