Mayor Dorothy Thornhill promises consultation on Cassiobury Park car park charges plan

Watford Observer: Mayor Dorothy Thornhill promises consultation on Cassiobury Park car park plan Mayor Dorothy Thornhill promises consultation on Cassiobury Park car park plan

Watford’s elected mayor Dorothy Thornhill has promised a consultation on plans to start charging for the car park at Cassiobury Park.

Mayor Thornhill said the introduction of paid parking would deter all-day commuters using the nearby Metropolitan tube station from taking up the spaces.

Proposals to introduce fees for the car park off Gade Avenue, are part of the £6.6 million revamp of the park's facilities.

Watford Observer:

Artist sketch of the community centre and new paddling pools.

News the Lottery Heritage Fund was giving £4.5 million towards the scheme this week means financial backing was secure for the programme of improvements.

The upgrade will include a new community centre with a café, exhibition room, , toilets and changing rooms for the paddling pools.

Additionally, the paddling pools are set to be refurbished, a new bandstand built in the park, the  entrances refurbished, and the historic 18th Century Lime Avenue restored.

Mayor Thornhill said: "A massive expansion of the parking area was not acceptable, but we felt that it was important the carpark be used by park users.

"Currently a lot of commuters use it as a free all-day car park when they are using the Met station. We have to resolve that situation with some sort of management of it.

"We have an idea the first hour could be free, but what people cannot do, is stay there all day without making a contribution. But these ideas are yet to be finalised."

Mayor Thornhill said the goal was to keep the car park for park users and having a free first hour would cater for visitors such as dog walkers.

A second consultation is also planned on what kind of events take place at Cassiobury Park.

 

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:58pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

What if a dog walker wanted to walk the dog for longer than one hour? One hour does not seem long for a good walk around the park with a dog.

Why not the first three hours free? Or four, or five? Time to walk the dog and then have a cuppa at the Chachacha in a relaxed manner without the fear of a fine from the LibDem parking police? Shouldn't a park be a place to relax?

I don't know anyone who goes to Cassiobury park for an hour or less. It's not a park you can do justice to in one hour.

Why not just put a time restriction on it, say of 3-5 hours? That would deter commuters and also negate the need to put in pay and display meters. The only reason for pay and display would then be to raise revenue.

So Dorothy, are you trying to deter commuters, make money or both?

Parking at the park should be free. A UKIP Mayor would not even be considering charging for parking at the park.
What if a dog walker wanted to walk the dog for longer than one hour? One hour does not seem long for a good walk around the park with a dog. Why not the first three hours free? Or four, or five? Time to walk the dog and then have a cuppa at the Chachacha in a relaxed manner without the fear of a fine from the LibDem parking police? Shouldn't a park be a place to relax? I don't know anyone who goes to Cassiobury park for an hour or less. It's not a park you can do justice to in one hour. Why not just put a time restriction on it, say of 3-5 hours? That would deter commuters and also negate the need to put in pay and display meters. The only reason for pay and display would then be to raise revenue. So Dorothy, are you trying to deter commuters, make money or both? Parking at the park should be free. A UKIP Mayor would not even be considering charging for parking at the park. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 3

6:05pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Feel Coax says...

Which is why she has said it is going to consultation. Mind you Wat Met will be closing so that does need to be taken into account.
Which is why she has said it is going to consultation. Mind you Wat Met will be closing so that does need to be taken into account. Feel Coax
  • Score: 14

6:28pm Fri 11 Jul 14

The Rover says...

Promising to hold a consultation is one thing, taking any notice of peoples opinions is another. How many times have there been consultations to keep us quiet, then the result of the consultation ignored?
Promising to hold a consultation is one thing, taking any notice of peoples opinions is another. How many times have there been consultations to keep us quiet, then the result of the consultation ignored? The Rover
  • Score: 17

9:47pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Hornets number 12 fan says...

Jesus! she want to hit car drivers time and time again! for Gods sakes leave us alone for once!
Jesus! she want to hit car drivers time and time again! for Gods sakes leave us alone for once! Hornets number 12 fan
  • Score: 8

12:03am Sat 12 Jul 14

Andrew1963 says...

Perhaps we should have a consultation on dog walking in the park. I have been a dog owner, so I know not everyone likes dogs in the parks. If there are going to be playing pitches in the park, could they be identified as areas dogs should not be exercised. If the park really is twice the size of Hyde Park, that leaves plenty of space to let dogs roam.
Perhaps we should have a consultation on dog walking in the park. I have been a dog owner, so I know not everyone likes dogs in the parks. If there are going to be playing pitches in the park, could they be identified as areas dogs should not be exercised. If the park really is twice the size of Hyde Park, that leaves plenty of space to let dogs roam. Andrew1963
  • Score: 8

2:15am Sat 12 Jul 14

Honest Rog says...

Groan.............."
A UKIP mayor would...." Oh perleeze Phil, drop the party politics. The voters of Watford rejected you overwhelmingly in favour of (love 'er or loathe 'er) Dotty.
Andrew raises an interesting point which some people seem scared to air; "not everyone likes dogs in parks". As a cyclist, rambler and occasional sportsman I'm acutely aware that many dog owners don't take their dogs for a walk, rather than to empty them. This, coupled with the fact that most dogs have the potential to inflict serious injury to other animals and humans and it becomes blindingly obvious that tighter control is long overdue.
Anyway, with the coming closure of Watford Met, this (car park charge) becomes a moot point.
If, in the short term, Dotty failed to raise revenue from these lazy people she would, rightly, be criticised. Leave yer cars at home and keep yer dogs under control. Reasonable?
BTW, I'm a responsible dog owner.
Groan.............." A UKIP mayor would...." Oh perleeze Phil, drop the party politics. The voters of Watford rejected you overwhelmingly in favour of (love 'er or loathe 'er) Dotty. Andrew raises an interesting point which some people seem scared to air; "not everyone likes dogs in parks". As a cyclist, rambler and occasional sportsman I'm acutely aware that many dog owners don't take their dogs for a walk, rather than to empty them. This, coupled with the fact that most dogs have the potential to inflict serious injury to other animals and humans and it becomes blindingly obvious that tighter control is long overdue. Anyway, with the coming closure of Watford Met, this (car park charge) becomes a moot point. If, in the short term, Dotty failed to raise revenue from these lazy people she would, rightly, be criticised. Leave yer cars at home and keep yer dogs under control. Reasonable? BTW, I'm a responsible dog owner. Honest Rog
  • Score: 1

8:02am Sat 12 Jul 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Rog, you are correct, in fact Labour, UKIP and the Tories were all overwhelmingly rejected in the Mayoral elections just gone.

I see no harm in pointing out to voters what the differences are between what now happens under a LibDem Mayor and what would have been the case under UKIP.

As I recall I can't remember Labour being against new parking charges. On charging motorists, I couldn't see any differences between the two parties.

At least people know what to expect in this area if they vote Labour or LibDem. More parking charges.
Rog, you are correct, in fact Labour, UKIP and the Tories were all overwhelmingly rejected in the Mayoral elections just gone. I see no harm in pointing out to voters what the differences are between what now happens under a LibDem Mayor and what would have been the case under UKIP. As I recall I can't remember Labour being against new parking charges. On charging motorists, I couldn't see any differences between the two parties. At least people know what to expect in this area if they vote Labour or LibDem. More parking charges. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

8:34am Sat 12 Jul 14

crazyfrog says...

Consultation ah the good old consultation stage don't you just love it! It would be interesting to see how many times a consultation has actually reflected the majorities views, So Dorothy is concerned all of a sudden about people using the car park then going to watford met what's the matter is the cassiobury cps not generating enough money? By the time that cassiobury is revamped watford met would be shut or close to for commuters anyway with the croxley link going in, so I think she needs a bigger argument, why should the public pay to park there cars at the car park ? If fresh air was chargeable we would all be in debt within weeks under this mayor!
Consultation ah the good old consultation stage don't you just love it! It would be interesting to see how many times a consultation has actually reflected the majorities views, So Dorothy is concerned all of a sudden about people using the car park then going to watford met what's the matter is the cassiobury cps not generating enough money? By the time that cassiobury is revamped watford met would be shut or close to for commuters anyway with the croxley link going in, so I think she needs a bigger argument, why should the public pay to park there cars at the car park ? If fresh air was chargeable we would all be in debt within weeks under this mayor! crazyfrog
  • Score: 4

9:07am Sat 12 Jul 14

Cuetip says...

Pickpockets will always look for easy pickings to fund their schemes as it's always about their obsession with money and the real truth comes second.
Pickpockets will always look for easy pickings to fund their schemes as it's always about their obsession with money and the real truth comes second. Cuetip
  • Score: 0

9:35am Sat 12 Jul 14

ChunkeyMonkey says...

Will charging for parking mean there is more money in the pot for Veolia to cut the grass at the Rickmansworth Road end of the park?
Will charging for parking mean there is more money in the pot for Veolia to cut the grass at the Rickmansworth Road end of the park? ChunkeyMonkey
  • Score: -2

6:42pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Wacko Jacko says...

Consultation can only reflect the majority view if the majority get off their backsides and take part. I love the usual moaners on these pages who pre-judge everything before it happens, and criticise decisions even before eny decision is made. As I've said before if you don't take part you have no right to complain if decisions go against you.
Consultation can only reflect the majority view if the majority get off their backsides and take part. I love the usual moaners on these pages who pre-judge everything before it happens, and criticise decisions even before eny decision is made. As I've said before if you don't take part you have no right to complain if decisions go against you. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 3

7:11pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Nascot says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
What if a dog walker wanted to walk the dog for longer than one hour? One hour does not seem long for a good walk around the park with a dog.

Why not the first three hours free? Or four, or five? Time to walk the dog and then have a cuppa at the Chachacha in a relaxed manner without the fear of a fine from the LibDem parking police? Shouldn't a park be a place to relax?

I don't know anyone who goes to Cassiobury park for an hour or less. It's not a park you can do justice to in one hour.

Why not just put a time restriction on it, say of 3-5 hours? That would deter commuters and also negate the need to put in pay and display meters. The only reason for pay and display would then be to raise revenue.

So Dorothy, are you trying to deter commuters, make money or both?

Parking at the park should be free. A UKIP Mayor would not even be considering charging for parking at the park.
Why not just put a time restriction on it, say of 3-5 hours?
And how is that enforced and who pays the salaries of the people who do? The tooth fairy?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: What if a dog walker wanted to walk the dog for longer than one hour? One hour does not seem long for a good walk around the park with a dog. Why not the first three hours free? Or four, or five? Time to walk the dog and then have a cuppa at the Chachacha in a relaxed manner without the fear of a fine from the LibDem parking police? Shouldn't a park be a place to relax? I don't know anyone who goes to Cassiobury park for an hour or less. It's not a park you can do justice to in one hour. Why not just put a time restriction on it, say of 3-5 hours? That would deter commuters and also negate the need to put in pay and display meters. The only reason for pay and display would then be to raise revenue. So Dorothy, are you trying to deter commuters, make money or both? Parking at the park should be free. A UKIP Mayor would not even be considering charging for parking at the park.[/p][/quote]Why not just put a time restriction on it, say of 3-5 hours? And how is that enforced and who pays the salaries of the people who do? The tooth fairy? Nascot
  • Score: 3

11:09pm Sat 12 Jul 14

D_Penn says...

As usual no real thought is put into this.

Years ago, governments wanted to get commuters out of their cars and onto trains so they made motoring more expensive to make public transport more competitive. Given the infrequent and slow buses with high costs and inconvenient routes, commuters still used their cars to get to a station and then onto the train. Then residents started to complain about commuter parking around stations, so, instead of providing cheap parking, residents parking schemes got introduced to stop commuters parking during the day (despite the fact that most residents were at work anyway).

So now we get the farce of swathes of empty streets during the day and car parks, such as Cassiobury, full to bursting as commuters are constantly pushed around whilst being fleeced for the crime of trying to earn a living without giveng huge chunks of their taxed salary away just to get to and from work.

The Mayor's solution of wanting to charge for Cassiobury parking is a clear example of a firefighting solution to a self-inflicted problem. why did she and her cronies not have the wit to see this outcome as an inevitable consequence of cramming more and more flats into Watford and putting in place ever increasing parking restrictions and schemes. She should have been creating more parking facilities long before this became a problem. Instead of spending 4.3 million on a bridge and pond in The Parade, maybe a bit of thought towards providing a properly managed parking solution for Cassiobury Park would have been a better use of some of the money.

So to a couple of questions.

1. Where are commuters supposed to go now once they've been moved on? (I'll bet the Lib Dem view is everyone can can cycle or get a bus - but you won't find them doing that in the teeth of a British winter.)

2. When Watford Met is closed, will the new car park charges go? (Yes, of course they won't - despite this been cited as Thornhill's reason for bringing in charges).

Once charging is brought in people living near the park will have no problem, but those further afield on a limited family budget will find the park denied to them unless they go for less than an hour. How generous of Thornhill to let the hoi-polloi from North and West Watford have 60 minutes access time.
As usual no real thought is put into this. Years ago, governments wanted to get commuters out of their cars and onto trains so they made motoring more expensive to make public transport more competitive. Given the infrequent and slow buses with high costs and inconvenient routes, commuters still used their cars to get to a station and then onto the train. Then residents started to complain about commuter parking around stations, so, instead of providing cheap parking, residents parking schemes got introduced to stop commuters parking during the day (despite the fact that most residents were at work anyway). So now we get the farce of swathes of empty streets during the day and car parks, such as Cassiobury, full to bursting as commuters are constantly pushed around whilst being fleeced for the crime of trying to earn a living without giveng huge chunks of their taxed salary away just to get to and from work. The Mayor's solution of wanting to charge for Cassiobury parking is a clear example of a firefighting solution to a self-inflicted problem. why did she and her cronies not have the wit to see this outcome as an inevitable consequence of cramming more and more flats into Watford and putting in place ever increasing parking restrictions and schemes. She should have been creating more parking facilities long before this became a problem. Instead of spending 4.3 million on a bridge and pond in The Parade, maybe a bit of thought towards providing a properly managed parking solution for Cassiobury Park would have been a better use of some of the money. So to a couple of questions. 1. Where are commuters supposed to go now once they've been moved on? (I'll bet the Lib Dem view is everyone can can cycle or get a bus - but you won't find them doing that in the teeth of a British winter.) 2. When Watford Met is closed, will the new car park charges go? (Yes, of course they won't - despite this been cited as Thornhill's reason for bringing in charges). Once charging is brought in people living near the park will have no problem, but those further afield on a limited family budget will find the park denied to them unless they go for less than an hour. How generous of Thornhill to let the hoi-polloi from North and West Watford have 60 minutes access time. D_Penn
  • Score: 2

8:28am Sun 13 Jul 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Nascot wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: What if a dog walker wanted to walk the dog for longer than one hour? One hour does not seem long for a good walk around the park with a dog. Why not the first three hours free? Or four, or five? Time to walk the dog and then have a cuppa at the Chachacha in a relaxed manner without the fear of a fine from the LibDem parking police? Shouldn't a park be a place to relax? I don't know anyone who goes to Cassiobury park for an hour or less. It's not a park you can do justice to in one hour. Why not just put a time restriction on it, say of 3-5 hours? That would deter commuters and also negate the need to put in pay and display meters. The only reason for pay and display would then be to raise revenue. So Dorothy, are you trying to deter commuters, make money or both? Parking at the park should be free. A UKIP Mayor would not even be considering charging for parking at the park.
Why not just put a time restriction on it, say of 3-5 hours? And how is that enforced and who pays the salaries of the people who do? The tooth fairy?
Had I forgotten to mention the council made close to £1,000,000 profit on parking in one year, last time I looked? One might hope that would be enough to cover this tiny cost.

There are also taxes that all residents pay.

Why this obsession with charging for everything Nascot?
[quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: What if a dog walker wanted to walk the dog for longer than one hour? One hour does not seem long for a good walk around the park with a dog. Why not the first three hours free? Or four, or five? Time to walk the dog and then have a cuppa at the Chachacha in a relaxed manner without the fear of a fine from the LibDem parking police? Shouldn't a park be a place to relax? I don't know anyone who goes to Cassiobury park for an hour or less. It's not a park you can do justice to in one hour. Why not just put a time restriction on it, say of 3-5 hours? That would deter commuters and also negate the need to put in pay and display meters. The only reason for pay and display would then be to raise revenue. So Dorothy, are you trying to deter commuters, make money or both? Parking at the park should be free. A UKIP Mayor would not even be considering charging for parking at the park.[/p][/quote]Why not just put a time restriction on it, say of 3-5 hours? And how is that enforced and who pays the salaries of the people who do? The tooth fairy?[/p][/quote]Had I forgotten to mention the council made close to £1,000,000 profit on parking in one year, last time I looked? One might hope that would be enough to cover this tiny cost. There are also taxes that all residents pay. Why this obsession with charging for everything Nascot? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -3

8:40am Sun 13 Jul 14

John castle says...

Look it's obvious the car park is too small in the light of the fact the council is doing it's best to get more people to use the proposed extra facilities planned for the park. Logic dictates 'we need a bigger car park' but it is a park?In hindsight when the new estate was built adjacent to the station commuter parking should have been provided then. When the Croxley link is completed and parking provided there the old car park could have become extra optional parking for Cassiobury users?(right in line for the Cha Char Char.) As for charging for parking and time limits, I'm sorry I can't agree a lot of activities are all day affairs such as rambling,taking in all the attractions an angling.The Heritage Lottery Fund comes from in the main the tax payer directly or indirectly parking has always been free why should the tax payer fork out again?Consultation?W
hy not?


hindsight when the new estate was built near the station, commuter parking should have been provided then. When the Croxley link goes in and extra parking provided there, that older car park could then be adopted as an overflow car park for the park.
Look it's obvious the car park is too small in the light of the fact the council is doing it's best to get more people to use the proposed extra facilities planned for the park. Logic dictates 'we need a bigger car park' but it is a park?In hindsight when the new estate was built adjacent to the station commuter parking should have been provided then. When the Croxley link is completed and parking provided there the old car park could have become extra optional parking for Cassiobury users?(right in line for the Cha Char Char.) As for charging for parking and time limits, I'm sorry I can't agree a lot of activities are all day affairs such as rambling,taking in all the attractions an angling.The Heritage Lottery Fund comes from in the main the tax payer directly or indirectly parking has always been free why should the tax payer fork out again?Consultation?W hy not? hindsight when the new estate was built near the station, commuter parking should have been provided then. When the Croxley link goes in and extra parking provided there, that older car park could then be adopted as an overflow car park for the park. John castle
  • Score: 1

9:42am Sun 13 Jul 14

Cuetip says...

Dear John Castle

It seems from what you are saying that so much of so called ‘planning’ seems to be on the hoof with little long term vision ie always trying to play catch up by responding to ill thought out dollops of ‘taxpayers money’ which create unintended scenarios which ‘surprisingly ‘unfolds as taxpayers are then ‘consulted’ on whether they want to be taxed again.
Dear John Castle It seems from what you are saying that so much of so called ‘planning’ seems to be on the hoof with little long term vision ie always trying to play catch up by responding to ill thought out dollops of ‘taxpayers money’ which create unintended scenarios which ‘surprisingly ‘unfolds as taxpayers are then ‘consulted’ on whether they want to be taxed again. Cuetip
  • Score: -1

12:26pm Sun 13 Jul 14

LocalBoy1 says...

"Artist sketch of the community centre and new paddling pools". I seem to remember an artists sketch of the new pond in the Parade. Did the final build look like the artists sketch?
"Artist sketch of the community centre and new paddling pools". I seem to remember an artists sketch of the new pond in the Parade. Did the final build look like the artists sketch? LocalBoy1
  • Score: 1

10:08am Mon 14 Jul 14

TRT says...

ChunkeyMonkey wrote:
Will charging for parking mean there is more money in the pot for Veolia to cut the grass at the Rickmansworth Road end of the park?
It's left long deliberately to encourage wildlife.
[quote][p][bold]ChunkeyMonkey[/bold] wrote: Will charging for parking mean there is more money in the pot for Veolia to cut the grass at the Rickmansworth Road end of the park?[/p][/quote]It's left long deliberately to encourage wildlife. TRT
  • Score: 3

4:12pm Mon 14 Jul 14

cgpc Rob says...

Commuter parking problem, half hour no parking, say 1-1.30pm.

Did that in Croxley Green in Winton Crescent, problem went away.
Commuter parking problem, half hour no parking, say 1-1.30pm. Did that in Croxley Green in Winton Crescent, problem went away. cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

5:09pm Mon 14 Jul 14

D_Penn says...

cgpc Rob wrote:
Commuter parking problem, half hour no parking, say 1-1.30pm. Did that in Croxley Green in Winton Crescent, problem went away.
Yes, but where did the problem go? Commuters still need to get to work.

People in charge should never just solve a problem by shunting it somewhere else. Commuting is a fact of life of the modern world that keeps people in jobs and drives much of our economy. Politicans at all levels should long ago have addressed and solved the issues of transport and parking.

To keep journey times and costs even moderately reasonable, commuters need to be able to park cheaply near a station, but can anyone point to anywhere such a purpose built, low cost facility is provided? Exactly.

Treating hard working commuters as pariahs just because they drive is mean spirited and it's time that transport policies gave them all a break.

(...and, no, I'm not a commuter, so this is not a self-interested post)
[quote][p][bold]cgpc Rob[/bold] wrote: Commuter parking problem, half hour no parking, say 1-1.30pm. Did that in Croxley Green in Winton Crescent, problem went away.[/p][/quote]Yes, but where did the problem go? Commuters still need to get to work. People in charge should never just solve a problem by shunting it somewhere else. Commuting is a fact of life of the modern world that keeps people in jobs and drives much of our economy. Politicans at all levels should long ago have addressed and solved the issues of transport and parking. To keep journey times and costs even moderately reasonable, commuters need to be able to park cheaply near a station, but can anyone point to anywhere such a purpose built, low cost facility is provided? Exactly. Treating hard working commuters as pariahs just because they drive is mean spirited and it's time that transport policies gave them all a break. (...and, no, I'm not a commuter, so this is not a self-interested post) D_Penn
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Mon 14 Jul 14

cgpc Rob says...

D_Penn wrote:
cgpc Rob wrote:
Commuter parking problem, half hour no parking, say 1-1.30pm. Did that in Croxley Green in Winton Crescent, problem went away.
Yes, but where did the problem go? Commuters still need to get to work.

People in charge should never just solve a problem by shunting it somewhere else. Commuting is a fact of life of the modern world that keeps people in jobs and drives much of our economy. Politicans at all levels should long ago have addressed and solved the issues of transport and parking.

To keep journey times and costs even moderately reasonable, commuters need to be able to park cheaply near a station, but can anyone point to anywhere such a purpose built, low cost facility is provided? Exactly.

Treating hard working commuters as pariahs just because they drive is mean spirited and it's time that transport policies gave them all a break.

(...and, no, I'm not a commuter, so this is not a self-interested post)
Problem in CG, was that emergency vehicles couldn't get into the road, as commuters parked irresponsibly.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cgpc Rob[/bold] wrote: Commuter parking problem, half hour no parking, say 1-1.30pm. Did that in Croxley Green in Winton Crescent, problem went away.[/p][/quote]Yes, but where did the problem go? Commuters still need to get to work. People in charge should never just solve a problem by shunting it somewhere else. Commuting is a fact of life of the modern world that keeps people in jobs and drives much of our economy. Politicans at all levels should long ago have addressed and solved the issues of transport and parking. To keep journey times and costs even moderately reasonable, commuters need to be able to park cheaply near a station, but can anyone point to anywhere such a purpose built, low cost facility is provided? Exactly. Treating hard working commuters as pariahs just because they drive is mean spirited and it's time that transport policies gave them all a break. (...and, no, I'm not a commuter, so this is not a self-interested post)[/p][/quote]Problem in CG, was that emergency vehicles couldn't get into the road, as commuters parked irresponsibly. cgpc Rob
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Mon 14 Jul 14

D_Penn says...

cgpc Rob wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
cgpc Rob wrote:
Commuter parking problem, half hour no parking, say 1-1.30pm. Did that in Croxley Green in Winton Crescent, problem went away.
Yes, but where did the problem go? Commuters still need to get to work.

People in charge should never just solve a problem by shunting it somewhere else. Commuting is a fact of life of the modern world that keeps people in jobs and drives much of our economy. Politicans at all levels should long ago have addressed and solved the issues of transport and parking.

To keep journey times and costs even moderately reasonable, commuters need to be able to park cheaply near a station, but can anyone point to anywhere such a purpose built, low cost facility is provided? Exactly.

Treating hard working commuters as pariahs just because they drive is mean spirited and it's time that transport policies gave them all a break.

(...and, no, I'm not a commuter, so this is not a self-interested post)
Problem in CG, was that emergency vehicles couldn't get into the road, as commuters parked irresponsibly.
It doesn't excuse parking idiocy, but where have those commuters gone to? They must still be parking idiotically somewhere else which is already packed out. As I said, shunting the problem somewhere else is not a solution.
[quote][p][bold]cgpc Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cgpc Rob[/bold] wrote: Commuter parking problem, half hour no parking, say 1-1.30pm. Did that in Croxley Green in Winton Crescent, problem went away.[/p][/quote]Yes, but where did the problem go? Commuters still need to get to work. People in charge should never just solve a problem by shunting it somewhere else. Commuting is a fact of life of the modern world that keeps people in jobs and drives much of our economy. Politicans at all levels should long ago have addressed and solved the issues of transport and parking. To keep journey times and costs even moderately reasonable, commuters need to be able to park cheaply near a station, but can anyone point to anywhere such a purpose built, low cost facility is provided? Exactly. Treating hard working commuters as pariahs just because they drive is mean spirited and it's time that transport policies gave them all a break. (...and, no, I'm not a commuter, so this is not a self-interested post)[/p][/quote]Problem in CG, was that emergency vehicles couldn't get into the road, as commuters parked irresponsibly.[/p][/quote]It doesn't excuse parking idiocy, but where have those commuters gone to? They must still be parking idiotically somewhere else which is already packed out. As I said, shunting the problem somewhere else is not a solution. D_Penn
  • Score: -2

8:20am Tue 15 Jul 14

cgpc Rob says...

Problem is when train stations were built in residential areas, cars weren't the perceived problem, any commuter living within a mile could walk, exercise benefits, for those who are further afield, some sympathy.

I can use either CG or Ricky station, walk.
Problem is when train stations were built in residential areas, cars weren't the perceived problem, any commuter living within a mile could walk, exercise benefits, for those who are further afield, some sympathy. I can use either CG or Ricky station, walk. cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

10:48am Tue 15 Jul 14

D_Penn says...

I agree. Much of the problem is historical as mass car ownership was never a consideration when the train system was developed.

The problem has been getting worse since the 60's. Unfortunately, policies in that intervening period that should have addressed the increasing need to park cars both close to residences and stations have been woefully inadequate.

South East Britain is now one of the most densely packed regions in Europe and we have virtually run out of resource for managing cars. Mass house and flat building in and around Watford in particular has taken zero account of dwindling parking and road space. It seems the political stance is to stand back, increase or add charges and then let it sort itself out, or, in other words, when car transport becomes to costly and horrible to contemplate, people will be forced to use public transport whether they have the time or money to use it or not.

I guess it's that attitude that really annoys me. People who chose to live in Watford did so because it offered a nice balance between housing costs and employment prospects compared to living in the overcrowded and stifling inner-London boroughs. In the last ten years we have seen that all changing as so much new building has been crammed in that everywhere parking and motoring has come to resemble living and driving in London.

Nobody voted for that change, it has just been foisted upon us all. Such narrow minded ignorance of the need for sufficient infrastructure to make life pleasant is now reflected in the problems we face every time we fight our way through Watford traffic or try to find a parking space that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

We deserve better local leaders who actually think about the welfare of people already living here rather than squeezing us all into less and less road space by building ever more houses and flats. Madness.
I agree. Much of the problem is historical as mass car ownership was never a consideration when the train system was developed. The problem has been getting worse since the 60's. Unfortunately, policies in that intervening period that should have addressed the increasing need to park cars both close to residences and stations have been woefully inadequate. South East Britain is now one of the most densely packed regions in Europe and we have virtually run out of resource for managing cars. Mass house and flat building in and around Watford in particular has taken zero account of dwindling parking and road space. It seems the political stance is to stand back, increase or add charges and then let it sort itself out, or, in other words, when car transport becomes to costly and horrible to contemplate, people will be forced to use public transport whether they have the time or money to use it or not. I guess it's that attitude that really annoys me. People who chose to live in Watford did so because it offered a nice balance between housing costs and employment prospects compared to living in the overcrowded and stifling inner-London boroughs. In the last ten years we have seen that all changing as so much new building has been crammed in that everywhere parking and motoring has come to resemble living and driving in London. Nobody voted for that change, it has just been foisted upon us all. Such narrow minded ignorance of the need for sufficient infrastructure to make life pleasant is now reflected in the problems we face every time we fight our way through Watford traffic or try to find a parking space that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. We deserve better local leaders who actually think about the welfare of people already living here rather than squeezing us all into less and less road space by building ever more houses and flats. Madness. D_Penn
  • Score: 3

3:18pm Tue 15 Jul 14

cgpc Rob says...

I've always believed in density levels, once a certain amount of houses/residencies have been built in a certain area or residents.

I.e, Croxley Green, 5600 residencies of mixed types or 12000 residents.
I've always believed in density levels, once a certain amount of houses/residencies have been built in a certain area or residents. I.e, Croxley Green, 5600 residencies of mixed types or 12000 residents. cgpc Rob
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Tue 15 Jul 14

TRT says...

I've been banging on in this comment forum about the Health Campus being in the wrong location - it should logically be a new development in the M1/M25 junction area - for the A41, Abbey Line, WCML etc. It's been put to me that doing so would still leave the former hospital site open for residential development with the ensuing traffic problems, but my answer to that has been to use the BRE and other nearby experts, such as those at Hatfield and the Bartlett, to devise a sustainable living estate on the site. Green roofing, cycle and pedestrian friendly routes, shared community gardens, safe streets for play, and a permanent car club with effectively a ban on car ownership for residents of the estate.

Already the streets of the Cassiobury are overflowing with parked cars, and that's just from the residents. Free parking at the park is one of the few nice things left about Watford - I've sometimes used it whilst picking up children & their groups of friends from picnics there.
I've been banging on in this comment forum about the Health Campus being in the wrong location - it should logically be a new development in the M1/M25 junction area - for the A41, Abbey Line, WCML etc. It's been put to me that doing so would still leave the former hospital site open for residential development with the ensuing traffic problems, but my answer to that has been to use the BRE and other nearby experts, such as those at Hatfield and the Bartlett, to devise a sustainable living estate on the site. Green roofing, cycle and pedestrian friendly routes, shared community gardens, safe streets for play, and a permanent car club with effectively a ban on car ownership for residents of the estate. Already the streets of the Cassiobury are overflowing with parked cars, and that's just from the residents. Free parking at the park is one of the few nice things left about Watford - I've sometimes used it whilst picking up children & their groups of friends from picnics there. TRT
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Watfordengineer says...

Broadly speaking I support a lot of what the mayor does. but NO! this is utterly wrong and shouldn't be considered. the met station will shut in 2 years. until then put up a maximum 7 hour stay sign and leave it at that. Cheap as chips and does the job. the park should be free for all, including reasonable parking provision.
Broadly speaking I support a lot of what the mayor does. but NO! this is utterly wrong and shouldn't be considered. the met station will shut in 2 years. until then put up a maximum 7 hour stay sign and leave it at that. Cheap as chips and does the job. the park should be free for all, including reasonable parking provision. Watfordengineer
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree