[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

I am hungry.

I need food. I cannot afford it.

Being responsible citizen, you should give me your food; even if your kids are starving.

^^ How many of you are ok with that? ^^

No?

Then why crib about not being allowed to use roads for parking? Roads are for travelling, not parking.

They are not for doing business. They are not for encroaching. All this happens;

Yes, poor enforcement is a problem, but we have to start somewhere.

I have seen people accused of driving without a driving license accusing the prosecuting officer of initiating the case because he was not bribed. There is no defence that the vehicle was being driven by somebody else. Now complain of poor enforcement.

[AstonMartin]

As many pointed out it is not the lack of laws that leads to the mess on the streets. But, laws from the British rule era will not solve problems of the current day. Town planning agencies should make sure that whoever builds a house should leave the ground floor for parking. According to the law a fire engine must be able to reach everywhere. But with the cars parked on both sides on narrow bylines, it is only a dream. We can only discuss these things. None is going to implement them. Places of worship too contribute to the problem.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR

I am hungry.

I need food. I cannot afford it.

Being responsible citizen, you should give me your food; even if your kids are starving.

^^ How many of you are ok with that? ^^

No?

Then why crib about not being allowed to use roads for parking? Roads are for travelling, not parking.

They are not for doing business. They are not for encroaching. All this happens;

Yes, poor enforcement is a problem, but we have to start somewhere.

I have seen people accused of driving without a driving license accusing the prosecuting officer of initiating the case because he was not bribed. There is no defence that the vehicle was being driven by somebody else. Now complain of poor enforcement.

I think of a car as one would of an Elephant in the olden days.

Any one could buy the Elephant, but few could afford the upkeep. Similarly with the car. When you buy one you are already committed to the running costs, maintenance cost, insurance cost and road tax. Why not parking costs. After all it is a part of total cost of ownership

[aby]

Originally Posted by yzfrj

Pardon me, Which part is hog wash ?
You pay for the car, pay road tax, pay your taxes, rent.

And on top of all that you should pay more just because you have a car ?
Rents are through the roof and totally hyped up as we are paying 5 figures for rubbish. More money for the brokers then.

So it would be an excellent idea to squeeze more rent out, eh ?

See the flip side, you have a house and no parking space.

Its like Hey you have land and a house and pay tax for that. You can own a car, pay more tax and run it on the road. But you can't park it any place



Gives a whole new meaning to being "fair"

You pay for the car - To the manufacturer
You pay municipal taxes - to cover for the services you get.
You pay road taxes - to pay for the upkeep of the roads. Not to use it for parking.

Where did free usage of roads for private parking come to picture?

Well I pay taxes too, so does that give me a right to pitch a tent on public property? I can promise my tent will take the same space as a car . Sorry paying taxes are a pretty lame excuse to hogging public roads for parking.The reasoning and logic is no different from squatters on public property. Even they claim to pay taxes (indirect taxes that is).

Rents are through the roof, because it is demand and supply dictating the prices. If you cannot afford the rent, either move out or find somewhere else. Don't push your problem to the streets..

In short if you build you house without provisioning for parking, you should be prepared for life a life without car. The message should have been simple.

The problem is that people want the salary/income of big cities, without willing to pay costs of big cities (including high priced accommodation and parking).

It is high time we start wielding the stick. Almost all major cities are introducing some form of restrictions on car ownership. Cities like Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong allow limited number of registrations per year and cost of registration is 3 times the cost of car. While other cities like London are going the stiff congestion tax route. It is time Indian Govt. does this too.

[jp1]

Originally Posted by aby

You pay for the car - To the manufacturer
You pay municipal taxes - to cover for the services you get.
You pay road taxes - to pay for the upkeep of the roads. Not to use it for parking.

Where did free usage of roads for private parking come to picture?

Well I pay taxes too, so does that give me a right to pitch a tent on public property? I can promise my tent will take the same space as a car . Sorry paying taxes are a pretty lame excuse to hogging public roads for parking.The reasoning and logic is no different from squatters on public property. Even they claim to pay taxes (indirect taxes that is).

Rents are through the roof, because it is demand and supply dictating the prices. If you cannot afford the rent, either move out or find somewhere else. Don't push your problem to the streets..

In short if you build you house without provisioning for parking, you should be prepared for life a life without car. The message should have been simple.

The problem is that people want the salary/income of big cities, without willing to pay costs of big cities (including high priced accommodation and parking).

It is high time we start wielding the stick. Almost all major cities are introducing some form of restrictions on car ownership. Cities like Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong allow limited number of registrations per year and cost of registration is 3 times the cost of car. While other cities like London are going the stiff congestion tax route. It is time Indian Govt. does this too.

+1 to that.

[speedmiester]

Originally Posted by aby

You pay for the car - To the manufacturer
You pay municipal taxes - to cover for the services you get.
You pay road taxes - to pay for the upkeep of the roads. Not to use it for parking.

Where did free usage of roads for private parking come to picture?

Well I pay taxes too, so does that give me a right to pitch a tent on public property? I can promise my tent will take the same space as a car . Sorry paying taxes are a pretty lame excuse to hogging public roads for parking.The reasoning and logic is no different from squatters on public property. Even they claim to pay taxes (indirect taxes that is).

Rents are through the roof, because it is demand and supply dictating the prices. If you cannot afford the rent, either move out or find somewhere else. Don't push your problem to the streets..

In short if you build you house without provisioning for parking, you should be prepared for life a life without car. The message should have been simple.

The problem is that people want the salary/income of big cities, without willing to pay costs of big cities (including high priced accommodation and parking).

It is high time we start wielding the stick. Almost all major cities are introducing some form of restrictions on car ownership. Cities like Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong allow limited number of registrations per year and cost of registration is 3 times the cost of car. While other cities like London are going the stiff congestion tax route. It is time Indian Govt. does this too.

I would like to ask you these questions here?

Have you never parked on the side of the road? if yes, then even you are contributing to the problem.

How many people despite having a parking space park their cars on the road during the day?

All I am saying here is it is a hammer fisted and illogical approach to a problem which could otherwise be solved by a more practical means of improving infrastructure and public transport.

Well I do agree that other govt have introduced restrictions on car ownership, they have added extra taxes and congestion charges to discourage people from using the cars in peak hours, but never have they banned people from buying cars for the reason of parking.
This is where the Mizoram govt is wrong. There is whole lot of difference between banning people from buying cars and discouraging people from using cars.

I believe I have made my point and will refrain from making anymore comments on this topic as there is no point in taking this discussion any further.
Only when one is directly affected by such laws will people speak against it, else everyone is for the law.

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

Originally Posted by speedmiester

Have you never parked on the side of the road? if yes, then even you are contributing to the problem.

Yes; but that is because places I visit do not provide for car parking.

I hate having to park on the open road. I hate people who parking on the open road. (Even in placed where parking is allowed).

How many people despite having a parking space park their cars on the road during the day?

Not me.

I have to reverse the car for 25 meters if I get into my parking place. I do not care.

All I am saying here is it is a hammer fisted and illogical approach to a problem which could otherwise be solved by a more practical means of improving infrastructure and public transport.

Sorry.

A bit like saying that a good medical insurance policy is the perfect substiute for good hospitals.

Well I do agree that other govt have introduced restrictions on car ownership, they have added extra taxes and congestion charges to discourage people from using the cars in peak hours, but never have they banned people from buying cars for the reason of parking.
This is where the Mizoram govt is wrong. There is whole lot of difference between banning people from buying cars and discouraging people from using cars.

You have a valid point, but when "encouragement" or rather, discouragement does now work, you need to use the stick.

Only when one is directly affected by such laws will people speak against it, else everyone is for the law.

Depends on your pov.

I never protest when the law says that I cannot kill somebody I want to.

[sae90]

Some points

1. If we enforce such a rule, where does one park his car when he goes to some place which is neither his home nor his office? At the non-no-parking areas right? Does this rule help reduce the congestion there OR should people buy a "parking spot"/"home with parking lot" everyplace they are likely to visit? Enforcing this is likely to force a further jump in rental and real estate prices. Is that desirable?

2. When one parks near his home on the road, it is typically overnight. Do we have traffic congestions during the night? If someone parks on road side round the clock, he most likely commutes by public transport, which means he adds to a little congestion in the residential area but compensates for it in the main transport routes.

3. Is congestion in the residential areas a problem to be dealt with or is it the commercial areas, which is the bigger problem?

4. Restricting people with parking area to buy cars, constricts the car sales. It also reduces the road tax revenue. For a govt policy maker, does it make sense to slow down the vehicle purchases (restrict to people with parking lot), live with lesser road tax revenue and hope everything is solved? Or should the govt policy maker follow an approach that does not disturb the vehicle sales, standard of living of people (afford a car without parking space) but instead levy extra tax, parking fee etc and spend it on building parking complexes in commercial areas, expanding the city limits etc?

Public roads are meant for public use. Public roads are not meant for *private* parking. Parking overnight or round the clock is being viewed as private parking, which seems to lead to this heated discussion.

Hats off to all those who have claimed that they have a parking lot and yet they objected to such a law. Some argued for their street's public road as though it were their property. While some spoke on others behalf and looked from their point of view. What a contrast! Long live the team-bhp spirit.

PS: My first team-bhp post!

[prateek99]

Originally Posted by Aroy

If sufficient parking space is created within the residence and acquisition limited to available parking space we would all benefit.

+1 Aroy.

Sadly, not everyone is ready to shell out extra parking cost. People are comfortable parking on the road.

There is this newly built society close to my house where the builder has chained parking slots preventing residents from parking their vehicles.

Builder wants residents to shell extra parking cost which they are not ready to.

Originally Posted by gostel

In Mumbai most old buildings are without parking spaces

Why do you think this happened? ZERO vision of our capable law makers.

Mizoram is expected to see 54.9% urbanization by 2016 and 68.6% urbanization by 2026 from 49.6% in 2001.

Picture for yourself.

[Zero Cool]

I think with rapid urbanization of our country increase in urban population and traffic this is a welcome idea. it is a pain in the neck to drive through congested colonies and other areas of the city where people park their cars on the roads. With metro and AC buses running in Delhi people with limited parking space should seriously limit their cars. Not only is it good for our roads but also for the safety of our beloved cars.

[aby]

Originally Posted by sae90

Some points

1. If we enforce such a rule, where does one park his car when he goes to some place which is neither his home nor his office? At the non-no-parking areas right? Does this rule help reduce the congestion there OR should people buy a "parking spot"/"home with parking lot" everyplace they are likely to visit? Enforcing this is likely to force a further jump in rental and real estate prices. Is that desirable?

Some very good points for a great debate. Here are my counter arguments. In most countries there are public parking places (paid of course) around most commercial areas. These areas provide for parking place for a limited amount of time for a reasonable fee. Collections from these spots are a good source of income for the local councils. So when I am taking my car to a commercial area, I would expect to pay for these spots.

Now contrast the situation with Bangalore (And many other Indian cities). Parking space near commercial areas are free. Which means that people invariably occupy it for a whole day creating a mess. Take Jayanagar shopping complex for example. Half the cars are parked for whole day. Now if limitations on parking was strictly enforced (say 4 hours maximum) you would see a whole lot of free space and a lot less congestion.

2. When one parks near his home on the road, it is typically overnight. Do we have traffic congestions during the night? If someone parks on road side round the clock, he most likely commutes by public transport, which means he adds to a little congestion in the residential area but compensates for it in the main transport routes.
3. Is congestion in the residential areas a problem to be dealt with or is it the commercial areas, which is the bigger problem?

Both are very valid arguments. But IMO one doesn't have right to occupy public property which people without parking invariably do.

Mizoram Govt. feels that they need to restrict the number of vehicles on the roads to improve traffic. Isn't this similar to what other countries are doing (Singapore, Shanghai etc.) Where they allow only limited number of new cars on road each year by auctioning off registrations.

Should rest of the country be moving towards restricting ownership of cars. In most of the country the answer is a strong no. However in congested cities in India, I think the answer is a definite yes.

Is linking parking with ownership the only way? Possibly not. I am sure there are other ways, but IMO this is something which is least discriminatory, as it doesn't reward people who take advantage of public property (parking)

4. Restricting people with parking area to buy cars, constricts the car sales. It also reduces the road tax revenue. For a govt policy maker, does it make sense to slow down the vehicle purchases (restrict to people with parking lot), live with lesser road tax revenue and hope everything is solved? Or should the govt policy maker follow an approach that does not disturb the vehicle sales, standard of living of people (afford a car without parking space) but instead levy extra tax, parking fee etc and spend it on building parking complexes in commercial areas, expanding the city limits etc?

Actually private non-commercial vehicles contribute a very small portion of road taxes. Major chunk comes from commercial vehicles. Yet private non-commercial vehicles contribute a lot to the chaos on roads, as they are the ones likely to contribute to peak hour traffic. Secondly the restrictions as proposed by Mizoram will only affect a small section of population in Aizawl (Who don't own parking). In short the loss in revenue will very likely to be minimal, but the resultant traffic improvement would be significant. You can say the same in other cities too.

Finally: a request to Mods. Is it possible to add a poll to see how T-BHP members feel on the topic.

My choice of three options
1) Number of Cars sold should be restricted and linking registration to a proven availability of parking could work
2) Number of Cars sold should be restricted but this is not a viable solution
3) This law is not needed. Traffic in cities can be controlled by other means.

[phamilyman]

I love this.

All those who dont have parking and yet want to buy cars, should pay for the parking space as well, or pay rent to their neighbors whose houses front space they will end up using.


but it fails say in mumbai - no one however rich in southmumbai will not have new parking but panvel, nerul, koparkhairne will only buy cars - which is unfair. because in reality the real constraint are the roads. Thus there should be congestion tax as done by london.

want to drive into south mumbai? pay 50 rs - the road is a congested resource - given mumbai property prices, its important to charge for it, and see the congestion disappear.

overall a good move, albeit surely with zero will to enforce. Good to see the government is thinking

/who has lived in a corner house where 5 cars parked outside, and only one belonged to us and suffered harassment from the other car owner-goons as well.

[BaCkSeAtDrIVeR]

I slept over this issue for some time, and I now feel that I am partly mistaken in my earlier views.

The government should not bother where I park my car, as long as it is not on the public road.

And no - not over overnight parking - it is not about causing jams. It is about being able to drive freely and unhindered.

There is a thread by a member somewhere here, about his difficulties with people of his layout parking in a way blocking his family from easily taking the cars in and out.

[phamilyman]

ok, so my question - There is a private colony where one 100sqm plot has 5 cars, and the 250 sqm plot has 1 car - the 250 sqm owner has to fight everyday with the other owners for parking his car in front of HIS house and deal with hassles like occasionally flat tyres.

Nobody should care about it, right?

[freshseasons]

Unlike vehicles which command almost a same price tag,owning a parking space can be so flexible and costly. 2 People after this decision there cannot almost gurantee same costing for owning a vehicle.
Because parking space will add to the cost escalation in owning a vehicle.
But i trust people will find loop holes.Like purchase a space far off the town cheapest for the sake of papers and then park road ways , tucking their vehicle here and there.
Not unless it illegal absolutely to park the vehicle on road this rule doest spell much sense.