Plan to keep park and ride on the move (From Swindon Advertiser)

QUOTE - About 800 people who use the park and ride have signed a petition organised by Spark – Save Park and Ride Kampaign – to keep the service going.


If they had 800 users a day, or even 400, they wouldn't be closing it.

The P&R barely gets 200 a day

She said: “We are broadly supportive of Coun Montaut’s suggestions provided there is still a non-stop service at peak times.

“As a commuter, normal buses take too long to get to work, particularly for users living in village areas. It would just add to journey times.”

So, on that basis, if TT or Stage Coach were to provide a non-stop service wouldn't that just be the same as the current P&R buses and cost the same to run which makes the whole idea pointless does it not?

I think the few former users of this park and ride should stop whinging and either use existing public transport to come to work or buy a bicycle. Its not that far into town and if the dire predictions of traffic meltdown come true being on a bike will be a positive advantage. Simple.

The Librarian says Oook wrote:
QUOTE - About 800 people who use the park and ride have signed a petition organised by Spark – Save Park and Ride Kampaign – to keep the service going. If they had 800 users a day, or even 400, they wouldn't be closing it. The P&R barely gets 200 a day

Where did this number of '200 a day' originate from? The official statistics from SBC are an average of 227 cars per day, based only on a count made at midday - in total the average number of customers per day is over 350, each making a return trip.

Of the quoted 800 who have signed the petition many will be users of the service, but clearly not every user will use the service every day, particularly leisure users, as opposed to commuters. Of course some signatories may well be car drivers who currently use the Cricklade Road, concerned at the additional AM peak congestion that is highly likely to occur as a result of any withdrawal of this service.

John Smith II, Swindon says...
Where did this number of '200 a day' originate from? The official statistics from SBC are an average of 227 cars per day, based only on a count made at midday - in total the average number of customers per day is over 350, each making a return trip.


There is never a day when you will see 350 cars in there. That is utter nonsense.

The Librarian says Oook wrote:
John Smith II, Swindon says... Where did this number of '200 a day' originate from? The official statistics from SBC are an average of 227 cars per day, based only on a count made at midday - in total the average number of customers per day is over 350, each making a return trip. There is never a day when you will see 350 cars in there. That is utter nonsense.

You are quite right 350 cars is utter nonsense.

However:

Not all users park all day, so the number of cars in the car park at any one time does not directly indicate the number of daily users.

Some cars have more than one occupant.

Not all customers park a car; some arrive on foot, by bicycle or are dropped off (the latter is pretty common in the morning peak).

The number of customers was quoted by the bus operator, presumably collated from statistics produced by their electronic ticket machines that record every ticket sold and every ticket accepted.

If it was needed it would not cost non-users £331000 per year to keep this nonsense going.

Shut it now. And remove the pointless bus lanes too.

It doesn't cost £331,000 per year - SBC estimate and have published a £331,000 financial upside for the first year only, based on mothballing, which is something else entirely.

SBC have apparently assumed a 60% transfer rate from Groundwell Park & Ride to SBC town centre car parks in the event of mothballing of the Park & Ride and included this assumed car parking revenue as a benefit within the £331,000. 60% transfer would be heroic in the extreme, given that users transferring would face a minimum cost increase of £737.50 (156%) from the current £472.50 to £1210.00 for an annual town centre car park season. This assumes a typical working year of 225 days and is based on the 10-journey Park & Ride and annual car park charges published on SBC's website. It also assumes that these users are able to outlay £1210.00 in one go, otherwise the car parking cost would be slightly higher.

I have commented on the bus lanes previously, which pointed out that they are not the primary cause of congestion, this being the intersection at the Moonraker's roundabouts. Take out the bus lanes and you end up with a traffic queue half as long and twice as wide, moving at roughly half the speed (given that it is twice as wide and the Moonraker's intersection is at capacity in the AM peak - hence vehicles can filter through it no faster) to virtually no one's advantage.

Many thanks for your comments John Smith II - We would be delighted if you could get in touch with us at spark2009@hotmail.co
.uk

We would like to respond to the various comments mentioned above and add some of our own.

1. The cost of the service

John Smith II is correct - it doesn't cost £331K. As Swindon Borough Council (SBC) seems incapable of correcting this popular misconception we will.

Here are the real costs of Groundwell P&R as outlined in their budget paper:

Staffing £25,200
Other running costs: £15,100
Business rates: £23,800
Subtotal: £74,100

Bus subsidy to Thamesdown Transport: £141,00
Given that the service is subsidised by SBC it has no incentive to run the service on a commercial basis. TT is 51% owned by the council, we'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about where TT's real interests lay...

Add together the real operational costs and the subsidy = £205,100.
The difference between this figure and £331,000 is the ASSUMED loss in income from town centre car parks.

2. Empty buses during the day
We all know that the service is well used at peak times by commuters and practically empty during the day. The service breaks even on the peak but incurs a loss during the offpeak. We have suggested to TT and SBC that they reduce the service during the day or only run the service at peak hours but so far they have dismissed this idea completely.

3. Pricing

Currently the service is under price during the day and overpriced during the peak, compared to other P&R services in the UK. TT has refused to change the pricing during the day and will only look at the peak period. Without doing both, they are in effect making the service unsustainable.

4. No of users / cars per day

Please don't assume one person per car are the only users of the servcie - some people car share, some people get dropped off. SBC's own figures show an average of 320 people per day using the service.

5. The petition

We now have 1,100 signatures objecting to the closure canvassed during mid Jan - mid February - this is a mixture of daily, weekly and occasional users.

5. Lack of alternatives
Many of our fellow commuters travel in from outlying villages and use the P&R to travel to work. If this service closes they will have no alternative but to pay at least £7 per day to park in town. Unlike SBC workers with their free parking, and councillors with 2 parking spaces each, the majority of people won't able to afford this. Instead they will simply ditch their cars in residential areas and walk that extra distance. Are the residents of the central ward ready for this?

Surely SBC should be trying to attract people to work in town and spend money in the local shops and bars rather than encouraging people to work elsewhere along the M4 corridor...

6. Funding
The council continues to blame central goverment for a lack of funding. Yet money is available from LABGI - Local Authority Business Growth Incentive - over £400,000 in fact, some of which could be used to keep the service open for another year whilst they adapt the service to make it cost effective. Given the initial investment in the site, and the cost of mothballing it or closing it, wouldn't this be sensible?

7. Other costs
If the site is motballed - who will cover the costs of the ongoing maintenance- the taxpayer... If it is closed, who will foot the bill to remove the signs/bus lanes/waiting room etc - the taxpayer...where are the detailed costs of this from SBC? Surely this should be considered in any decision to close the site?

8. Long term impact on Swindon.
As town that has built its success on attracting major employers into the area (Zurich/Nationwide/H
onda etc) part of that attraction is having access to a mobile workforce which in turn relies upon good infrastructure. Swindon Chamber of Commerce recognises this and has publicly asked the Council to consider how it can adapt the service. Yet still the Council ignores them and the voices of its members.

9. The environment
SBC has failed to undertake any environmental assessments of the impact of stopping the service. Clearly the environment isn't a priority for them - we doubt that the people living on Cricklade Road would have the same opinion come 30 May when they see the real impact of increased congestion.

And finally
SPARK will continue to lobby the council on behalf of users to try to overturn this short sighted decision.

Anyone wishing to get involved in our campaign should contact us at spark2009@hotmail.co
.uk
Sara Spinks
Co-Founder
For and on behalf of SPARK