Seems to me like the wrong approach. I’d reward living nearby, rather than punish it. E.g. pay a small fee for those that do not want a parking space. Now it is unfair limitation of the freedoms of those people, in comparison to those living 4km away and above.
I can’t say I’m a huge fan. The article already mentions the problem: “ketenverplaatsingen.” It’s not because you live less than 3 km from your job, that the next destination you want to go to after work is less than 3 km away. You might want to pick your kid up from the daycare (which might be far away with how insane the lack of space is), visit family right after work, or even just go to a supermarket. And I know they get a few exceptions, but two exceptions per month isn’t a lot, two per week sounds more reasonable.
We can’t ignore that UZ Gent is ideally located for access to the motorway. Cycling into the city and then taking your car out of the city again around 5 pm can easily take half an hour or more. So by banning people who live in the city near UZ Gent from putting their car at their job, they’re forcing these people to do an extra half hour trip if they want to visit something outside the city after work, despite the fact that these people often specifically chose a house that’s close to their job because they care about minimising commute times (and paid a significant extra price for a house in that area!).
They make it sound like something very eco-friendly, but if you think about it, it’s the ultimate carbrained move. You live nearby so you can cycle to work? Okay, now you *have to* cycle to work almost every day, even when it’s freezing, even when it’s raining, even when you wanted to drive onto the motorway to do something else right after 5 pm. Oh, you’re moving to a large villa in the middle of nowhere with horrible accessibility by any mode of transport except personal cars? That’s good, we’ll throw in a free parking spot.
I’m not opposed to more radical plans to encourage cycling and public transport. Make the parking paid for everyone for all I care. There’s a P+R spot less than 3 km away, so people living further away can park there and put a folding bike in their car. But don’t discriminate against people who chose to do the right thing by find a house in an area with a lot of jobs and then getting a job close to their home.
Het is dat iedereen altijd rechtstreeks tussen huis/werk pendelt zonder te stoppen bij de kinderopvang, familie of een of andere winkel die pakken verder zouden kunnen liggen.
Dat men is gewoon betaald parkeren invoert voor al het personeel (tegen een schappelijke prijs, niet aan bezoekerstarief…) in plaats van te liggen discrimineren op afstand. Diegene die dan met fiets of OV komen hebben er effectief voor gekozen in plaats van er quasi tot verplicht te worden.
Well, they have to make more money from vulnerable people, makes sense to me. (Parking not allocated to employees=paid parking by potential patients).
Itt: a lot of people that didn’t read the article
First i’d like to know about their WFH policy for the people who are able to.
Company here in Antwerp made >15km te rule to _maybe_ be eligible for parking. Honestly that’s fine because they are also very flexible with teleworking. Which is even better. No commute is no parking at all!
But if they were to become stricter on teleworking, I think a lot of people here will find other jobs.
The reality is that it’s mostly a practical solution. Last month they started demolishing their current parking tower to build a new building with underground parking for visitors. Lots of parking spaces on campus will simply not be available in the coming years so right now they want to make sure that there are enough available spots for their patients. This year they’ll also start building a new parking tower near the E17 with 1800 spaces for their personnel.
9 comments
Makes sense to me TBH.
Seems to me like the wrong approach. I’d reward living nearby, rather than punish it. E.g. pay a small fee for those that do not want a parking space. Now it is unfair limitation of the freedoms of those people, in comparison to those living 4km away and above.
I can’t say I’m a huge fan. The article already mentions the problem: “ketenverplaatsingen.” It’s not because you live less than 3 km from your job, that the next destination you want to go to after work is less than 3 km away. You might want to pick your kid up from the daycare (which might be far away with how insane the lack of space is), visit family right after work, or even just go to a supermarket. And I know they get a few exceptions, but two exceptions per month isn’t a lot, two per week sounds more reasonable.
We can’t ignore that UZ Gent is ideally located for access to the motorway. Cycling into the city and then taking your car out of the city again around 5 pm can easily take half an hour or more. So by banning people who live in the city near UZ Gent from putting their car at their job, they’re forcing these people to do an extra half hour trip if they want to visit something outside the city after work, despite the fact that these people often specifically chose a house that’s close to their job because they care about minimising commute times (and paid a significant extra price for a house in that area!).
They make it sound like something very eco-friendly, but if you think about it, it’s the ultimate carbrained move. You live nearby so you can cycle to work? Okay, now you *have to* cycle to work almost every day, even when it’s freezing, even when it’s raining, even when you wanted to drive onto the motorway to do something else right after 5 pm. Oh, you’re moving to a large villa in the middle of nowhere with horrible accessibility by any mode of transport except personal cars? That’s good, we’ll throw in a free parking spot.
I’m not opposed to more radical plans to encourage cycling and public transport. Make the parking paid for everyone for all I care. There’s a P+R spot less than 3 km away, so people living further away can park there and put a folding bike in their car. But don’t discriminate against people who chose to do the right thing by find a house in an area with a lot of jobs and then getting a job close to their home.
Het is dat iedereen altijd rechtstreeks tussen huis/werk pendelt zonder te stoppen bij de kinderopvang, familie of een of andere winkel die pakken verder zouden kunnen liggen.
Dat men is gewoon betaald parkeren invoert voor al het personeel (tegen een schappelijke prijs, niet aan bezoekerstarief…) in plaats van te liggen discrimineren op afstand. Diegene die dan met fiets of OV komen hebben er effectief voor gekozen in plaats van er quasi tot verplicht te worden.
Well, they have to make more money from vulnerable people, makes sense to me. (Parking not allocated to employees=paid parking by potential patients).
Itt: a lot of people that didn’t read the article
First i’d like to know about their WFH policy for the people who are able to.
Company here in Antwerp made >15km te rule to _maybe_ be eligible for parking. Honestly that’s fine because they are also very flexible with teleworking. Which is even better. No commute is no parking at all!
But if they were to become stricter on teleworking, I think a lot of people here will find other jobs.
The reality is that it’s mostly a practical solution. Last month they started demolishing their current parking tower to build a new building with underground parking for visitors. Lots of parking spaces on campus will simply not be available in the coming years so right now they want to make sure that there are enough available spots for their patients. This year they’ll also start building a new parking tower near the E17 with 1800 spaces for their personnel.