[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by vishnurp99

i would go with visaster's suggestions that you should buy a car only if you have a parking space. This is for purely selfish reasons since for the foreseeable future i do see that we wiill have enough space to park our cars and hence if i can get lesser crowded roads then good for me.

However if i didn't have a parking space there was no way i would have agreed to his point of course he he. In the end this will become a very partisan debate between people who have parking space and who don't have it.

+1 to that. Thats the problem with democracy. Reaching a consensus is very tough as everyone wants to have the best piece of the cake. Time for a monarchy anyone?

Sorry for being

[Daewood]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

+1 to that. Thats the problem with democracy. Reaching a consensus is very tough as everyone wants to have the best piece of the cake. Time for a monarchy anyone?

Why isn't it possible to enforce rules/orderliness strictly in a democracy?
Aren't UK and US democratic countries.

[vkumars]

Statutory warning : This is a long rant.

I remember times when private vehicles few on the road. Most people depended on public transport. What was their experience ? Buses (at least in Trivandrum) were almost wholly state owned. The drivers stopped buses at any place (other than the bus stop). People, including women carrying babies, would run after them. There would be a jam at the entrance with too many people trying to get in or out. The lucky few would get in and a brave few would risk a ride on the foot-board.

Then, private buses were introduced and situation improved. The transport corporation bus drivers also mended their ways and began stopping buses at proper stops. So all has become well, Yes ?

No. The supply has been woefully short of demand. The route planning by the authorities is also far from proper.You can find almost empty buses running in convoys along certain routes and heavily overcrowded buses (people traveling 'cattle class' - to quote Shri. Sashi Tharoor) along others.

To cut a long story short, can you depend on public transport if you want to reach somewhere in time and want to travel with a certain dignity ? The answer is a resounding No. You have to depend on auto-rikshaws or taxis. Can you do it on a daily basis ? Again No. The drivers of these vehicles rarely follow any meters and you might get a ride only after an interview (There are pre-paid auto stands but drivers avoid these).

In these circumstances, owning a two wheeler was the first thing that came to most people's minds. With liberalisation and the availability of loans, this became easy also. Sales grew and things were rosy for some time.

Unfortunately, the infrastructure did not keep pace with the growth in vehicle population and traveling by two wheelers became really hazardous on our roads. Pot holes, ditches dug by authorities, telecom companies (these might appear suddenly on the road one day), etc. raised threats to two wheeler riders. Add to this construction material downloaded at road sides (mainly for road laying - these used to remain there for months). The final straw is the contempt expressed by drivers of heavy vehicles to two wheeler riders. They are expected to find their own way and take evasive action as required. Really, riding a two wheeler has become dangerous, especially during peak traffic hours. Many people still do, due to economy, ease of navigation in traffic and lack of other options.

Two wheelers are OK if you are single or just married. What do you do when your family grows ? Many people still treat a scooter or bike as a 'family carrier'. It is quite common to see 4 people traveling in a bike. This however is a very dangerous trend, to be discouraged at all costs.

The only logical option for a family, if it wants mobility either for professional or personal purposes, is to upgrade to a car. The questions that arise are

1. Can they afford it ?

Very easy now-a-days with all the banks coming after them.

2. Can they keep (read park) it safely ?

Really, nobody would buy cars, unless they had somewhere to park it safely (Here, the keyword is 'safe' - nobody would park where it might get stolen or damaged). The safe parking might be inside your compound, common parking area or in the street. If the street is very wide, there would be no problem. Again, if the street is too narrow, nobody would park (you can rest assured that the offending vehicle would be soon removed).

Problems arise when the street is of 'in-between' width. Quarrels between house owners and 'parkers' would become common. The only solution is for people to exhibit a bit more civic sense. If don't have a parking space and you are always going to park in a street, at least make sure that your car is parked so as to cause least trouble to others (it helps if it a small hatch). And, move the vehicle without complaint if objected to by others.

All can help, like
1. Town authorities, by providing better public transport and better infrastructure and parking lots and by enforcing building rules strictly.
2. Builders, by making sure that adequate parking spaces are provided for highrises.
3. Police, by enforcing 'No Parking' rules.
4. Car owners, by parking responsibly.

So, should be stop owning cars ? Yes, if a viable alternative arises. Till then, No.
But, what can we do in the meantime.
1. Do not take out your car for short distances. Walk.
2. Use public transport, wherever possible.
3. Use two wheelers, when possible.
4. Share vehicles (when possible)
5. Park responsibly even it means a little inconvenience to you.

[vina]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

We chose that house because it was the only one available in that time frame in a decent locality. This isnt the place to start a rant about real estate so I will keep that out. My car is parked from 10pm to 8am on a residential street where clear parking lines are marked. I dont see why or how this inconveniences anybody. This is the parking system designed by the town authorities in that area, and if anyone has an issue with that, then the twon authorities need to be questioned. Not the people who live there. If the parked cars are blocking traffic, then one is sane enough not to park there during traffic hours

If you say I should park in the nearest paid parking lot, this can also be done by people who have inherited houses, they are also dependent on the parking provided by the town planners and in the same situations as tenants/ owners. In this case all are in the same boat. Needless to say, mine is more a short term issue which could be resolved when I move next. I dont see a solution for those living in high density areas/ city roads on a permanent basis unless the town authorities do something or their areas are "re developed"

You are twisting things - if you park in clearly marked parking area, and that marking was done by the authorities, then why did you ever say that you didn't have parking? If the markings were not done by the authorities then you can't claim that his system was designed by them.

I wasn't writing about your personal situation anyway, but since you already agree that you think you had no choice at the time of renting the house (an I presume you did search for something with decent parking) I guess you would agree with my contention that renters do have freedom regarding this issue.

As far as "only one available in a decent locality" goes, there are several decent localities in big cities that do have parking space for at least one vehicles. Every apartment block these days does. When you chose to rent this particular house you made a mental cost-benefit analysis and some other factors (rent, space, amenities, travel time ...) might have trumped the factor of parking. Even if that was not true in your case - that is how most of the renters end up in this situation.

At the same time other renters give up some of the same factors just to get a decent parking.

It is a matter of choice in my opinion.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by Daewood

Why isn't it possible to enforce rules/orderliness strictly in a democracy?
Aren't UK and US democratic countries.

Enforcing a rule and reaching a consensus to pass a new rule are two very different things. And please stop comparing India with USA's 2 party system. The present Indian democracy is a shoddy place (though surely better then monarchy). This debate is a very good example. The problems faced by everyone is different. And we all feel our version is the best.

[vina]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Enforcing a rule and reaching a consensus to pass a new rule are two very different things. And please stop comparing India with USA's 2 party system. The present Indian democracy is a shoddy place (though surely better then monarchy). This debate is a very good example. The problems faced by everyone is different. And we all feel our version is the best.

moderators, please modify if found inappropriate.

The US doesn't have a two party system - that is a myth followed by a lot of people in India. It has a two "dominant" party system.

There are other parties in existance (most notably the greens) and some gather a significant fraction of the vote. In fact their used to be three dominant parties at one time (the Whigs) and some parties have gone out of existance (Conservatives).

Also, if you follow their politics you'll realise that they have much higher and naked corruption that we do (almost the whole Republican party is in the pockets of big corporations - every office holder in republicans is indebted to Koch brothers who could make the Ambanis look saintly) . Both the dominant Our shoddy democracy is actually functioning better than their's in last few years.


In any case 2-party or 20-party has nothing to do with the parking problem.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by vina

The US doesn't have a two party system - that is a myth followed by a lot of people in India. It has a two "dominant" party system.

There are other parties in existance (most notably the greens) and some gather a significant fraction of the vote. In fact their used to be three dominant parties at one time (the Whigs) and some parties have gone out of existance (Conservatives).

In any case 2-party or 20-party has nothing to do with the parking problem.

Thanks for that piece of info. I grew up hearing and reading about only the dems and the republicans. Hence the error.

I agree they have corruption. May be more then us. but its limited to the high levels. The system in general is still better then ours where right from the peon everyone wants money to do there job. Anyways thats beyond this thread. So lets leave it at that. And I never suggested that the parking issue is anyway related to our government system. That was just a side conversation we were having.

[vina]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Thanks for that piece of info. I grew up hearing and reading about only the dems and the republicans. Hence the error.

Thanks for taking it in the right spirit. I agree with you on growing up with it part - a lot of people in my family claim it to be quick fix. No democratic constitution can put a limit on the number of parties. Doing so would be akin to putting a limit on the number of views - inherently undemocratic.

Also, for a decade after independence (till INC split into Kamraj and Indira), India was a dominant-one-party system. That dominance weakened considerably later on, and now we have a multi-party.


I agree they have corruption. May be more then us. but its limited to the high levels. The system in general is still better then ours where right from the peon everyone wants money to do there job. Anyways thats beyond this thread. So lets leave it at that. And I never suggested that the parking issue is anyway related to our government system. That was just a side conversation we were having.

You see side conversations are not taken kindly by mods.

I wanted to right more, but let me conclude by saying that I broadly agree.

I hope you understand that we need to stop this one now.

[aby]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

+1. There are a lot of people who cannot afford to buy houses in the near future considering the sky high real estate prices. Obviously we are the mercy of the landlords in this case. As a tenant, I had a parking lot in my previous house, but none in my current one. So now am I burdening the community?

Approaching this from another angle, what brush will I be tarred with if I move into a house which has two parking lots, and I buy another car?
In any case IMHO traffic issues are compounded more due to daytime parking than night time parking, at least where I live.

The answer is simple: You made a choice to take a house on rent without parking. People blame the real estate situation, but the truth is - Houses with provision for parking space can cost 1-2k per month more than similar houses without parking. Isn't the tenan externalizing the cost to the society, if he decides to take the house without parking and then park on the streets.

Second point - people point to old areas. What we forget is that ultimately market lives and dies by demand/supply equation. If people start moving out of old city because of unavailability of parking, realestate prices will automatically adjust, as the areas will no longer be desirable. Or the old houses will be redeveloped accordingly.

[vina]

Originally Posted by aby

The answer is simple: You made a choice to take a house on rent without parking. People blame the real estate situation, but the truth is - Houses with provision for parking space can cost 1-2k per month more than similar houses without parking. Isn't the tenan externalizing the cost to the society, if he decides to take the house without parking and then park on the streets.

Second point - people point to old areas. What we forget is that ultimately market lives and dies by demand/supply equation. If people start moving out of old city because of unavailability of parking, realestate prices will automatically adjust, as the areas will no longer be desirable. Or the old houses will be redeveloped accordingly.

I have been living in my apartment for 2 yrs and bought a car only last week. all the time the parking was vacant.

about 7 months ago. one day I saw a car parked there. I thought it was some visitor so didn't say anything. the same car however was parked for three more days. what is more, it would leave and come back.

so I asked the watchman, and he told me that a guy in another apartment had three cars and was using my parking !

When I told this other guy to remove his car, he offered me 1.5k/month in rent ! I didn't take the rent - but that illustrates the price.

similar stuff has happened before, in White House Apartments R.T. Nagar Bangalore, the parking rent is north of Rs. 3k/month when a two bedroom apartment (with parking) goes for 20-23k/month.

[vina]

Originally Posted by aby

Second point - people point to old areas. What we forget is that ultimately market lives and dies by demand/supply equation. If people start moving out of old city because of unavailability of parking, realestate prices will automatically adjust, as the areas will no longer be desirable. Or the old houses will be redeveloped accordingly.

I know of several people who have moved out of old city areas for this (and several such) reason. On the other hand I know of people who have houses outside the city as well and still live in the inner city housing. Invariably they claim convenience as the reason - however in that case why should the rest of the society pay for their convenience by providing subsidies (direct or indirect) for their parking?

[TheARUN]

Very good argument, its possible for someone to give up his car and spend the rest of his life, but look at it this way, you only get one life to live and you sacrifice for no great tangible benefit

[vina]

Bangalore Building regulations (full regulations here )

for single family dwellings upto 1350sq, ft. Min 1 parking must be available. For larger than that, 1 parking per 900sq.ft must be made available.

Multi-family dwellings (i.e. apartment complexes) need even more than this.


also visitor's parking must be provided at 10% of the overall parking.

[vina]

Delhi Parking regulations (page 32, 31 of http://dda.org.in/planning/building_bye_laws.doc - this is 1983 regulation, must have changed since then):

[Gansan]

Originally Posted by vina

When I told this other guy to remove his car, he offered me 1.5k/month in rent ! I didn't take the rent - but that illustrates the price.

A neighbor demolished an old house on our road last year, and keeps the plot vacant for some reason currently. Now I find around a dozen cars parked there at night, and learned he is collecting Rs 1200.00 per car as monthly rent. For commercial vehicles it is Rs 2000.00! Mind you it is just a plot abutting his house, with absolutely no amenities - not even a perimeter wall on the road side - and parking is at owners' risk. Similarly owners of old type homes in our road, who have space inside their compounds, are allowing three or four cars to be parked inside for Rs 1500.00 PM. Rules are entry before 10.30 PM and exit before 8.00 AM!

We recently forced a couple of guys in our complex who had two cars, to shift one car to some such place.

And we live in the suburbs, not inside the city.