Voting Guide Meerhoven

Question 7: Parking nuisance for airport visitors

For years, Meerhoven has been experiencing nuisance from airport visitors who park their cars for free in the neighbourhood and then take the bus to Eindhoven Airport. Until now, the municipality (which is also a co-shareholder of Eindhoven Airport) has stuck to one solution, and that is paid parking. Residents have to buy a parking permit for this.

Do you agree with us that both Eindhoven Airport and the Municipality of Eindhoven should take their responsibility and not make residents pay financially for the parking problems? What can and will you do for the residents of Meerhoven in this matter? Good to know: financing from the Leefbaarheidsfonds is limited to a maximum period of two years and is therefore not a future-proof solution.

It is first and foremost the responsibility of Eindhoven Airport to provide sufficient parking facilities. They have millions in the bank to solve side effects. As far as GroenLinks is concerned, it is up to the airport to come up with solutions to relieve the surrounding neighbourhoods. On the other hand, working with parking permits is also a solution. We see this as a solution for residents in all busy places in the city, such as in the centre or at Strijp-S. It is not possible for a municipality to do this differently and we understand that, but it may be possible to find a solution through Eindhoven Airport..
We recognise the parking nuisance experienced in the neighbourhood due to airport visitors parking in the area. We have seen the picture in the ED where holidaymakers are taken back by taxi to their parked car.

You state in your question that the municipality is advising the local residents to apply for paid parking, thus making the local residents pay for the nuisance.
This can also be interpreted differently: paid parking is the only measure that really helps, with local residents paying a small amount per month (4-6 euros) to cover the costs. As long as there is no paid parking, the municipality has no instrument to enforce it. At the same time, in Eindhoven we have a policy where the municipality does not impose paid parking on residents, but it is only introduced at the request of residents.

In other neighbourhoods, too, residents have requested paid parking to counter the nuisance of parking in their street. For example, in neighbourhoods close to the city centre, where people parked in the streets to then go shopping or work in the city centre. Activities that are part of living in a city. With the introduction of paid parking, the nuisance disappeared.

In short: by applying for paid parking, local residents have a simple and effective tool at their disposal, which is also used in other neighbourhoods. Living together in a city means finding solutions together to tensions in the limited space.

This is, of course, a long-running problem, and it would be good if we could finally start working on it in the near future. We think that a structural contribution from the liveability fund should be possible and that this is the direction in which we should be thinking. The livability fund must also do something to combat nuisance through the Airport, and this is a good example of that. We also think that the pot of the liveability fund should be filled better as the Airport (except for the effects of corona) makes a profit. In addition, the municipality could investigate in the short term what out of the box possibilities there are for tackling the nuisance with a project. For example, it should be possible to report cars that are parked there for more than a few days. Based on the license plate, the owner could be called and told to remove the car within 24 hours. Otherwise, the municipality can have the car towed away at the owner’s expense, for example. This does cost the municipality a considerable investment, but it can limit the nuisance and sends out a clear signal.

The municipality must pay attention to publicity for P&R so that people can park their cars there. As a last resort, if more than 50 per cent of Meerhoven residents want it, paid parking can be introduced.
The Ouderen Appel – hart voor Eindhoven makes a case for a light rail connection between Eindhoven Central Station and Eindhoven Airport, and between the surrounding villages. The problem arose in the past, when parking facilities at Eindhoven Airport were limited and line 401 was the only bus connection between Eindhoven Station and Eindhoven Airport. The best solution would be for line 401 to end at the Flight Forum, but that is not a matter for the municipality, but for the Province and the public transport company.
The solution is to work together to find ways to remove this inconvenience. In the new period after the election, that would be a good topic to discuss with the neighbourhood and the council. We would like to come back to this after the elections.
ChristenUnie Eindhoven will not respond to the questions that you have put forward, for the fundamental reason that in this day and age – prior to the elections – you can seduce politicians into making any statement if that will bring in votes in his/her eyes. We are in the council on the oath that we have been elected there without ‘charge or consultation’ and committing ourselves in advance to positions of interest groups feels to us contrary to that principle.
To counteract the parking nuisance caused by passengers and visitors to Eindhoven Airport, the municipality has introduced a parking permit in Meerhoven. We are of the opinion that residents should not have to pay the costs. These should be borne by the owners of Eindhoven Airport. The financing should take place in a different way than from the Leefbaarheidsfonds.

The residents have a number of practical suggestions for reducing the nuisance. We believe that residents know their neighbourhood best and that the municipality should take such ideas seriously. It is a joint problem, which should not be passed on to the residents.

FVD finds it absurd that residents have to buy a parking permit. We want residents to receive a parking permit free of charge. However, we do not see paid parking as a solution to the problem either. We would rather see the parking disc used (i.e. more blue zones). In this way, no one would have to suffer financially and the problem of airport visitors parking their cars in the neighbourhood free of charge would be addressed.
The number of flights to and from Eindhoven Airport must be reduced, which will also reduce the number of passengers. We also want the municipality to invest fully in sustainable mobility, including public transport. By offering travellers, as well as the residents of Eindhoven, an attractive and cleaner alternative, we are aiming to reduce motorised traffic and there will also be less need for parking.
In itself, Eindhoven Airport should feel and be responsible for all the necessary parking facilities, because Eindhoven Airport itself is responsible for the creation of parking pressure. Moreover, Eindhoven Airport also derives considerable revenues from the parking. Preventing people from parking elsewhere is therefore not only a (moral) obligation, but also brings in money directly. Paying for the parking permits should therefore simply be part of Eindhoven Airport’s parking business case and should be financed by Eindhoven Airport. If it takes time to formally and structurally arrange this properly, it can, until then, be paid for from the liveability fund or from the revenue that the municipality receives from Eindhoven Airport. And actually, in the latter case, ade other shareholders should also contribute.

The following parties did not respond: