Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Times Article on Congestion Charging in NYC - Comment 6

Expand Messages
  • Anzir Boodoo
    Stephen, ... I don t see how off street parking which is not local authority controlled could be removed. In most towns and cities, there is at least as much
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen,
      On 14 Nov 2005, at 18:16, Stephen Plowden wrote:

      > It is important to remove (not merely tax) off-street parking, for
      > which powers do not now exist in Britain. This was suggested by the
      > Dept
      > of Transport in the late 1970s but at that time local authories
      > were not
      > interested. But removing parking in central areas by itself cd make
      > the
      > problems worse as the freed road space fills up again with traffic
      > that
      > does not need to park. Parking combined with other measures (e.g.
      > reallocation of road space and lower speeds) is a very powerful and
      > unduly neglected restraint measure.

      I don't see how off street parking which is not local authority
      controlled could be removed. In most towns and cities, there is at
      least as much private off street parking (eg shopping centres, retail
      parks) as local authority controlled.

      Once parking has been removed, and people know they cannot park, does
      demand for central area roadspace reduce? Or do people take their
      chances as they do in many towns and cities, and use residential
      spaces or park on street where they can?

      As you say, there needs to be a package of measures of which parking
      is a part.

      Sorry to have more questions than answers (as usual).
      --
      Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
      transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
    • Eric Bruun
      Stephen Not always. On-street parking can be good as a buffer between pedestrians and traffic when done right. Also, for short-term parking and pickup and
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen

        Not always. On-street parking can be good as a buffer between pedestrians and traffic when done right.
        Also, for short-term parking and pickup and delivery, on-street is better. If you make it too inconvenient
        to park for only a little while, then people will go shop in the suburbs instead.

        Eric Bruun

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Stephen Plowden <stephenplowden@...>
        Sent: Nov 14, 2005 1:16 PM
        To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Times Article on Congestion Charging in NYC - Comment 6

        It is important to remove (not merely tax) off-street parking, for
        which powers do not now exist in Britain. This was suggested by the Dept
        of Transport in the late 1970s but at that time local authories were not
        interested. But removing parking in central areas by itself cd make the
        problems worse as the freed road space fills up again with traffic that
        does not need to park. Parking combined with other measures (e.g.
        reallocation of road space and lower speeds) is a very powerful and
        unduly neglected restraint measure.

        Anzir Boodoo wrote:

        > Dave,
        > On 14 Nov 2005, at 10:38, Wetzel Dave wrote:
        >
        > > The Labour Govt in the UK has given local authorities powers to tax
        > > workplace car parking spaces, but to date no Council has used this
        > > power.
        >
        > I think taxing spaces might have less of a deterrent effect than
        > removing them completely, but again, this only works when a
        > sufficient proportion of the spaces are in local authority control.
        >
        > Personally, I think removing on street spaces is good as an idea, but
        > flawed, certainly in the UK, where in town & city centres there is
        > far more parking off street. Also all workplace parking is private
        > and as I understand it from what I've seen, companies are just as
        > likely to pass the tax straight on to their employees as they are to
        > reduce workplace parking.
        >
        > Did Nottingham decide not to implement workplace parking charges
        > then? I thought they were going to be used to fund the tram.
        >
        > --
        > Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
        > transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
        > To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
        > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
        >
        > * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe
        > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe>" on the web.
        >
        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
        >
        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >





        The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
        To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
        To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org



        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Stephen Plowden
        Eric I think we are in agreement. Off-street parking is often only available to restricted classes of people, whose access to it is usually unrelated to any
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Eric

          I think we are in agreement. Off-street parking is often only available
          to restricted classes of people, whose access to it is usually
          unrelated to any transport need and is often free. In my view, certainly
          here in London, the priority shd be to it get rid of it rather than to
          get rid of on-street parking, although in the course of time, depending
          on how things go, it might be desirable to make further cuts in
          on-street parking too. (A lot of on-street parking was cut in the
          1970s but in the absence of accompanying measures such as bus or cycle
          lanes the reduction in centre-bound traffic was compensated by an
          increase in through traffic..)

          To answer Anzir's point, the control of off-street parking not owned by
          the local authority will require more powers, and that will require
          legislation. There are two main kinds of off-street parking.. The first
          is odd scraps of land which were never originally intended for parking
          but are now used for it. The present rule in England is that if such
          land has been used for this purpose for more than 10 years it escapes
          the requirement of planning permission. That needs to be changed.. The
          other is purpose-built spaces, e.g under office blocks. In London until
          about 1970 developers were forced to provide these spaces because
          planners naively believed that it wd reduce the demand for on-street
          parking. Everyone agrees that this was a mistake, and it is a mistake
          that has has profoundly affected travel patterns for the worse, but
          nevertheless no one has tried to correct it (except in sofar as when
          those buildings are pulled down their replacements are not allowed the
          same amount of parking.) Local authorities should have powers to insist
          that the land be put to other uses. Compensation would have to be paid,
          but perhaps not much as one might think, because this is valuable space
          which might earn a lot in other uses. We need a study to see what the
          other uses might be and what the costs of conversion wd be (Dave Wetzel,
          please note)



          Eric Bruun wrote:

          > Stephen
          >
          > Not always. On-street parking can be good as a buffer between
          > pedestrians and traffic when done right.
          > Also, for short-term parking and pickup and delivery, on-street is
          > better. If you make it too inconvenient
          > to park for only a little while, then people will go shop in the
          > suburbs instead.
          >
          > Eric Bruun
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Stephen Plowden <stephenplowden@...>
          > Sent: Nov 14, 2005 1:16 PM
          > To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Times Article on Congestion Charging in NYC
          > - Comment 6
          >
          > It is important to remove (not merely tax) off-street parking, for
          > which powers do not now exist in Britain. This was suggested by the Dept
          > of Transport in the late 1970s but at that time local authories were not
          > interested. But removing parking in central areas by itself cd make the
          > problems worse as the freed road space fills up again with traffic that
          > does not need to park. Parking combined with other measures (e.g.
          > reallocation of road space and lower speeds) is a very powerful and
          > unduly neglected restraint measure.
          >
          > Anzir Boodoo wrote:
          >
          > > Dave,
          > > On 14 Nov 2005, at 10:38, Wetzel Dave wrote:
          > >
          > > > The Labour Govt in the UK has given local authorities powers to tax
          > > > workplace car parking spaces, but to date no Council has used this
          > > > power.
          > >
          > > I think taxing spaces might have less of a deterrent effect than
          > > removing them completely, but again, this only works when a
          > > sufficient proportion of the spaces are in local authority control.
          > >
          > > Personally, I think removing on street spaces is good as an idea, but
          > > flawed, certainly in the UK, where in town & city centres there is
          > > far more parking off street. Also all workplace parking is private
          > > and as I understand it from what I've seen, companies are just as
          > > likely to pass the tax straight on to their employees as they are to
          > > reduce workplace parking.
          > >
          > > Did Nottingham decide not to implement workplace parking charges
          > > then? I thought they were going to be used to fund the tram.
          > >
          > > --
          > > Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
          > > transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
          > > To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
          > > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > > Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          > >
          > > * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe
          > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe>" on the web.
          > >
          > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > <mailto:NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
          > >
          > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
          > To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
          > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
          > To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
          > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          > * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe
          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe>" on the web.
          >
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > <mailto:NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
          >
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.