I agree with our magazine’s founder JVH in most cases when he states that parking should be paid by the user, our recent debate about UK hospital parking notwithstanding.
The news coming out of Edinburgh, Scotland, on September 21, however, makes me think about the concept of pay per use. What constitutes use? Of course, parking charges are usually based on time, but we are starting to see charges vary for the size and even weight of the vehicle. Now Edinburgh’s councillors have passed a law basing the cost of parking permits on carbon dioxide emissions. Starting in November, the more a car pollutes, the more the owner will have to pay for a city parking permit.
While the biggest gas-guzzling vehicles will see permit prices double, environmentally friendly cars will actually pay less for parking.
The drive behind the new sliding scale permit costs is to encourage residents to purchase “greener” vehicles, and Councillors expect the measures to reduce pollution from vehicles by 15%.
It seems to me that government authorities have every right to determine what constitutes use, in terms of parking, and charge accordingly.
On the other hand, I can see how this privilege is often abused to generate revenue.
Jennifer Dunn, Policy Analyst at London’s TaxPayers' Alliance emailed me with a similar opinion.
“It is simply unfair for Edinburgh council to heap yet more charges on motorists who choose a larger family car,” says Dunn. “This is another policy that will place a greater burden on motorists, who already pay huge amounts in Vehicle Excise Duty and Fuel Duty, which already mean those driving larger cars pay more.”
“There is no need for this measure, which is an unnecessary complication and demonstrates that parking charges are being used as a tax rather than a legitimate payment for a service,” she adds. “The new charges should be scrapped.”
Pete Goldin
Comments