Do pedestrians and cyclists subsidise motorists' shopping

ash wrote:
On 9 Apr, 03:11, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
Jon considered Thu, 8 Apr 2010
06:13:48 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:





On 7 Apr, 19:00, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
The cost to a supermarket for providing and maintaining a large car
park must be huge. Yet motorists contribute nothing directly for this
usually free provision.
The cost is hidden in the price of products
sold in the supermarket, and it therefore paid for by those who walk
and cycle to the supermarket.
How long did it take you to think up this load of bollox?
The statement is in itself perfectly logical. The contribution to the
cost of the car park from non-driving customers is probably negligably
small in most cases, but negligable is not non-existent. It would be
interesting to see some figures on the costs and usage of such car
parks.
I'm not so sure it's negligible - what would that land fetch at
development prices (it's now officially brownfield, after all).
Then think what the monthly cost of a mortgage would be to buy it,
plus the cost of maintaining it.
Then there's the s106 payments that you will need to make when yo
build it, to offset the cost of providing roads for the traffic you
are bringing to the area, and of course what does having that much
attached land do to the rateable value for your business rates?



How much shopping can a pedestrian or push bike rider carry home?
I carry home just as much shopping in the trailer & barbag as I used
to carry by car - a week's shopping. Naturally the trailer & bag are
usually nearly full while the car had a lot of unused space left
available - but it was unused.
You probably carry more.
You'll be needing to replace the calories used in transporting it,
after all - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is the thing I noticed when I was cycle commuting.a couple of
years ago (about 70-80 miles per week). My calorific intake went up
substantially. I would be interested to see how a comparison of fuel
burnt in a frugal car carrying to capacity compares with the increased
food consumption and associated transport costs of a cyclist doing
similar mileage ?

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/bike_co2.htm

On 11 Apr, 00:02, Adam Lea wrote:
ash wrote:
On 9 Apr, 03:11, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
Jon considered Thu, 8 Apr 2010
06:13:48 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On 7 Apr, 19:00, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
The cost to a supermarket for providing and maintaining a large car
park must be huge. Yet motorists contribute nothing directly for this
usually free provision.
The cost is hidden in the price of products
sold in the supermarket, and it therefore paid for by those who walk
and cycle to the supermarket.
How long did it take you to think up this load of bollox?
The statement is in itself perfectly logical. The contribution to the
cost of the car park from non-driving customers is probably negligably
small in most cases, but negligable is not non-existent. It would be
interesting to see some figures on the costs and usage of such car
parks.
I'm not so sure it's negligible - what would that land fetch at
development prices (it's now officially brownfield, after all).
Then think what the monthly cost of a mortgage would be to buy it,
plus the cost of maintaining it.
Then there's the s106 payments that you will need to make when yo
build it, to offset the cost of providing roads for the traffic you
are bringing to the area, and of course what does having that much
attached land do to the rateable value for your business rates?

How much shopping can a pedestrian or push bike rider carry home?
I carry home just as much shopping in the trailer & barbag *as I used
to carry by car - a week's shopping. Naturally the trailer & bag are
usually nearly full while the car had a lot of unused space left
available - but it was unused.
You probably carry more.
You'll be needing to replace the calories used in transporting it,
after all - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is the thing I noticed when I was cycle commuting.a couple of
years ago (about 70-80 miles per week). My calorific intake went up
substantially. I would be interested to see how a comparison of fuel
burnt in a frugal car carrying to capacity compares with the increased
food consumption and associated transport costs of a cyclist doing
similar mileage ?

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/bike_co2.htm

This is all very well, but cycling is not going to save the world.
Holding them up as the answer to the growing problems of human
population growth and subsequent consumption makes for a specious
argument!

ash wrote:

This is all very well, but cycling is not going to save the world.
Holding them up as the answer to the growing problems of human
population growth and subsequent consumption makes for a specious
argument!

Has anyone said otherwise?

Tom Crispin wrote:

The cost to a supermarket for providing and maintaining a large car
park must be huge. Yet motorists contribute nothing directly for this
usually free provision. The cost is hidden in the price of products
sold in the supermarket, and it therefore paid for by those who walk
and cycle to the supermarket.

who are a tiny % I would guess most drive followed by bus maybe taxi.

Should there be legislation that requires all supermarkets, with a
floor area over a certain amount, to charge able-bodied motorists who
choose to drive the do their shopping?

why? the supermarket has paid for the land and has chosen to use it as a
car park,

in the same way they have added some bike parking, which to be honest at
least around here is never full.

Would such a charge encourage more people to walk or drive to the
supermarket?

Would such a charge increase the health of the nation?

Would such a charge reduce the costs to the NHS of treating people
with heart conditions?

It seems to me like a win-win-win situation.

looks like trolling or at best a very central london view point.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On 11 Apr, 17:35, Adam Lea wrote:
ash wrote:

This is all very well, but cycling is not going to save the world.
Holding them up as the answer to the growing problems of human
population growth and subsequent consumption makes for a specious
argument!

Has anyone said otherwise?

You stand them up, I'll knock them down. Cycle for fun, cycle to save
money, cycle to keep fit, but don't cycle to reduce your carbon
footprint, it is a futile gesture in the face of a hopeless situation.
Only the irrational thinkers buy into this green bull****

Ian Smith wrote:

ash wrote:

Most sane people would not consider pushing a child along a busy
road in a buggy

What do you think sane people would do instead? Teleport?

The word "sane" might not have been the best for the PP to have used.

But there can be little doubt that most parents (of any given level of
sanity) would view that transport mode (pulling a child along a road in a
very light trailer behind a push-bike) as unacceptably dangerous* for their
children.

[*Substitute some other word to the same effect if you prefer.]

Phil W Lee wrote:
ash considered Fri, 9 Apr 2010 01:10:32
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On 9 Apr, 03:11, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
Jon considered Thu, 8 Apr 2010
06:13:48 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:





On 7 Apr, 19:00, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
The cost to a supermarket for providing and maintaining a large car
park must be huge. Yet motorists contribute nothing directly for this
usually free provision.
The cost is hidden in the price of products
sold in the supermarket, and it therefore paid for by those who walk
and cycle to the supermarket.
How long did it take you to think up this load of bollox?
The statement is in itself perfectly logical. The contribution to the
cost of the car park from non-driving customers is probably negligably
small in most cases, but negligable is not non-existent. It would be
interesting to see some figures on the costs and usage of such car
parks.
I'm not so sure it's negligible - what would that land fetch at
development prices (it's now officially brownfield, after all).
Then think what the monthly cost of a mortgage would be to buy it,
plus the cost of maintaining it.
Then there's the s106 payments that you will need to make when yo
build it, to offset the cost of providing roads for the traffic you
are bringing to the area, and of course what does having that much
attached land do to the rateable value for your business rates?



How much shopping can a pedestrian or push bike rider carry home?
I carry home just as much shopping in the trailer & barbag as I used
to carry by car - a week's shopping. Naturally the trailer & bag are
usually nearly full while the car had a lot of unused space left
available - but it was unused.
You probably carry more.
You'll be needing to replace the calories used in transporting it,
after all - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
This is the thing I noticed when I was cycle commuting.a couple of
years ago (about 70-80 miles per week). My calorific intake went up
substantially. I would be interested to see how a comparison of fuel
burnt in a frugal car carrying to capacity compares with the increased
food consumption and associated transport costs of a cyclist doing
similar mileage ?

Even if the car was as efficient as a bicycle (and it's not going to
be anywhere near), there's still the extra work of carting a tonne of
metal and plastic around.

In what sense are you using the word "efficient"?

Phil W Lee wrote:

Jon :
"The Medway Handyman" wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

The cost to a supermarket for providing and maintaining a large car
park must be huge. Yet motorists contribute nothing directly for this
usually free provision.
The cost is hidden in the price of products
sold in the supermarket, and it therefore paid for by those who walk
and cycle to the supermarket.

How long did it take you to think up this load of bollox?

The statement is in itself perfectly logical...

....if one starts from his illogical position and premise.

The contribution to the
cost of the car park from non-driving customers is probably negligably
small in most cases, but negligable is not non-existent. It would be
interesting to see some figures on the costs and usage of such car
parks.

I'm not so sure it's negligible - what would that land fetch at
development prices (it's now officially brownfield, after all).
Then think what the monthly cost of a mortgage would be to buy it,
plus the cost of maintaining it.
Then there's the s106 payments that you will need to make when yo
build it, to offset the cost of providing roads for the traffic you
are bringing to the area, and of course what does having that much
attached land do to the rateable value for your business rates?
How much shopping can a pedestrian or push bike rider carry home?

Well, full marks for knowing that there is such a thing as a 106 "agreement"
(even if they would never actually be *agreed* to by a planning applicant if
not imposed by the planning authority and are therefore euphemistically named).

I will assume that you know how the system works and what its purpose is.

Now... a couple of questions...

A. What *is* the purpose of a Section 106 "agreement" within the planning
procedure for a supermarket?

B. Do you think that an application for planning consent for a large
supermarket (or for any retail development of a size which must attract its
clientele from a wide area) would be granted without significant parking
provision being provided at both the outline and detailed stages of the
application?

C. Can you think of a large successful and viable retail EOT/OOT unit which
doesn't have parking facilities? If you can't (or if you can cite only an
isolated and atypical example in special circumstances), why would you think
that might be?

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:54:29 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

It seems to me like a win-win-win situation.

looks like trolling or at best a very central london view point.

I did have my local corner shop in mind - a giant Sainsburys in
Lewisham. I expect well over 50% of customers walk.

Tom Crispin wrote:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:54:29 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

It seems to me like a win-win-win situation.

looks like trolling or at best a very central london view point.

I did have my local corner shop in mind - a giant Sainsburys in
Lewisham. I expect well over 50% of customers walk.

they have a lot of stores, in a lot of areas, I expect that is the
exeption, than the rule.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com