Guess the speed.

[Chris B]

Or even this 5 minute video of how Rochester stopped being a city

[JNugent]

Anything which needs to be valued *can* be valued.

The ultimate example would be a human life, which has to be valued in order to arrive at an equitable civil settlement following a fatal accident or other incident (whether on a highway or anywhere else).

It is different. That is correct. That does not extinguish the principles involved.

Untrue.

I do know how they work.

That isn't relevant. Whether the spaces are reserved unto residents 24/7 or for some fraction of that is a matter which is easily calculated and factored into the cost of the provision.

[JNugent]

But garages can still be sold or rented out and they have a value. All land has a value.

You might as well compare housing with pavements (footways), or with parks and gardens.

[#Paul]

Put a toll gate on it, and see how much you can charge. You might have to also do this with the surrounding roads, to avoid avoidance effects, though :-)

#Paul

[Dave Plowman (News]

Only you would move on to 'ultimate' example. As a true Tory who follows his leader by throwing as many red herrings into the pond as possible.

We're talking about a parking bay on a public road.

As with a garage - as you pointed out before - land value depends on what sort of planning permission you could get for development.

[JNugent]

Only so that you cannot wriggle out of accepting that things with no obvious monetary value still sometimes - and even regrettably - have to be valued in monetary terms.

Red herrings? Are you still trying to insist that a parking space on a highway cannot be valued? Or is this just the wriggle I predicted?

*Public*, you say?

So you accept that it is *not* a private road and that by extension, it belongs as much to every other citizen of the UK as it does to you.

That helps and now we're getting somewhere. Thank you.

The value of a stretch of highway would be valued according to different criteria. One way for it to be valued would be by considering how much could be raised by charging for parking on it and extrapolating from that income. You *must* have seen such streets, equipped with parking meters or with a ticket-issuing machine. Even in streets which have residential buildings in them. There are even such streets with double yellow lines all the way along.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Thank gawd you've now got that. Without introducing the value of a human life or other such distractions.

Really? In a quiet residential area with plenty off street parking, the amount you could get by charging for street parking could likely not even cover the admin costs of doing so. Does that mean it has zero value?

Since you need to state this, I take it you live on a different planet somewhere?

[JNugent]

That's interesting. You now accept that there is such a thing as the value of a human life, whereas earlier, you resisted that as a notion.

Rubbish on tall stilts.

If that street has a "resident's parking scheme" that has come about because there is demand for parking there by other people as well as by residents.

Where there is competition for parking, charging for it (whether by meter or ticket-issuing machine) is a well-established route, especially in that there London.

You already know that (see below) but choose to act daft.

It means the opposite.

If it had zero value, you wouldn't complain about other (ie, non-resident) people parking there. After all, you would not be deprived of something with a value, would you?

You can't have that one both ways.

You do come up with some astounding non-sequiturs, don't you?

Do you practice?

[Dave Plowman (News]

Yet another red herring?

You don't like a level playing field, do you?

[Richard]

Only because some irresponsible bastard will park on it.

[JNugent]

Your street, so far, has been described as so in-demand for parking that the local council has found it expedient to initiate a "resident's parking scheme".

What are you talking about?

It has been an accepted factor here that your street has a "resident's parking scheme".

That didn't come about by accident. The council must have had reason (good, bad or indifferent) for it and that would mean that there is not sufficient on-street space for all of the potential demand for parking (including parking by visitors, people not living in the area but working in it, etc).

If your claim now is that your street either:

(a) does not have such a scheme or

(b) has such a scheme but doesn't need it because no-one else would seek to park there anyway...

...it's a bit late to volunteer that important information now, isn't it?

If, on the other hand, you are claiming that because it would not be worthwhile for the council to charge for on-street parking in a "quiet residential area with plenty off street parking" (somewhere else, obviously), please explain the relevance of that to your street, which has been described in rather different terms in respect of the available parking facilities and the implicit potential demand for space by people who don't live there.

There is no "resident's parking scheme" here (despite the fact that there are a number of terraced houses, not all of which have land for parking). But perhaps you are arguing that there *should* be one, in order to create a "level playing field".

If one were implemented (here) it wouldn't affect us. We have sufficient space for several cars in excess of the number we actually have. So do most of the other local residents.

[Dave Plowman (News]

You seem to want to give the value of a bit of land based on any premise you like at the minute. And in another breath accept there are a multitude of factors which determine this.

I'll give you an example. You could buy the bit of land outside your house that is currently road. But have zero rights over it. No possibility of doing anything with it, other than using it as a road, same as anyone else. What market value do you think it would have?

I'm surprised as a good Tory you've missed the main one. Which is to make money from something which was previously 'free'.

You really have no idea about how such things work, do you? Must be living in that tiny village all these years.

Has the penny dropped? A council won't introduce a resident parking scheme where they can't make a profit from it.

[JNugent]

The choice of valuation method is not mine. And not yours. All land has a value, nevertheless. If the street outside your house had absolutely no value (as you keep claiming), it would do you no harm to be banned from parking on it. After all, according to your very ow logic, you would not be deprived of anything with value.

But hey... I expect you'll see that differently.

I wouldn't buy it. Would you?

But if the local authority were proposing to sell it to someone else, my immediate suspicion would be that the proposed buyerhad found a way to use it, do the disadvantage of those who need to use it as a highway (upon which to pass and re-pass). So I might be tempted to bid.

But it won't happen, because your "example" is a bit fanciful, as you are well aware.

The council makes no money from RPSs.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that the scheme should be abolished and the street made available for any citizen to use as the free car-park you say it used to be, I will 100% support you in that aim. You can rely upon it.

I do know how these things work.

[ ... ]

Councils don't make a profit from residents' parking schemes. If they wanted to make money, they'd install parking meters or a ticket machine. That's where the money is: £1.60 an hour or more.

Alternatively, they could sell a resident's parking permit to anyone who asked for it and paid the money. That they don't do either of those things surely must tell even you that making money is not the reason for the scheme.

You are a beneficiary of the scheme, at the expense of those who are banned from using it but still have to pay for the maintenance of the road.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Forgot you were a Tory. Only value things in monetary terms.

[Dave Plowman (News]

You are utterly mad. That must come from living in a village.

[JNugent]

No paved road has ever been provided "free". They have to be constructed and that costs money.

The road wasn't just found there by the Victorian builders.

No, the "utterly mad" (or perhaps "utterly deceitful") tag belongs to those who "think" that the few quid a year for a permit pays for the costs of provision and cleaning, maintenance, etc, of the highway.

It doesn't.

The permit fee is nothing but a contribution to the administrative costs.

[JNugent]

It's already been explained to you - but doesn't seem to have sunk in - that everything has to be given a monetary valuation so that its value in relation to other things and other alternatives may be calculated, for various reasons. This even - as you know - applies to human lives lost via accident or negligence.

But your view seems to be that bereaved families aren't due any compensation because human life cannot be valued. You have rejected the possibility of monetary compensation in several posts, including the very post I am responding to.

But... if you don't accept that the highway outside your house (on which you are allowed to park and everyone else is forbidden to do so) has any value, then you could not possibly complain if the scheme were abolished. After all, if you lose something with no value, you cannot be said to have lost anything. Can you?

[Jock]

That's bullshit. Some will just recover the cost of it and some won't even charge for it, just consider that it is just another service they provide.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Ah - right. So by your logic this wouldn't be done anyway?

Again, the village mentality. Wandsworth council are Tory controlled. Pride themselves on low CC. Parking enforcement is privatized. If resident parking and policing that didn't make an overall profit, it would never have been introduced all those years ago. There never was a problem parking in this street or surrounding ones. Unlike those close to stations, etc.

Wandsworth were clever though. Made up zones which include parts where parking was difficult and those where it wasn't. With the majority in that zone being in favour of it. Not street by street, where the results would have been very different.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Carry on putting words in other's mouths. Just like a good Tory.