MCI has not to date openly expressed opposition to the issue of parking charges in Westminster, as we believe that the broader issues are complicated and require proper debate. It should be noted that as a matter of principle, the association has long campaigned for adequate and, where possible, free parking.

However, it is incorrect to interpret this as full support for Westminster City Council.
 
In fact,MCI has several deep concerns regarding the Westminster City Council (WCC) paid for

motorcycle parking scheme as it is currently structured. Many of these concerns are reflected by the ‘no to’ campaign group. MCI has lobbied WCC on these concerns and has made it clear to WCC that the Association does not support the current basis of the charging scheme.

By way of background, the MCI believes that the provision of adequate, good quality parking is essential to the long term viability of the motorcycle as a mode of transport. The Association is therefore willing to look carefully at any proposals which will improve parking provision and consequently provide greater incentives to take up biking. MCI does not feel that that a ‘black and white’ position can be taken on charges for the use of facilities, particularly when the overall

context and longer term poor experience of campaigning for motorcycle parking, plus the position of motorcycling, as part of the broader transport system, is taken into account.

Having said that, MCI does not support the way in which WCC has chosen to implement paid for parking. Value foor money for riders iis not clear and the initiative appears to have ‘demand management’ considerations at its core, rather than a fair deal and continuing increases in provision for riders. In short, the WCC approach is flawed.

However, by way of a broader point, there is an argument to suggest that if carefully designed schemes can be put in place, which have ring fenced revenues which will be ploughed back into greater parking provision and an increased number of secure motorcycle bays, then it may be entirely reasonable to charge a nominal fee for parking a PTW, as this would represent direct value for money for riders (not a perceived tax) and a real expectation of ever improving motorcycle parking and possibly other facilities.

Such a basis for a charge could act as a real stimulus to getting more people on two wheels.

People moving from cars to PTWs, or public transport to PTWs will notice an immediate benefit in terms of increased facilities and vastly reduced personal transport costs (compared to cars and bus/train).

However, it must be stressed that this does not indicate that MCI has firmly come down on

the side of fee paying PTW parking, only that there should be a sensible and sober

discussion about the issue. MCI will not support any charge which is merely a tool for

revenue raising, with no benefits for riders – which unfortunately is how the WCC scheme is increasingly coming across.

MCI’s main concern with the Westminster scheme is that it does not commit to ring fence

funds. WCC made a commitment to increase parking provision and install more

secure parking in returnn for a daily fee (ppaid once for multiple daily use of all bays).

Yes, WCC did create a large number of new parking places immediately prior to implementing charges, but further expansion in provision has not taken place and the charges raised thus far have already paid for existing provision several times over. The MCI calls on Westminster to deliver on promises to improve parking provision and not scythe off the moneys raised through parking charges for use on other transport budgets.

MCI is also concerned that the justification for the parking charge seems to have moved from

being one of paying for improved parking service provision for motorcyclists (WCCs stated original intend), to one of ‘demand management,’ intended to deter motorcycle use. WCC officials have sought to assure the Association that the basis of the charge is service provision. However, the current Westminster CC ‘Unitary Development Plan’ (UDP) specifically states that parking charges for motorised vehicles are levied on the basis of ‘demand management’. MCI is opposed to many of the principles of the ‘demand management’ philosophy, as this has often been used as an excuse to discourage powered vehicles and in particular PTWs, and is urging WCC to clarify and resolve this apparent contradiction.

The issue of moneys already raised from the charge is also of concern to MCI. WCC officials

have recently asked for MCI’s views regarding how this should be spent. MCI’s proposal is

that revenues already raised should be spent on the following, and that these services

should be the key commitment behind any plan to introduce paid-for motorcycle parking by a

local authority:

Continued increases in parking provision

Establishment of a motorcycle forum

Implementation of the IHIE motorcycle engineering guidelines

The funding of a ‘motorcycle officer’ post within WCC (there are currently cycling officer
Development of a proper motorcycle strategy in Westminster

Therefore MCI’s position can be summarised as follows:

• MCI does not oppose per se the idea of paid for facilities for PTWs, provided proper value for money for users can be established and that such charges can lead to increased facilities and better services for motorcyclists.
• MCI does not believe that the parking charge in Westminster, in its current form, meets these criteria.
• MCI feels that there should be a proper discussion about the overall charging issue, as ‘black and white’ positions have only served to create entrenchment on all sides of the current debate.
• MCI will continue to conduct its own lobby on the issue.
• MCI again wishes the campaign group well with its activities and has a great deal of respect for both their commitment and their in-depth knowledge of parking law, parking contracts and other related areas.
• MCI will be particularly interested in the outcome of current legal challenges which have been made by the campaign group

.