Morning:
10°c
I had promised Royal Parks that I would clean away the litter but there was none. Not even a chewing gum wrapper was left after more than 1,000 people flocked to Richmond Park two weeks ago to protest against plans to introduce car-parking charges. But the politeness masked a real anger.
A few people including the minister responsible for Royal Parks, Margaret Hodge, have dismissed the protests on the basis that Richmond and Kingston are affluent, and that its residents can afford the charges. Of course a lot of local people can. But there are many — pensioners, mothers with children, dog walkers — for whom visiting the park will become a serious budget decision. That cannot be right.
The 5,000 or so acres of Royal Parks are one of the things that make London special. They need our support. But these proposals will not only alienate the very people who love and use Richmond Park — they make no financial sense. It will cost nearly £3 million to urbanise the park and it will generate about £400,000 per year. So it will take roughly seven years to pay back.
There are so many ways to raise the money. For one thing, there are empty buildings waiting to be rented out. There are opportunities to sell merchandise. If London Underground can pull it off, the Royal Parks certainly can. And why not introduce honesty boxes at the gates, and in the car parks? If everyone who used the parks donated just 12p per year, the budget would be filled.
But the big mistake the parks have made, and by extension Hodge, is to label the proposal a “green tax”. This has become the habit of bureaucrats wanting to push through unpopular proposals. Call it “green” and everyone is supposed to buckle. People aren't stupid. They can spot a stealth tax and all this does is erode people's appetite for genuine green solutions. The damage done to green politics by such clumsy measures is immeasurable. Without proper green taxation we can't put a price on pollution, waste and the use of scarce resources — nor can we pay for the green alternatives.
Charging people to park in the park will have no impact on traffic, and virtually none on use of the parking areas. People will either pay up, or park in nearby streets, causing localised problems.
If we want to green up our cars, there are far simpler methods. Denmark, for instance, taxes people for buying dirty cars, and uses the money to make cleaner cars cheaper. Because it all happens at the point of purchase, no one is punished for decisions they've already taken, and their treasury isn't enriching itself in any way. We can also push for higher car engine standards in the EU. These two initiatives would immediately reduce our emissions and our dependence on oil.
Fortunately there is now a cross-party consensus on this issue between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. If the Conservatives form the next government, we will scrap the charges, as long as alternatives can be found for the shortfall. They can and will be found. And so, if the polls are correct, Richmond and Bushy will remain free from traffic wardens — and no one will have to wonder if they can afford a walk in the park.
Reader views (20)
Everyone is commenting on the charges but my main concern is the visual impact of urbanised car parks. Richmond Park is a fairly wild area despite the obvious management, and to see all the car parks looking like the one at Pen Ponds would spoil the whole natural effect. Close Kingston or Richmond Gate and get out there and walk. Even on the busiest summer Sunday, the Park is almost empty if you walk more than 200 metres from a car park.
- Lindy, Kingston, 23/02/2010 09:43
Report abuse
Actually Zac Goldsmith was challenged to put together a philanthropic consortium to pay the £1.5 million for the car parks thereby eliminating the need for parking charges. He isn't saying too much about that - presumably he's under orders to focus on collecting for the Conservative Party. I can't help feeling Mrs Sting's money would have been better used for this. Other things like the Tamsin Trail in the park and improvements to the horse-riding facilities have been paid for in this way (with the usual tax deductible benefits of such donations). I believe even the drinking fountains were funded from outside. Instead he is still talking about honesty boxes. Where does that figure of £3 million come from? I understood that £3 million was the cost of upgrading both Richmond Park AND Bushy Park car parks.
As to the issue of rat-run traffic - all that needs to be done is to close Kingston Gate as was done at Robin Hood Gate. There will still be four other road entrances to the park but it will lose its "short-cut" status.
- Richmond Parkie, Surrey Uk, 21/02/2010 10:03
Report abuse
I have two small children and Richmond Park is a very important resource for us. The children can run around, discover nature and for a few hours believe they're country kids. I think it's really important that parking remains free. Affluent or not, the borough contains plenty of people like me that cannot fork out a couple of pounds everytime we want to exercise our children.
- Tania, Richmond, 20/02/2010 13:22
Report abuse
Charging, say 20p for entering the park - tickets to be bought in advance and read easily would be tolerable - charging for parking and USING the park for leisure, dog or child walking etc. should not be charged any more. In fact it would be more sensible if people parking could get a refund for using the park rather than using it as a through road instead of a leisure facility which should be rewarded in these days or encouraging exercise.
- Gill Gerard, richmond england, 19/02/2010 14:48
Report abuse
Park usage. Why don't we all learn to 'live and let live'? Paying to enter our Royal Parks? Surely not!
The scarce and mostly weekend Park access for our working locals whether cyclists, walkers, kite flyers, kids ball games etc, usually require 'parking up', not too far from entry & exit gates.
However, Richmond Parks lovely green spaces demonstrates daily that 'nature' really CAN take it,so don't fix it.
- Jenny, Richmond. Surrey, 19/02/2010 13:06
Report abuse
2 more things:
1. The park is closed at dusk, which in the wintertime means it's closed for the evening rush-hour. There's more congestion but the world doesn't come to an end as some people seem to be implying. I know, I've lived in Ham and commuted along the Petersham Road.
2. Mass poverty among car-owners? Only 2% of park users are in DE (poorer)social groups according to the Parks Agency report. Running a car in the first place costs thousands a year. There's exemptions for blue badge holders.
- Jw4g, Wimbledon, 19/02/2010 11:44
Report abuse
@ all the comments about charging the rat-runners: I live 100m from the park. When it's closed (for resurfacing, for a duathlon, anything else), it's mayhem on the adjacent roads. Charge for cars entering the park and you will negatively affect the quality of life for literally tens of thousands of people living nearby: People avoid either the Richmond Park congestion charge (ha!) and add to congestion elsewhere, or the car parking fee and park in other roads.
That's when residents start to complain. Parking restrictions are put up. Residents have to buy permits. Then their visitors have to pay. In the end everyone pays to keep the Park's venison happy. Just great...
Charging for parking is just another unilateral decision taken by the Royal Parks Taliban disregarding the wishes of those using the park - and paying for it through their taxes.
It's as short-sighted and dangerous as dropping the speed limit to 20mph. Ask any fit cyclist using the park: you get passed by the cars going uphill, you pass them going downhill. The upshot is that EVERYONE gets annoyed.
All the parking fee will achieve is generate more congestion in the roads around the Richmond Park gates. Park usage will not go away. Charging for parking in Richmond Park is not the way to deal with it. The knock-on effects are much worse than anything the park puts up with now.
Just say no!
- Achim, London (the centre of the universe), 19/02/2010 05:42
Report abuse
great idea, nigel. pay to rat-run. genius.
- Fred, richmond, uk, 19/02/2010 02:34
Report abuse
I walk my dogs in the park and enjoy being able to access different areas of it which would not be possible without parking. For those that only use it on a sunday - you dont see the commuters who use it as a short cut. It also a haven for families to travel to and with public transport to richmond off most weekends and this will only affect the people who are struggling to make ends meet. There are other options than parking charges which will make the surrounding areas a nightmare with parked cars as there are no restrictions on may areas just outside the parks gates.
this is not about being green this is just another way of getting more money from the public. Enough is enough.
- Fifi, kingston, surrey, 18/02/2010 23:31
Report abuse
Excellent to see a tory candidate espousing taxing cars at the point of purchase as this is fairer and not retrospective; presume that we can look forward to this enlightened principle being applied to income tax to ensure a fairer distribution of income?
Of course Zac hasn't heard of those handy multi-occupant red vehicles that those who are genuinely hard up or interested in the reduction of carbon footprint tend to use as a mode of transport. For those of you entirely resident in off-shore tax havens who have read this far they are called buses.
Just the sort of shameless politicking to be expected of a Cameronite although a little disheheartening to see core values being shed so shamelessly in persuit of the Richmond 4x4 drivers vote.
- Dsva, London, 18/02/2010 22:51
Report abuse
Rat-Running through Richmond Park has been discussed for more than 14 years, with the only significant outcome being the closure of the A3 RH gate to traffic. That was great news, but the progress is pants.
As ever, the political disclaimer: 'If the Conservatives form the next government, we will scrap the charges, as long as alternatives can be found for the shortfall.'
They won't and we'll be stuck with the man who sold out on his only remaining, marginally credible asset.
- Paulie, London, 18/02/2010 20:11
Report abuse
If Mark looks at a map he will see that Richmond Park is a very necessary lifeline to Petersham, where there is just one road, before he starts pontificating about 'rat-runs'. We in Petersham know where the rats are - they're in this government.
- Christine Hogh, Richmond, Surrey, 18/02/2010 19:15
Report abuse
I spend approx 250 days a year in Richmond Park walking my dogs. At £3 per day that would cost me £750 per year. Of course there is no way that after fuel to get there would I as a retired person be able to afford these charges or public transport travelling from Sutton, which really would not be an option anyway. I would not be able to afford a coffee or anything else.
- Clive Norman, Sutton, London, 18/02/2010 18:04
Report abuse
I, as old age pensioner aand dogowner, have many like friends, who use the park, in all weathers, and for quite a few hours a day, to socialize, with our dogs. We can just afford to buy coffee etc., to support the catering in the park, but would not be able to afford regular parking charges. Why should we be kept from our social life by the imposition of charges? This park should be as free to visit as Mrs Hodge's park is, in her Barking constituency!!
- Margie Burn, richmond, surrey United Kingdom, 18/02/2010 17:45
Report abuse
Agree with Zac that it is daft to spend £3m to get £400k per year.
If the figure of 12p per year is correct then charge people when entering the park using gates similar to those on French autoroutes. A charge of say 10p per entry should raise lots of money and with only 6 gates or so probably wouldn't cost much to instal and could be done incrementally.
- Tonyw, London, 18/02/2010 17:37
Report abuse
Well if everybody is really concerned with the environment why are they not charging for cars to enter the park rather than park? This would deter rat running improving air quality and safety, would impact real park users less and raise more revenue. Instead they announced taxi's and vans could use the park at the same time as the parking charge! Couldn't be more cynical.
- Mark, London, 18/02/2010 15:30
Report abuse
What would be green?
Ticket barriers on the entrances and exits that would let you out for free only if you leave more than (say) an hour after you enter. In other words, charge the people who use it as a short-cut rather than as a park.
A bus service running through the park, connecting it to tube and rail stations, so no need to get there by car in the first place.
- Nigel, London, 18/02/2010 15:17
Report abuse
Agreed Jw4g - my other half is a Zoologist, and has pointed out many times that allowing traffic to motor through Richmond Park is highly damaging to the ecosystem there. Does Zac care now he's trying to get voted in? Of course not!
- Liam, London, 18/02/2010 13:27
Report abuse
Its the oldies and the poorer members of society that get punished again as they cannot afford to live in the affluent areas of London close enough to avoid paying.
Typical new labour class hatred starving the South of money and pumping it into Scotland and the heartlands. Who cares about the OAP dog walker being forced to pay £2 a visit. Thats as much as £28 a week that OAP has to find if they enjoy a stroll twice a day. Over £100 a month. In other words the park isnt for you any longer its for the rich like Zac or Patricia who as a typical champagne socialist is married to a multi millionaire so will find it hard to understand how this decision may just have ruined an OAPs life.
- Stuz Graz, Wimbledon, London, 18/02/2010 12:39
Report abuse
It is a fact that motor traffic is not compatible with the environmental aims of Richmond Park, and anyone who goes there on a sunny Sunday knows how traffic spoils the tranquility, makes it difficult to cross the road and causes danger. Also it causes damage to the ecosystem of the Park, much of the damage unseen.
The main problem is rat-running - people who are not park visitors. Why are they not being charged? We should be encouraging people to arrive by means other than the car - hence the car parking charge - but we need to go further.
It would be fair enough if the candidates were suggesting that there are better ways of mitigating the impact of motor traffic than the parking charge, but they're not. This is vote-grabbing of the lowest order, from candidates that claim to be 'green' but don't dare to upset motorists.
- Jw4g, Wimbledon, 18/02/2010 11:49
Report abuse
