Campaigners have welcome an announcement by Cardiff Council to expand their provision of secure bike hangars whilst slashing the price of a permit.
Cardiff Council was charging residents £120 a year for the right to use one of 17 hangars, provided by Hooplr (formerly known as Cyclehoop) whose standard price was £72 a year. The pricing was criticised for making cycling “prohibitively expensive”, and costing more than three times the price of a residential car parking permit.
But now following extended lobbying from local campaigners Cardiff Cycle City, the council has more than halved their annual permit prices to £52 a year. In a press release, the council also announced that 14 additional hangars would be installed shortly, and a further 21 to be installed across the inner-city wards.
Councillor Dan De’Ath, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning and Transport, said, “The first phase of the scheme has been a real success, with strong demand and high occupancy rates. We’re now expanding the scheme while cutting the annual cost of a space to just £1 a week.”
“At a time when affordability matters more than ever, we want to make cycling an option that works for everyone. Secure cycle storage removes a major barrier for many residents, and this price reduction will help more people save money, travel actively and reduce their dependence on the car.”
Cardiff Cycle City hailed the expansion and price cut as a “victory for people power”.
“We applaud Cllr De’ath and the local authority for their willingness to engage with us, review the pricing structure, and make a change that prioritises and enables sustainable transport.
View this post on Instagram
“Furthermore, the announcement of a wider rollout is a testament to the immense, pent-up demand for cycle storage in Cardiff. The initial hangars have been a resounding success, proving that when you give people the infrastructure they need, they will use it. Expanding this network means hundreds more families will have the peace of mind to own and ride bikes without worrying about theft or lugging them up narrow flights of stairs.”
Cardiff Council say the price cut has been achieved through a ‘social value agreement’ which subsidises the hangars as part of a wider project in the city. But despite expansion and price cuts, the cost of a hangar permit remains more expensive than a car equivalent, despite the hangars storing approximately 12 bikes in the same space as a single parked car.
10 thoughts on ““High prices lock out residents who need cheap, sustainable transport the most”: Campaigners welcome slashed cost of safe bike parking permits after criticism of the “most expensive bike hangars in the UK””
Congratulations to the campaign team there in Cardiff. I sometimes think councils are inviting pushback when providing substantial subsidies, setting prices that barely cover the processing fees, especially when they are put into well heeled areas. But £120 per year is insulting, especially when car parking permits are set to be so cheap.
It’s the “fairness” issue isn’t it? “We want to encourage cycling – but it’s not fair to favour cycling *over* other modes! Besides it’s just supply and demand – there is far more demand for car parking spaces…”
Perfectly sensible … except that “encouraging cycling” (or indeed less driving) requires a *positive* choice. Simply being “even handed” doesn’t change things. Not after a century of strongly encouraging motoring, the billions still going into it and the fact that mass motoring actually suppresses other modes.
@chrisonabike Messaging has to focus on choice.
It’s easy to see the additional costs of providing the bike hanger on the council’s accounts, whereas the costs of building, and even maintaining the road and parking spaces which are usually provided for free, or in this case, a modest £35/year, are not.
I don’t think councils would thank you for the extra work, or the costs of providing the analysis, but if you were to do a proper evaluation of how much a section of road costs in any given year, which fairly accounts for the initial construction, rersufacing, pot-holes and paint, people would be surprised. And might realise the savings that come from having fewer and lighter vehicles using it.
But I suspect the people who most need to have that spelled out to them are the ones who would struggle to understand it. And quite a few would pretend they didn’t understand.
52 quid a year sounds reasonable for secure bike parking. It’s effectively subsidising those cycling, but not to the extent that others will feel unjustly discriminated against.
A wider point would be whether there is enough storage facilities across the city for all cyclists – the figures quoted in the article don’t sound very high vs the population of the city, although perhaps many people have enough room inside their residences to store cycles without the need for additional capacity.
What a ludicrous step.
So under the new scheme a parking space which can take 2 of these hangars makes around 18x the revenue of a single parking permit – £640 (=12 x 52) vs £35 for one car.
This change is just window dressing.
“Does the Motor Vehicle Scheme even pay for itself?” would be my next campaigning point, plus a policy to meet equally both demands, plus a policy to install hangars for mobility aids where required.
Indeed – but as @FionaJJ points out “we already *have* the road”.
The difficulty is in working against human nature – here high sensitivity to loss. Plus “customary usage” becomes entitlement or rights. The road is already there, and I’ve used a couple of times without challenge, so it starts to become *my* parking space.
Change is hard anyway but change from a position where for generations we’ve all been told that we *should* drive, and where the “externalities” of that (really: costs) have been funded by the taxpayer?
Even though overall this should be an obvious open goal in so many ways it can falter on the details – as others note budgets may be set up in a way that this appears as an awkward new cost but “road stuff” may not.
Accessibility can be tricky also because we get into “but my (insert mobility vehicle here up to and including the minibus from the Bristol LTN case) won’t fit in a hanger” . Then we have “cars are required by those with disabilities (taxis for those who can’t drive)” and we’re back to the common denominator of motoring. And “sadly after providing for motoring (required) there isn’t the space / money…”
@chrisonabike Assuming the bike hangers are all in areas where there is a parking permit scheme, which suggests parking is tight. But £35 is low, so presumably not that tight.
That is arguably the hardest starting point when introducing bike hangers that replace parking spaces, because people are precious about having enough space to park, but driving is still much more convenient than in the most congested cities with car ownership high enough that it’s seen as normal, meanwhile cycling is a niche thing, and they don’t get how increased cycling benefits those who really do need to drive.
I still think £132/year was too expensive, but if that price made it easier to get it through committee and onto the streets, then so be it. Now they have them, it’s easier for local cycling groups to advocate for more of them and that they are made more affordable.
Next step – put up the price of parking permits, especially for any home with a 2nd car.
The core issue here is actually equality, and equal parking services for all residents.
ALL HAIL COUNCILLOR DE’ATH!
@DJameson De’Ath on Wheels!