Residents parking

[mjr]

Why should employers be taxed because of the free choices of their employees to use a car to travel to work?

Because it's often the free choice of the employer to provide car parking spaces or locate themselves in places which are difficult to reach by active or public transport. They are benefitting in various ways and shouldn't they pay for it, rather than society?

It wasn't the employers in my city centre who made people all buy cars and cause all the traffic congestion and parking difficulties we now have.

These environmentally damaging and socially irresponsible things were cause by thousands of people freely choosing to abandon more appropriate forms of transport and electing to use a car instead, and to use that car every day on the streets of the city during rush hour.

No such thing as freely choosing. Incentives were provided and infrastructure subsidised.

Councils should focus on the cause of the current problems - the people who choose to use cars. Actively making car usage and car ownership more convenient by providing residents parking schemes was a big mistake, about as poorly thought out as most other transport related things councils do,

More convenient? Surely providing residents parking schemes makes car usage less convenient by increasing costs and reducing the pool of free parking at destinations?

In the local town which has the headquarters of my council the only large employer which provides free parking for its workforce is the council itself!

Of course, councils should be subject to the same regime as other employers.

[Bmblbzzz]

Why should employers be taxed because of the free choices of their employees to use a car to travel to work?

Because it's often the free choice of the employer to provide car parking spaces or locate themselves in places which are difficult to reach by active or public transport. They are benefitting in various ways and shouldn't they pay for it, rather than society?

It wasn't the employers in my city centre who made people all buy cars and cause all the traffic congestion and parking difficulties we now have.

These environmentally damaging and socially irresponsible things were cause by thousands of people freely choosing to abandon more appropriate forms of transport and electing to use a car instead, and to use that car every day on the streets of the city during rush hour.

No such thing as freely choosing. Incentives were provided and infrastructure subsidised.

Councils should focus on the cause of the current problems - the people who choose to use cars. Actively making car usage and car ownership more convenient by providing residents parking schemes was a big mistake, about as poorly thought out as most other transport related things councils do,

More convenient? Surely providing residents parking schemes makes car usage less convenient by increasing costs and reducing the pool of free parking at destinations?

In the local town which has the headquarters of my council the only large employer which provides free parking for its workforce is the council itself!

Of course, councils should be subject to the same regime as other employers.

Woah! Do you seriously believe that employers are free to make whatever choices they want? That the incentives and infrastructure (and disincentives to not motoring) apply only to individuals?

[mjr]

Woah! Do you seriously believe that employers are free to make whatever choices they want? That the incentives and infrastructure (and disincentives to not motoring) apply only to individuals?

The employers' choice to locate in motoring-centric places or provide parking is just as free - as in not really very free at all. So I think it's fair if the public decide to change which choices it encourages.

[Bmblbzzz]

I agree with your conclusion; but you can't call one a "free choice" and say for the other there is "no such thing as freely choosing"! They are both free within certain limits established by the society we all find ourselves in. Neither totally free nor completely constrained. It's possible employers have more choice, but I think it's more likely they simply have different choices to make. And of course by making those choices within the limits, we tend to further tighten the constraints even against our better judgement; that's the sad thing.

[ChrisButch]

One possible cause of the increase in street parking may be that it's a consequence of much more durable car bodywork. In the days before reliable anti-corrosion treatments, say before the mid-80s, you'd do everything you could to protect your car from the weather. If you had a garage you'd automatically put your car away in it every night on coming home from work. Nowadays few people seem to bother, since it makes little difference to the car. Even those who have garages rarely use them, or rather use them for purposes other than storing the car, and the conversion of garages into an additional room for the house seems to be a popular trend. All this is irrelevant, of course, to terraced streets which had no garages in the first place, but overall it must add to the street parking pressure.

[Psamathe]

... and the conversion of garages into an additional room for the house seems to be a popular trend.....

So I suppose one could also argue then that the availability of state (taxpayer) funded on-street parking is allowing people to extend their homes (with the associated increase in value) as they no longer require somewhere to park their cars. so public purse is in effect helping them up the property ladder whilst allowing our roads to become ever more cluttered. And taxpayer then picks-up the bill for ongoing maintenance of their parking spaces (i.e. the bill is no longer for "road maintenance" but for "private parking space maintenance").

Ian

[pwa]

I used to put the car in the garage, until I worked out that doing so promotes rusting. My garage is full of bicycles, along with the mower and my DIY stuff. Better to leave the car outside. I mainly park on the street, which is not an issue here because the road is wide enough. The problem is that in lots of streets the road is not wide enough and things get congested. With older streets you can say that it is simply down to the fact that they were not designed for the car age. But our new housing estates are just as bad, with totally inadequate parking provision and the inevitable on-street parking on streets that seem no wider.

Personally, I always feel uneasy about parking outside someone else's home and I avoid doing it. That "parking opportunity" is more important to them than it is to me.

[Bmblbzzz]

Surely by far the largest reason for the increase in street parking is the increase in cars.

[Ruadh495]

I'm generalizing, but don't most properties with garages also have driveways? So there is certainly a tendency to leave cars outside (garage space is wasted on cars, it's for bikes, working on bikes and more bikes...) but I don't think it affects street parking much.

I'm fortunate to live on an estate built for the council in the late sixties. We have a 2 car (just) driveway on one side of the terrace (I've never been sure which is "front" and which is "back") while the garden on the other side opens onto a small public space along one side of which is an actual cycleway (You know, like they have in Holland... Well almost). We even have an externally accessible secure bike store.

The problem is the cycle provision hasn't been maintained, so the surface is dreadful and the cycleway has been severed at various points (or was never built) so doesn't actually go anywhere. Currently it looks like it will largely disappear under a proposed new housing development, which will be a pity as the property is currently easier to access by bike than by car.

[mjr]

The problem is that in lots of streets the road is not wide enough and things get congested. With older streets you can say that it is simply down to the fact that they were not designed for the car age. But our new housing estates are just as bad, with totally inadequate parking provision and the inevitable on-street parking on streets that seem no wider.

Personally, I always feel uneasy about parking outside someone else's home and I avoid doing it. That "parking opportunity" is more important to them than it is to me.

And by doing that, doesn't it encourage the sense of entitlement to on-road vehicle stabling that others describe?

New housing estates... I often see and hear such claims, but I know new housing estates where most houses have a garage and one or two parking spaces in front of them (depending on house size), yet people still park on the road. I watched the tragedy develop with interest:

At first, it was just a few people doing it because they had four cars(!), then some of the three-car households used their garages as storage and so they put a car on the street, then that increase in cars meant that some people got blocked into their driveways (by incompetent or negligent parking - where the houses were on an inside bend, sometimes several driveways got obstructed by one car) and so they started keeping one car on the street too, to make sure they could get out when needed!

By this point, the bus service had retreated to the perimeter road because the initial route subsidy had ended and the roads were too often obstructed to make it around inside the estate reliably, but that's a fairly long walk and hey, the car's sat just outside. Before long, few people are using their garages to store cars and most driveways are either empty or have only one least-used vehicle on it and yet again, we've demonstrated that providing more unregulated road space attracts more cars to fill it, except here it's parking rather than traffic.

Wider streets is an expensive way to provide more parking (you need more lane and/or have to give less over to green space, footways and so on, which all makes walking to the bus stop on the estate edge less attractive) and I don't see why that won't also get filled up with cars, possibly people double-parking their fourth and fifth cars, US-style, and still narrowing the road to the bare minimum. What are the possible solutions except restricting on-road parking?

[Psamathe]

...
Wider streets is an expensive way to provide more parking (you need more lane and/or have to give less over to green space, footways and so on, which all makes walking to the bus stop on the estate edge less attractive)...

Plus it is moving the cost of residential parking space provision and maintenance onto the public purse rather than it being firmly the responsibility of the developer/builder/home owner.

Maybe a "Max 2 hrs, no return within ..." parking restriction nationally for unmarked roads or maybe for e.g. any roads with a 30 limit, etc. (a bit like the "De-restricted" speed limit sign means e.g. 70 on unmarked dual carriageways). Councils would have the ability to provide different rules but only under strict conditions.

One cycling aspect I dislike of on-road parking is that given the clearance you have to give parked cars you can often have to position yourself on narrower roads where you would not always want to be (particularly when you've parked cars on both sides of the road).

Ian

[Vorpal]

https://www.google.no/maps/@51.7889294, ... 312!8i6656

Relatively new housing estate (google earth link)

The original intention was to make most of the roads in the estate for pedestrians, cyclists, and children playing, and have the roads be access only, and the parking in community car parks.

The only problem is that they never actually pedestrianised the roads. They (the developer) changed them to standard, but narrow roads at the last minute, then built through roads and a second housing estate adjoining, also with through roads because traffic was higher than expected.

So, now these are in the ridiculous situation of narrow roads, constantly parked up with vehicles, and empty community car parks.

The second housing estate, has better parking facilities (there are passages between or through the buildings, and parking for up to six houses together, or garages). It also has decent cycle facilities, but, IMO, the original concept was better.

[irc]

So I suppose one could also argue then that the availability of state (taxpayer) funded on-street parking is allowing people to extend their homes (with the associated increase in value) as they no longer require somewhere to park their cars. so public purse is in effect helping them up the property ladder whilst allowing our roads to become ever more cluttered. And taxpayer then picks-up the bill for ongoing maintenance of their parking spaces (i.e. the bill is no longer for "road maintenance" but for "private parking space maintenance").

The public purse? You mean the taxpayers purse. If the majority of taxpayers are happy for there to be on street parking as the least worse solution then that isn't an issue.

In my specific case I'd argue that my street was built in 1972 and has had no public maintenance since then apart from street lighting which is required whether or not there are cars parked. The street was paid for by home owners buying the new build houses. It has not been re-surfaced since then. Properly built roads can last for many years if there is no significant HGV traffic. HGVs cause almost all road damage.

I'd also say that parked cars have no adverse affects on other road users as being a cul-de-sac the only users are residents who all own cars. There is even a separate network of footpaths separated from the roads. Even with most houses having more than one car parking is not a problem. As well as on street parking there is car parks at the end of most streets.


But not everyone lives in such well designed areas. In general where there is high parking pressure a combination of on street parking with meters and residents parking is the best solution.

Try running for the council on a platform of banning on street parking and see how far you get.

[Bmblbzzz]

Narrow streets in modern developments: for many years my aunt lived on an estate on the outskirts of Bath, built in the sixties. A mistake had been made in the scaling of the plans and the roads had been built two-thirds of the intended width. Thankfully the houses were full size! A similar mistake was made at Bradley Stoke on the edge of Bristol in the nineties.

[thirdcrank]

A D-I-Y effort

PARKING MAD Retired Royal Marine infuriates his neighbours by issuing them with fake parking tickets and even painting his own road markings

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2550797/r ... g-tickets/