Slashing the cost of parking in Brighton despite rising visitor numbers will make traffic jams and pollution worse, environmentalists are warning.
Hiking parking charges in recent years has seen the number of people parking in council car parks drop – even as the number of visitors overall has gone up.
Brighton and Hove City Council last week voted to reduce charges after a reduction in people parking in its car parks had hit revenues despite the price rises.
A spokesperson for Brighton Active Travel said: “The whole parking strategy is a multi-storey mess.
“More and more people coming there because the city is a nicer place to be when there are fewer cars. After all, it’s why people flock to the Lanes, Churchill Square and the beach – all traffic-free honeypots.
“They are quieter, the air is cleaner and there’s no risk of collisions.
“Making the city noisier, dirtier and more dangerous with more traffic really will deter visitors.
“Boosting traffic to council car parks reduces the safety of people who walk, wheel and ride bicycles in those areas.
“Only last year plans were started to improve the streets around London Road car park, to make them safer, cleaner and more vibrant.
“That’s been truly trashed by the parking strategy and this street will now suffer more and for even longer – traffic noise, air pollution, broken roads, and pavements that are absent or blocked.
“Reducing parking charges doesn’t help the poorest. People with little money are the least likely to own cars. People with the most money are most likely to own several cars and are more likely to drive.
“Reducing car parking charges will help the richest more than anyone. The city will become less pleasant and more polluted for everybody.”
Steve Davis, Green Group Convenor, said: “Labour’s decision to reduce parking fees on the back of this is totally incoherent. They promised in their 2023 manifesto to cut vehicle pollution and this will do the opposite.
“By making parking fees cheaper, they are actively encouraging people to travel to our city by car, increasing pollution, congestion and road danger, while slowing buses.
“It also flies in the face of the auditors report from earlier this year, which explicitly stated that fees and charges must be raised to keep the city’s budget on-track – something Labour should really have more of an eye on, given their administration’s current £10m predicted overspend.
“Residents deserve better than these fiscally and environmentally irresponsible decisions.”
The short-term action plan approved includes
- review signs to promote PayPoint
- reduce fees for underused parking areas
- introduce paid parking in some light-touch areas
- bring in weekend parking tariffs
- ensure charges in parks are similar to surrounding parking zone
- continue with financial recovery plan
In the medium term 2025, the council is considering a trial of virtual permits and offering “displacement permits” for use in neighbouring parking zones.
Proposals also include renaming car parks after nearby attractions and trying to attract commuters to the under-used London Road car park.
By 2027, the council is looking to reduce the number of emission categories for all permits to two.
The council hopes to be able to enforce pavement parking rules if the government changes the law and to align on-street and off-street charges.
By 2030, the aim is to explore charges based on vehicle size, create or merge new parking zones, simplify restrictions and bring in more red routes.
Has anyone told Steve Davis that his beloved VG3 will bring more pollution to Brighton (council consultants have confirmed this).
If he reads this news website most likely, you’ve been a firm and constant advocate for this point!
If so, as a counterpoint: I am hugely in favour of VG3. I consider VG1 & 2 a success and look forward to my family being able to use connecting bike lanes from St Peters through to the beach and beyond.
If there was a proposal that would permit safe cycling for children from Patcham to the town centre, I would be an ardent advocate.
If you consider VG1/2 a success then you seriously haven’t considered the impact this has caused with increased congestion and pollution and further impact VG3 will create.
Remember when they changed all the lanes on the Vogue Gyratory on Lewes Road? They knew full well that the NOX levels would go through the roof, but to hide that they removed the air monitoring station and put that well away. The greens have always been liars and Grifters. No wonder they were expelled from Brighton and Hove. Unfortunately the Smell of the Jack boots still remains
25% of the vote at the local elections and absolutely dominating the Pavilion vote? Yeah they’ve been expelled haha
How many ‘Green’ councillors do we have ?
How many got their asses kicked out?
Achieved buying something called Gerrymandering. #greenfraud
Don’t these people understand that without car drivers the city would die. All other services are propped up by the money squeezed from motorists. In many cases there is no viable alternative to travelling into Brighton by car as outside the city much of Sussex is without public transport. Even living in Brighton and Hove’s suburbs would be impractical without a car. It’s never going to be Amsterdam or even Cambridge and the idea that it’s going to be full of people cycling and walking is either naive or fantasy. Try getting a family to the beach with all their stuff on a bike. Cheaper parking means more visitors in shops and restaurants and economically it’s essential – those who argue differently wouldn’t care if the city died and everywhere was left boarded up – as long as their ideologies are met. They aren’t opposed to cars, they are opposed to freedom and just reading their statement betrays their politics of envy…. So someone rich might have more than one car? Well they can’t drive more than one at a time so what does it matter? 🤷♂️
Just conveniently skipping over the fact that visitor numbers have been going up despite the higher charges?
The only people in favour of cheaper parking are those who don’t actually live in the city and think they are too special for public transport! We don’t want you cars clogging up our city!
Simon,
Visitor numbers going up, are they. This city enjoyed around 12million visitors year on year until the Greens came to office in their first term in charge of BHCC.
The Greens were trying to push for a congestion charge way back in 2015 but it was thrown out as being un-nessicary and so they started with these alleged ‘Traffic Management improvement schemes,’ not only did congestion increase, visitors numbers dropped to below 9 million or is that just a coincidence?
It was reported somewhere by BHCC tourist board a few years ago that the way numbers are calculated were changing and would include venues not previously recorded so the figures do not give a true nor accurate measure. Remember lockdown and restrictions meant more people were staying at home venues instead of flying off somewhere. Those keen to paint a rosy picture can use the data to their advantage and prove the numbers are higher to those who lack the knowledge of historical events and changes that effect the number count.
You’re entitled to your opinion but you do not know how those who live in city feel about the cheaper parking and you certainly do not speak for me. I NEED to use my car due to all the equipment I need and think the charges are criminally expensive so I no longer take on any work and quite happy spending my money elsewhere.
So you think people living outside the city are too special for public transport!
And what public transport is that then ?
Certainly cant mean the bus services, very few service’s run in from out of town, and those that do have limited time scales and take forever.
Can’t mean the Train service, most weekends they are disrupted by engineering works somewhere on the network and very expensive as well.
We don’t want ANY cars clogging up our city, no we don’t, but BHCC and their gormless supporters like you complain of congestion and pollution despite the fact that roads are narrowing, closed off, parking bays removed (lost revenue), roads restricted, poorly phased traffic lights and going to get even worse when VG3 is completed, and what alternatives have BHCC given to those who have to use their car but need to come into the city. NONE.
No park and ride.
Academically speaking, parking accessibility has little to no impact on local businesses.
How can you make a statement like that – where is your evidence to back it up? The finite number of people who live within walking or cycling distance of Brighton’s retail area and attractions means they would be unsustainable without the influx of those who live in suburbs and outlying areas up to 20 miles distance.
In the absence of any viable public or alternative personal transport the majority of those visitors would use a car to access shops, business and attractions.
While the proportion of those customers versus locals who walk can be argued it’s ridiculous to say they have little or no impact.
Brighton and Hove is an amalgamation of two seaside towns- hugely reliant on tourism and visitors. To ignore this and to ignore the unsuitability of bus or train routes for a large proportion of those visitors is absolute fantasy.
Parking accessibility has little to no impact on local businesses.
We could probably argue the finer points here, but it is noticeable that BHCC are telling us there’s a huge drop in revenue. If businesses are impacted by any margin is open to debate, be an interesting project to follow at a later date.
Certainly Matt, I can provide sources. You’re happy with Harvard format references?
Shoup, D. (2005) The High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association.
Marsden, G. (2006) ‘The evidence base for parking policies—a review’, Transport Policy, 13(6), pp. 447-457.
Manville, M. and Shoup, D. (2010) ‘Parking, people, and cities’, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 136(3), pp. 233-245.
Benjamin 8 hours ago
Shoup, D. (2005) The High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association.
Marsden, G. (2006) ‘The evidence base for parking policies—a review’, Transport Policy, 13(6), pp. 447-457.
Manville, M. and Shoup, D. (2010) ‘Parking, people, and cities’, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 136(3), pp. 233-245.
Careful study of the above reveals certain flaws that need to be highlighted to you.
First big red flag is AMERICAN Planning Association.
Second, all these date from over a decade ago.
Third, no one is proposing ‘FREE’ parking.
The city as you like to think of it is merely two medium sized seaside towns of a little over 100k people each. Not much larger than Eastbourne or Worthing. That amalgamation is not some alternative to Birmingham or Manchester. But lets look at whether it would be sustainable without tourism and the annual influx of visitors. There are very few jobs outside the retail, tourism and care sectors, large employers are almost non existent and the high property prices are kept afloat by commuters and london wages.
Any notion that it would survive as some sort of vehicle free playground for pedestrians and cyclists is bonkers. Yes plenty of people will visit by train – when they are working – but railways are mostly linear so fine for those coming from London but almost impossible for anyone wanting to travel cross country.
Likewise “city” centre dwellers can rely on a bus every few minutes but the vast majority of the country don’t have that luxury – a care therefore is essential and even more so if you have a family.
So you might say you don’t want cars coming into ‘your’ city but I question what kind of city would be left if visitors stopped coming in the numbers needed to sustain it.
Parking accessibility has little to no impact on local businesses.
We could probably argue the finer points here, but it is noticeable that BHCC are telling us there’s a huge drop in revenue. If businesses are impacted by any margin is open to debate, be an interesting project to follow at a later date.
You have to admit, Chav wagon public transport is revolting.
But if you reduce parking cost and reinstate parking bays people would not be driving round in circles trying to find an affordable place to park. And VG1,2,3 needs sorting out. Also a free park and ride scheme would help. Maybe be this could be funded by the anti motorists groups (not the greens they voted against this).
I’ve always liked the idea of a P&R scheme that frequents the main workplaces in Brighton. In theory, it would be a good step to persuading motorists to not use their car, if possible.
Greedy selfish boomers
Hardly. The youngest ‘Boomer’ is 60 now. The oldest 78. I doubt they make up the majority of those heading into Brighton by car. Perhaps if you are going to use it as a slur you could think before posting. Plus prejudice of any kind is to be despised – whether racism or ageism they are equally unsavoury. You’d most likely not single out another demographic, maybe an ethnic group?
Well said Matt.
You mean the people who pay your benefits?
Parking charges are an extortion racket in our city. Time to slash the costs
That’s already happening, John.
Visitor numbers are down in our City – partly because of the cost of parking!
Almost 12m visitors a year till 2013 falling to 9m in 2019 & have never got near 2013 figures since.
The cost of parking is extortionate in Brighton & Hove leaving carparks largely empty during offpeak purposes.
With the weather turning more inclement – how many residents & visitors will cycle into the city centre during the autumn/winter?
Businesses & Tourism are crying out for more footfall – as part of an integrated transport policy that includes vehicles & reasonable parking fees.
I think having a bus and coach station fit for purpose will also improve footfall. National Express would surely benefit if they provided these amenities, or strived to have them. Bella Sankey is aware of this, as I did contact her before the elections.
But councillor, aren’t we overlooking some key points from your council’s own Economic Impact of Tourism Report? It shows a significant recovery in visitor numbers with upward trends overall, particularly in attracting higher-spending visitors through conferences and events.
While parking costs are one factor, we also can’t ignore broader reasons, like the cost of living crisis, which has deterred both domestic and international tourists. Accessibility issues, including rail service disruptions, and the controversy around Airbnb rentals driving up accommodation prices, have further complicated matters.
The push for higher-value tourism might reduce overall numbers, but it brings in more revenue. In light of this, isn’t it a bit reductive to pin declining footfall solely on parking fees?
You make some valid points that make some sense at face value but I would highlight some points that you’ve not considered.
The report doesn’t show a significant recovery in visitor numbers, it shows only an increase, numbers are well below the 12million we received every year up to 2013. Numbers significantly dropped to below 9 million up to 2019 with a downward trend year on year.
A coincidence in line with Traffic Management improvement schemes and parking restrictions, perhaps.
Lockdown decimated 2020/1 and people going aboard or visiting this country, and we still have yet to recover fully from the pandemic with people still working from home, and most people suffering economic imbalance, but that is my guess on speaking to various friends, family and work colleagues.
An increase in visitor numbers means nothing in the wider picture, the way numbers are calculated are different from how they were done previously.
It is a foregone conclusion that higher-spending visitors are generated through conferences, but how many of those do we have each year, and do they fill the economic hole. Recent footfall shows a huge gap between expected revenue and actual, with a number of reports of hospitality businesses going out of business.
Here’s part of a report dated January 2024 (The independent) Thousands of bars, restaurants and pubs across the UK are pulling down their shutters for the final time as out-of-control ground rents, produce costs and no-show bookings continue to plague the industry.
There were more than 10 closures every day, according to industry data, which revealed the number of licensed premises in Britain fell by 3.6 per cent from 103,682 to 99,916 in the year to September.
The hospitality industry says it is crumbling under the joint pressures of rocketing energy, rent, and food bills, staff shortages, and no-show bookings, amid the ongoing cost of living crisis and the after-effects of Covid and Brexit.
As for events, we’ve already had reports that a Motoring event will no take place in Brighton due to the parking problems and costs. How much lost revenue here for both Parking and Businesses.
You say, parking costs are one factor, we also can’t ignore broader reasons, like the cost of living crisis, which has deterred both domestic and international tourists. Accessibility issues, including rail service disruptions, and the controversy around Airbnb rentals driving up accommodation prices, have further complicated matters and that pretty much sums it up.
The push for higher-value tourism might reduce overall numbers, but it brings in more revenue, but it doesn’t in practice. I’ve seen this so many times where prices increase reduce numbers but there’s no increase in revenue. Here’s an example of what I mean. A Village bus route took on avarage 100 passengers a day all paying a flat £1 fare. So £100 per day or £600 a week (No Sunday). The fare was increased to £1.20, meaning in theory 120/660. In practice some passengers refused to pay reducing the passenger count down to 90 (avarage) with only an £8 increase in daily revenue. The fare was again increased to 140 where only an avarage of 75 people used the service. That’s 105 per day or in real terms £3 loss. The fare increased to 1.50 at the next review, where the daily count went to 45 generating £67.50, well below the break even margin and the route cut back and finally withdrawn all in two years.
Just a reminder that parking revenue profits are used to support/fund other transport modes, so we need to consider that element in any argument, reducing profit means less in the pot for cycle lanes, bus schemes and what have you. We desperately need a park and ride, a proper bus and coach station and more Express services.
Excellent points Matt. And you are absolutely right, the numbers are not as high as they were pre pandemic, how showing a recovering and upward trend.
High value tourism are complimentary to mainstream, the logic on spending more energy on supporting things like conventions which may encourage usages of facilities such as hotels and multiple visits to restaurants, for example, potentially gives a greater return on someone who is day tripping, seems like a sound one, in my opinion.
There’s also the balance between tourism and domestic needs, as always, cars are a necessity for many, so the thought should be allowing people to reasonably have pragmatically viable choice to not have one if they choose not to.
The numbers are not as high as they should be, as I said we enjoyed almost 12 million up to 2013 and steadily the numbers dropped to 9million by 2019. Be interesting to see what the numbers are for this year to give a true valuation of trends.
As I indicated, high value tourist are always welcomed but do they spend enough to make up losses from those day trippers that come every single day who no longer will or do.
In reality, we need better transport modes that are just part of the solution. I’ve always felt the ‘Greens’ had some good ideas in principle, but lacked the forward thinking of the consequences and rush them all through far too quickly without providing alternatives.
Only the ‘Greens’ would call VG1/2 a success and quote less cars in the area, their supporters patting them on the back on a job well done. Those of us with intelligence did question what would happen when the lockdowns ended and most of went back to normal lives.
I do find the Greens’ approach to be very naive.
For sure it would be nice to have a city centre without cars, but if you/we decide to discourage cars then where is the alternative transport? Where are the new bus routes, or perhaps a tram service? Where is the underground system or the overground metro trains they have in proper cities?
By the same negative thinking, let’s close down all the motorways, and perhaps put out tables and chairs on the M23. For sure, if you close a road then there won’t be any cars on it – but how do we then transport goods, visit relatives, and how do we provide proper services?
Brighton already has some of the most expensive parking in the country, and that reputation is spreading.
People do have to get across the city and most of us have to get to work, and cars are often the only option. If we want shoppers in the city centre then we also need visitors in their cars, and that means affordable parking and available road-side parking places.
Note that we still lack the park and ride schemes they have in most other seaside resorts – but of course the Greens always block that idea too.
Visitor numbers collapsed during Covid and our tourists stayed away after Brexit, and these numbers have only slowly recovered. We do offer a good tourist product here in Brighton and Hove, but any newcomer arriving by car – and having to negotiate the costs and scarcity of parking – will probably not come back, after being stung. Tourists won’t be arriving by bicycle either, and train journeys for visiting families are now prohibitively expensive. Our ‘ambitious plan’ to be carbon neutral by 2030 needs to deal with these obvious economic truths.
If we actually want a car free city, then that’s probably a city with a very narrow visitor market, and one with whole roads of shops and businesses that will have closed down. The city retail areas are already full of half empty coffee shops, short-lived restaurants, cafes and charity shops. More and more pubs are already closing down.
As retail declines, we’ve already seen catering alternatives flood the local high street market, and there’s not enough footfall – or disposable income – to go around. (Try walking up St James’s street.)
Instead of chasing the car free city fantasy, based on some naive ideology, we should instead assess where the city will realistically be in five years time, and with what demographic. With so many new flats being built, our population will certainly expand, but the basic costs of living in these new places means that few people will have any disposable income. We do still need tourists and data trippers, and they should be welcomed.
The further underlying issue with car parking charges is that the council now rely on the parking income to supplement an over-stretched council tax. And that economic pressure leads our administration – whatever their political colour – to make some very dodgy short term decisions, based on the latest spending crisis.
Very good point Billy. I’ve always liked the idea of extending the Volks Railway across the width of the City as a tram-like service.
And while this is tongue in cheek it makes a point.
If you want people to use their car less you give them viable alternatives. Transport to take them wherever they want to go and at anytime of the day or night. Perhaps Trams, Tube or even a vastly extended Volks Railway.
Much better to use the carrot than the stick to encourage behaviour change. Making life difficult or more expensive for motorists is perverse when many don’t have any alternative.
Build the infrastructure and then if it’s good enough drivers will naturally gravitate to it. Surely that makes more sense than penalising them like some sort of police state?
Is Green’s Steve Davies still a driving instructor ? Doesn’t teaching people to drive create more drivers ?
Teaching people to drive does create more drivers, but it’s also worth considering that driving is often seen as a necessary skill for many, particularly in areas with poor public transport options or those with mobility issues.
The bigger challenge isn’t necessarily about teaching people to drive, but about how we manage transport policy to reduce reliance on cars—through better cycling infrastructure, affordable public transport, and discouraging unnecessary car journeys.
One would imagine that while people are passing driving tests, others will be giving up.
You’re not thinking straight, it is a well known fact there’s a shortage of drivers for driving lorries, buses and other such vehicles across the country, so yes, teaching people to drive is needed to fill roles to service our wants and needs.
The Green party and their mad net zero rubbish should be consigned to the bin. At least this council seems sensible, unlike the government.
The problem with Steve Davis and others of his type, is that their over-simplistic thinking sends them down avenues that only leads to them always achieving the exact opposite of what they strive for.
What they never seem to be able to grasp is what lies behind, how things may play out, and address the cause, not the symptom. The Greens are, and have never been, very bright.
You only have to look at the exceedingly dim Sian Berry to know this.
Coca-Cola, the one corporation that stood out for human rights and put their business on the line in support of during the Civil Rights Movement in 1964 (and won a Nobel Peace Prize because of it), but Sian Berry makes some crackpot decision that the innocent victims of Palestine shouldn’t be allowed Coca-Cola, and wrecks a celebratory and otherwise joyous Pride parade by bringing in her ignorant-of-the-facts misguided politics, displaying herself unsuitable for any role of influence. Sadly, Green voters tend to be blind followers.
These people, Sian Berry and Steve Davis, are the least fit people to be in any public role.
I agree that reductive and oversimplifications are never a good way to tackle a problem. Even when we discuss topics here, I try to take on a balanced view and take on many different viewpoints, when I can, so I have a well-rounded understanding of a topic.
Have a starting point, most definitely, and have an initial opinion. Someone on here accused me once of having one on everything, which I found amusing. Once you have an opinion, be prepared to explore that opinion, and potentially change it based on new information.
I guess a part of it comes down to removing the ego a bit as well.
Bring more money into Brighton and Hove?
Oh no.
That’s terrible!
What about all the money being lost by the thousands of paid parking spaces the environMENTALISTS
at the council have removed?
In a TOURIST RESORT which needs visitors to survive?
Ironic they are implementing all their obstructions, one way systems, bus gates and unnecessary roadworks just as all vehicles are going electric, which is supposed to tick their sustainability box.
Can they explain this bizarre behaviour to crash the local economy in the face of no reason to do so any more?
Interesting that you think roadworks are unnecessary, just a few months ago you were complaining that there were a large number of potholes in the city, and that the council was not doing enough necessary roadworks to prevent them. Could you elaborate on your change of stance?
All the ghost roadworks with nothing happening and roads closed for no apparent reason.
Then there are various junctions being narrowed and traffic lights being moved which makes it more dangerous for vehicles to turn in and out of them, not safer.
That’s a classic knowledge paradoxical argument, Barry. Personal understanding of the validity of any particular roadworks might not make a strong argument.
Rome to Florence by train. 162 miles. 1hr 30m. €32 (£26.84)
London to Manchester by train. 163 miles. 2hr 6m (fastest train) £54.50
It is probably beyond the comprehension of someone as thick as Steve Davis, but maybe make public transport the answer instead of the problem?