Council plans to scrap almost 500 car parking spaces (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Council plans to scrap almost 500 car parking spaces
7:40pm Saturday 8th October 2011 in News By Matthew Edwards
THE council is planning on scrapping nearly 500 car parking spaces across the town when it buys a new £15m car park.
The council is set to purchase the as-yet unbuilt 850-space car park on the site of the old police station in the town centre, next to Whale-bridge roundabout.
It said the move was essential for keeping down car parking prices and, in as little as a decade, it would become a money-spinner.
But the new car park would mean that 466 spaces across the town would go.
There are 4,466 car park spaces in the town centre, but based on occupancy data, it is recommended that the council should manage this number down to no more than 4,000 spaces.
Over the longer term, the council will be looking to manage the number of unsuitable car Parks down even further, replacing them with new high-quality facilities within future regeneration schemes.
Council officers are working on on the details of which car parks should be closed and these options will be consulted on with stakeholders before bringing recommendations to cabinet.
Conservative councillor Garry Perkins (Shaw and Nine Elms), said that the purchase of the new car park was an investment.
He said: “Our policy is to maintain ownership of all car parks in Swindon, so we can maintain competitive pricing.
“We have control of car parks, therefore, we dropped the cost of four hours of parking down to £2.
“It would make sense, if we have ownership of other car parks, to take ownership of that one to maintain strategic control of the cost of car parking in town.There is a pay back; it is an initial investment – we will get that money back.”
The new car park will be used to accommodate up to 3,500 office workers in the planned Union Square development with some of the lesser-used car parks going.
But Mark Dempsey (Lab, Parks), the vice-chairman of the committee and regeneration chief in the shadow cabinet, questioned if the council should be focusing on car parks.
He said: “For us the problem is funding, using public money to pay for car parks.
“What is done with the surplus car parks has got to be part of the new master plan and there needs to be consultation with the local community and the provision of public spaces.
“We said about creating a master plan for regeneration a year ago and had Swindon council produced one then the town would be in a much better place now.”
Comments(48)
itsamess
says...
12:42am Sun 9 Oct 11
Yes--but someone above is not very good with maths--'purchasing an 850
space car park'---'to accommodate up to 3500 workers from the union sq office development'
yougi bear
says...
7:25am Sun 9 Oct 11
yougi bear
says...
7:25am Sun 9 Oct 11
I Too
says...
10:31am Sun 9 Oct 11
"Conservative councillor Garry Perkins (Shaw and Nine Elms), said that the purchase of the new car park was an investment."
--- so it will NOT be an investment.
Gooey
says...
10:31am Sun 9 Oct 11
Robfm
says...
11:01am Sun 9 Oct 11
We the rate payers will buy a car park on rate payer owned land, for £15 million when SBC could have privately tendered and built directly probably saving at least £5 million.
Then this development will have a Hotel when we are over subscribed with about 800 to 1000 business beds a week in Swindon, and a Primary Care facility to provide services to who precisely. Again at tax payers expense.
Why not just call this a PFI contract because one way or the other it's tax and rate payers getting shafted again.
Wigmeister
says...
11:20am Sun 9 Oct 11
candid friend
says...
11:50am Sun 9 Oct 11
This is the character who gave £400,000 to a "Man with a Dream".
The nightmare is for the ratepayers!
When is this character going to resign?
MrAngry
says...
12:26pm Sun 9 Oct 11
yougi bear wrote:It is difficult weigh up the benefits of the new car park without knowing the bigger picture.
Oh dear, lets see £15 million for a car park. Why?. If there is a valid reason, which i don't think there is, how can they still carry on with a £2.00 charge, quite simply they cant. They say they control the car parks, so why are they building a new one and closing existing. Me thinks twisted logic or maybe reducing the amount of spaces would justify an increase in parking prices
The net increase in spaces is 350, but what will happen to the old car parks. The Parade, Wyvern and Fleming Way car parks are in a poor state of repair and don't meet modern needs. The car parks were designed in the 60's and 70's and the spaces aren't big enough for 4x4's etc. Like most concrete buildings from that period, the car parks were poorly built and now cost a lot to maintain.
Presumably the old car parks will be demolished and sold for development (more flats no doubt). If this is the case, the sale of the land will partially offset the £15m.
A few years ago there were plans to demolish the bus station and Carlton car park to make way for an Ikea. This development seems to have gone quiet though.
It will be interesting to know what the council's bigger plan is. This development MIGHT allow them to demolish some of the ugliest buildings in the town centre.
erniebond
says...
1:07pm Sun 9 Oct 11
Another disaster.
Wi Fi, Mechanics, do you want more because there are plenty.
"Backward Swindon"
Leader and deputy should GO
Ayatollah
says...
3:20pm Sun 9 Oct 11
Robh
says...
6:12pm Sun 9 Oct 11
Parking problems solved.
greenpacer
says...
11:36am Mon 10 Oct 11
Robfm
says...
11:42am Mon 10 Oct 11
Blackwell 2
says...
12:45pm Mon 10 Oct 11
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
2:35pm Mon 10 Oct 11
Robfm wrote:Its a free country and if people are prepared to pay the high taxes that go with big cars with poor fuel consumption and emmisions then they should have places available to park in the town centre.
I did smile at the comment about 4x4's aren't we suppose to be discouraging these gas guzzlers.
Blackwell 2
says...
3:10pm Mon 10 Oct 11
Gooey
says...
3:27pm Mon 10 Oct 11
Blackwell 2 wrote:hahahaha.
BloghogFm should pay taxes on all the emissions he makes on these threads
Robfm
says...
4:54pm Mon 10 Oct 11
I 2 Could B
says...
4:57pm Mon 10 Oct 11
Robfm wrote:It's ironic, really, given that the one, oops, sorry, I mean, TWO contributors that continually ruin most threads of this site with their inane attempts at what are presumably meant to be amusing comments are Blackwell 2 and I Too.
I thought schools had gone back.
Who are, of course, one and the same.
What a turd he is.
Blackwell 2
says...
5:56pm Mon 10 Oct 11
MrAngry
says...
7:35pm Mon 10 Oct 11
Gooey wrote:Gooey, SBC were planning to put a park and ride at GWH a few years ago. They had the money but they it stalled for a few reasons.
I've been convinced for a while that a park and ride service is the way forward. The council made a terrible mess of it last time with the poor locations and stupid layout of it,but that shouldn't put them off getting it right in the future. The car park at the GWH should be expanded and it would work there i'm sure. Make it cheap and appealing for the public and i'm sure it would be succesful.
1. SBC didn't own the land.
2. They wanted to drain the park and ride into the existing highway drainage, but the Highways Agency wouldn't agree as they needed the spare capacity for the A419 fly over.
3. SBC wanted an entrance off of the A419, but the Highways Agency objected (possibly because the A419 flyover design wasn't finalised). SBC didn't want the park and ride if the entrance was off of Marlborough Road.
I think this project is now dead. The old labour council seemed to like P&R but the conservative administration don't like them.
MrAngry
says...
7:54pm Mon 10 Oct 11
Robfm wrote:If I was a town centre shop keeper, I would view 4x4 owners as valued customers, but if you are concerned about the impact of gas guzzlers, you could easily introduce narrow gates at the entrance to your pub car park and do your bit for the environment.
I did smile at the comment about 4x4's aren't we suppose to be discouraging these gas guzzlers.
Blackwell 2
says...
9:16pm Mon 10 Oct 11
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
11:04pm Mon 10 Oct 11
MrAngry wrote:His head wouldn't fit through.
Robfm wrote:If I was a town centre shop keeper, I would view 4x4 owners as valued customers, but if you are concerned about the impact of gas guzzlers, you could easily introduce narrow gates at the entrance to your pub car park and do your bit for the environment.
I did smile at the comment about 4x4's aren't we suppose to be discouraging these gas guzzlers.
greenpacer
says...
12:03am Tue 11 Oct 11
greenpacer
says...
12:03am Tue 11 Oct 11
I Too
says...
1:04am Tue 11 Oct 11
There's enough dodgy stuff at Euclid Street already.
Robfm
says...
7:27am Tue 11 Oct 11
As for out place we can park 150 cars if need be, so not an issue.
I Too
says...
7:57am Tue 11 Oct 11
Why bother to comment then?
Robfm
says...
8:19am Tue 11 Oct 11
I Too
says...
9:55am Tue 11 Oct 11
So he didn't suggest narrowing your gstes if your so intetested in the effect of gas guzzlers?
No "bodyguard" today then?
Robfm
says...
11:15am Tue 11 Oct 11
As for body guard, once again you show how little you actually read the threads I2 and I have disagreements but unlike with others they are not simply an excuse for people to try to denigrate our business.
I Too
says...
12:36pm Tue 11 Oct 11
Robfm
says...
1:05pm Tue 11 Oct 11
And for the record Daniel10 could never be confused with Robfm not even in your mind, or perhaps it could.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
2:43pm Tue 11 Oct 11
There are cars that use plenty of PETROL, but that is not GAS, and they do not GUZZLE, they CONSUME.
Whoever started using the term gas guzzlers should be shot for crimes to the English language!
I Too
says...
3:06pm Tue 11 Oct 11
Robfm wrote:Huh?
No I think those who deliberately set up confusing logins are not confused they are deranged.
And for the record Daniel10 could never be confused with Robfm not even in your mind, or perhaps it could.
I Too
says...
3:11pm Tue 11 Oct 11
Robfm wrote:So your "business" is writing endless drivel on here then!
I don't generate parking income, and have masses of space available.
As for body guard, once again you show how little you actually read the threads I2 and I have disagreements but unlike with others they are not simply an excuse for people to try to denigrate our business.
What's the "business called?
BloghogFm' Sedative Speeches Ltd?
Your babysitters' is probably called Trolls R Us
MrAngry
says...
7:31pm Tue 11 Oct 11
Robfm wrote:Bob, I didn't say that I wanted bigger spaces. I simply stated a fact that many of the towns older car parks have parking bays which are lower than the current design standard. They were designed in the 60's when cars were smaller.
Because if you read the thread I Too, I know that is an alien concept to you, you would have read Mr Angry wanted bigger parking spaces, which by definition would reduce potential revenue. That does concern me, especially as the council intends to spend £15 million of our money.
Bigger spaces in a well designed car park would not 'by definition' reduce parking revenue. If you look at the layout of the Wyvern and Parade car parks you would realise that they make very poor use of space.
The Wyvern is long and narrow, so the access ramps take up a large percentage of floor area compared with a wider car park. Similarly, the Parade is very small, so the access ramps and aisles take up a disproportionate amount of space. also the Parade is only 3 storey.
A single large car park would be more efficient in terms of space.
The older car parks were very badly built as reinforced concrete in the 60's and 70's wasn't properly understood. As a result, the existing car parks are expensive to maintain.
The early car parks were designed using building codes rather than the more onerous bridge codes. The concrete wasn't protected against chemical attack from the road salt tracked in by cars. Car parks are subject to larger temperature variations than buildings which are generally heated. Car parks were designed for static loads with no allowance for the dynamic effects of vehicles. But most significantly, the workmanship was of an exceptionally poor standard compared to modern practice. The steel in a modern concrete structure would be protected by a 50mm layer of concrete. In the 60's it might have been as little as 25mm, but poor workmanship can reduce this to 5mm.
The unprotected steel corrodes. The resulting rust occupies a much larger volume that the steel that it replaces. The expansive forces cause the concrete to crack and spall. The cost of maintaining these structures is a nightmare.
Also small spaces don't just inconvenience 4x4 users. They inconvenience the occupants of the neighbouring space who end with dents in their car doors.
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
8:24am Wed 12 Oct 11
Err.. that would be you then Robfm, Bobfm, Daniel10, Robert feal-mentiroso and all the other delibarately confusing logins.
Robfm
says...
8:44am Wed 12 Oct 11
HSIN, CO and how many others that got banned.
itsamess
says...
9:52am Wed 12 Oct 11
way back in the 60s Scientific studies
into the use of steels and corrosive acids into steels and concrete was undertaken by a mixture of constructional/desig
n engineers and scientists due to the expected growth
of motorway bridge construction and
Much was known from the efforts of
Brunel and other engineers.
No--before any criticism is levelled--i
know very little of construction works
but the science is fascinating as both
new steels and and concrete mixes
emerged vastly reducing corrosive
materials. Flexibility was improved as i understand to the road spans by the use of high values steel cables which
were adjusted at either end and were easily replaced and the whole structure mounted on bearers to allow the bridge to expand and contract with the weather. The report
dealt with the concrete cancer which
was emerging in the partially pre-fabricated council housing. I do remember vaguely many locally were
rectified--but not how.
The problem with many builds at that time appears to be the ingress of moisture and air through the concrete
which allowed corrosion as you stated.
The report recommended a host of
additives and better aeriation of the mix and in the steels.
I doubt if any of those rules applied to our earlier multi-storeys--but possibly to the one in Villet St.
Robfm
says...
10:13am Wed 12 Oct 11
I Too
says...
12:41pm Wed 12 Oct 11
Robfm wrote:BloghogFm' Sedative Speeches Ltd?
Now you are getting the hang of Google Walter.
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
1:13pm Wed 12 Oct 11
Robfm wrote:Daniel10 didn't need explaining Robbo, everybody is aware that you deliberately set out to lie and deceive but got caught by your own stupidity.
Once again Punctured you are deliberately misleading, one could say lying. I was forced to abandon Bobfm because of a fraudster, if you can't sell my name correctly please have the courtesy to look it up, but that is my admin name for South Marston section, Daniel10 has been explained and Robfm is my current, what of yours Punctured:
HSIN, CO and how many others that got banned.
Tut tut.
itsamess
says...
1:34pm Wed 12 Oct 11
****
MrAngry
says...
10:08pm Wed 12 Oct 11
I agree that there was a lot of good advice available to engineers in the 70's. However, concrete is a very complex material and its behaviour is still not fully understood (certainly not by me). A great deal of research has been carried out by organisations such as the Transport Research Laboratory and Concrete Society.
Concrete is a variable material due to the use of locally sourced aggregates. Hence the regional variation in cases of concrete cancer (ASR).
Ready mixed concrete is batched under controlled conditions, but is placed on site by workman with varying degrees of knowledge, experience and care.
The concrete curing process is an exothermic reaction which generates a great deal of heat. If the concrete is not designed or cured properly, cracks will develop allowing water to reach the steel. Stainless steel or epoxy coated reinforcement can be used, but these materials are prohibitively expensive in most cases. Plastic fibres can also be added to the concrete, but cracking is usually controlled by good detailing and additional reinforcement. Air entrainment and cement replacements also improve durability.
The concrete cover to the reinforcement is subject to construction tolerances and is often less than specified.
Research is essential, but experience has also highlighted bad practice.
Many of the early concrete bridges (and buildings) have developed problems which have resulted in changes to working practices.
Until recently most bridges incorporated movement joints (as referred to in your post), but the Highways Agency now require bridges of less than 60m span to be built without joints. The joints invariably leak allowing water (and therefore chlorides) to damage the support columns and bridge bearings. This creates challenges to engineers who have to deal with the additional stresses due to thermal movements but computer software and faster processors allow more complex modelling.
Early concrete structures were designed with strength in mind, but these days durability is of equal importance.
In the 70's bridges were built to more onerous criteria than buildings (still are). Car parks have similar characteristics to bridges but were designed as buildings. In the 70's, designers weren't required to proper crash barriers to car parks. Barriers were retro-fitted in the late 90's after an elderly gentleman in the midlands hit the accelerator instead of the brake and crashed through a 4th storey barrier.
komadori says...
8:35pm Sat 8 Oct 11