Cost cutting: Fleecing the bikers

There is a story by Dave Burgess in this morning’s Dom Post about a proposal for council to council look at alternatives to the free on street parking provided for motorcyclists (in exchange for this, bikers can’t park in metered or pay-and-display parks).

The council estimates about 1100 motorbikes come into the central city daily – a 178 per cent increase in the past decade. There is free parking for 500 on streets.

Unfortunately, it looks like the alternative the council is exploring is forcing bikers to pay a fee to park in parking buildings.

The council controls only 10 per cent of available parking space in the city. Mayor Celia Wade-Brown said the council was talking to the operators of privately owned parking buildings about offering more off-street parking for motorcyclists.

“They can park their motorcycles under cover, without them being backed into or blown over, for about $2 a day.”

One might have thought that Celia would be encouraging more environmentally friendly forms of transport, such as scooters and motorcycles. Apparently not.


2 responses to “Cost cutting: Fleecing the bikers

  1. $2 a day is pretty low. It’s cheaper than taking the bus, and way way cheaper than paying for car parking in town every day. If it’s not cheaper than taking the bus then you’re within easy bicycling distance.

  2. I see the move is justified by council officers this way:

    “Ultimately, the revenue required to maintain the roading network would have to be funded from other sources, and we need to consider the burden on ratepayers.”

    I wonder, has the analysis been done in a way that takes into account the lower wear and tear from motorbikes vs cars, or the benefits from reduced traffic congestion, or smaller land area required to park a bike vs a car? If people who ride revert to driving cars, then the required revenue to maintain the roading network might actually increase further…

    Seems like the current policy is succeeding in reducing strain on the roading network and reversing it might be foolish. Perhaps instead of casting this as an increased burden on ratepayers, we might see it as a wise investment of rates that makes driving and parking for motorists a bit easier.

    I would love to see an analyis that lays out council expenditure on roading vs funding from rates, parking and other sources. After all, car drivers are a subset of all citizens, and many people use their cars sparingly. Who is subsidising whom? We really can’t say at the moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s