Cars left on streets

Our city streets are spoilt by the number of cars left for long periods of time on them.  Streets are for access to properties and they belong to us all.  They do NOT belong to the minority of citizens who own cars.

All car parking should be charged.

Why the contribution is important

Car parking on streets is dangerous in many ways:

  1. It reduces access along streets for emergency vehicles.
  2. It prevents buses getting to bus stops.
  3. Motorists looking for parking places take their eye off what is happening around them as they scour the streets looking for somewhere to leave their vehicle.
  4. Motorists reversing into parking places cause a hazard to other vehicles.
  5. Motorists manoeuvring into parking places cause a hazard to pedestrians who are trying to cross the road.
  6. Cars parked on the road reduce visibility for people trying to cross the road.
  7. Cyclists are pushed out into the road when passing cars left on the street because they need to avoid the door opening zone.
  8. Cars left on the street reduce visibility at road junctions for all road users.

Car parking on streets is a revenue stream for the Council: we all pay council tax based on the property we live in, but people who leave their car on the street are contributing nothing. If a house has a garage its value is increased and thus a higher band council tax might be relevant.  If vehicle owners wish to rent a section of public street on which to leave their vehicle then they should pay for it.  This could either be via an addition to their council tax or a separate payment. 

The benefits of this could be significant.  More people would be encouraged to take the bus, to walk, to cycle, to play in the street, to stop and chat in the street.  We would have a healthier, happier city.

The City Council needs to bite the bullet on this.

 

by PatriciaFort on September 08, 2016 at 10:16AM

Current Rating

4.71428571429
Average score : 4.7
Based on : 14 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Joseph September 08, 2016 at 11:11

    This has to be something the Council seriously investigate. It seems only fair that car owners are expected to contribute towards the parking spaces, which are only required through their choice to own a car.

    An overwhelming majority of Glasgow households own 0 cars and it is fundamentally unfair that they are expected to subsidise the extra road space required for parking (roads are funded from Council Tax; 'car tax'/vehicle excise duty does not fund local roads) .

    There would of course be initial resistance, presumably entirely from the car owning population, but it is only brave measures like these that could truly cause long term behavioural change that will benefit the whole city.
  • Posted by Moneysaver September 08, 2016 at 12:00

    I totally disagree. Car owners have rights and it makes no difference to anyone if a space is occupied or not. The safety argument is specious and is simply being used to oppress motorists.
    A competent motorist should be able to navigate.
  • Posted by Joseph September 08, 2016 at 13:49

    @MoneySaver: "it makes no difference to anyone if a space is occupied or not. ".

    The original post contains several reasons it makes a difference. Simply calling them specious does not make them untrue. Parked cars do cause safety issues in many parts of the city.

    The suggestion that motorists should more directly pay for the extra costs associated with their choice to own a car is not oppression. Roads are built and maintained wider than is necessary for traffic flow so that there is room for cars to park (not to mention that parked cars often damage the kerb and pavement) - this all costs money.
  • Posted by Moneysaver September 09, 2016 at 12:53

    Motorists already pay through road tax, custom number plates and fuel duty. They make a major contribution to the economy. Cars are not a choice but an a vital necessity. Just look at a motorway with all the cars going on vital business and driving the economy.

    A motorist every time he gets in a car is taking a huge risk with life and limb by travelling at 70 mph.

    Parked cars actually make a place safer by acting as shields against any vehicle that happens to skid or wander of a road and that could hit people on the sidewalk.

    Cars tyres are made of rubber and the kerbs and pavements of very hard rock therefore it is more likely the car tyre is damaged by the kerb rather then vice versa as you state.

    In any case a vast amount of money is being spend in Shawlands by replacing perfectly good 3.5 inch wide kerbs with 10 inch wide white kerb slabs which narrow the side walk/road and are a trip hazard as the replacement tarmac which is supposed to be flush with the new big sidewalk is peeling of already.
  • Posted by Joseph September 10, 2016 at 07:31

    "Motorists already pay through road tax, custom number plates and fuel duty." - none of which contribute to the maintenance of local roads, which comes primarily from the Council's budget.

    "Cars are not a choice but an a vital necessity" - so how come over 50% of Glasgow Household's survive without a car?

    "Cars tyres are made of rubber and the kerbs and pavements of very hard rock" - please go and walk around a few pavements in the areas of the city where pavement parking is commonplace (despite it being illegal to drive on a pavement) and have a good look at the state of the pavements. The problem is not the tyre but the tonne of metal on top of it. You will see cracked kerbs, cracked flagstones, uneven surfaces, etc. Whilst not all the fault of cars, a large percentage is.
  • Posted by Moneysaver September 12, 2016 at 12:00

    "Motorists already pay through road tax, custom number plates and fuel duty." - none of which contribute to the maintenance of local roads, which comes primarily from the Council's budget.

    This is caused by the diversion of funds from their intended use and is a procedural matter which would allow such money to be spent on roads.

    "Cars are not a choice but an a vital necessity" - so how come over 50% of Glasgow Household's survive without a car?

    50% survive without a car because of poverty and being poor largely due to the rich screwing the less well off and siphoning of the money into offshore accounts and failing to work for an egalitarian society and wanting a return to Victorian values of serfdom with the rise of zero hour contracts.

    Everyone would have a car if they could afford it and public transport could be scrapped altogether.

     Public transport is very expensive, unreliable and the heavy trundling buses contribute to road wear & tear.
  • Posted by Moneysaver September 12, 2016 at 13:21

     - please go and walk around a few pavements in the areas of the city where pavement parking is commonplace (despite it being illegal to drive on a pavement) and have a good look at the state of the pavements. The problem is not the tyre but the tonne of metal on top of it. You will see cracked kerbs, cracked flagstones, uneven surfaces, etc.

    Pavement cracking is not caused by cars which weigh a ton as you state. The average weight of a person is 80 kilograms. Hence if 13 people stand next to each other they too would comprise a ton.

    Uneven surfaces & cracks are caused by heave, landslip & poor foundations.
    Blaming motorists for all these things is unfair and unjust.
  • Posted by Joseph September 13, 2016 at 10:03

    "Everyone would have a car if they could afford it and public transport could be scrapped altogether."

    Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence to backup this statement? It is clearly untrue that "Everyone would have a car if they could afford it". I know some very well off households that have no car.

    Your suggest to abolish all public transport also runs completely contrary to objectives like improving air quality and providing transport for less-able people, for example the elderly who are no long able to drive, or people too young to have a driving license.

    "The average weight of a person is 80 kilograms. Hence if 13 people stand next to each other they too would comprise a ton."

    Whilst that's true, it's not at all relevant. 13 people present 26 points of contact with the ground, so the pressure at any point is pretty low. A car presents 4 points of contact with the ground, so (best case) each point of contact is exerting 250kg on a small area, the worst case is significantly higher. Most certainly enough to crack paving slabs and kerbs.
  • Posted by Moneysaver September 19, 2016 at 11:45

    I have observed pavements with parked cars and they do not crack at all. It is more likely with heavy goods vehicles or maintenance trucks.

    In fact a well laid slab would be nearly impossible to crack if it was thick enough or the underlying foundation could not bend.

    Buses do not improve air quality as a bus ruins and uses nearly the same amount of fuel regardless if one person is on it or 80. A lot of buses go round and and round even empty.

    Elderly people should exercise more and stop being a burden on society and themselves.

    I know this elderly man who is 75 years old. He walks briskly. He does not carry a walking stick or sit on a mobility scooter all day while his muscles atrophy. He is fully Compos Mentis and very sharp even at 75.

    The reason people grow old and infirm mentally is because society promotes a media driven vision of Old = Automatically Infirm.

    This causes elderly people to give up and descend into sloth. This promotes hospital occupation and clogging beds.
  • Posted by GCCBudgetConversationAdmin September 30, 2016 at 11:42

    Thank you for your contribution.

    Would you want to see the city maximise its income from parking, or use controls to reduce traffic?

    Some cities have implemented congestion charging, low emissions zones or a levy on workplace parking – with income reinvested in local transport. Do you think any of those ideas would benefit Glasgow?
  • Posted by tollpatsch October 03, 2016 at 15:55

    @GCCBudgetConversationAdmin

    Yes - the workplace parking levy implemented in Nottingham was fairly widely regarded as a success.

    The congestion charging in London has been hailed positively too.

    Given the deadly (and illegal under EU law) levels of pollution in our city center streets, I think we need to seriously consider any option that will reduce single occupancy motor vehicle journeys, alongside a package of measures designed to enable and support active travel and public transport.
  • Posted by OwenDuffy October 03, 2016 at 16:10

    The arrogant and entitled attitude of some motorists is quite depressing, isn't it?

    Our family is car-free by choice, and we don't regret that decision. Glasgow isn't a huge city, and while some aspects of public transport provision leave a hell of a lot to be desired, it's far less hassle for us to use trains and buses than it would be to own and maintain a car.

    I think there needs to be a carrot-and-stick approach with the goal of reducing car ownership and encouraging those who continue to own cars to use them less. This could include removing free parking provisions and introducing measures such as congestion charging, but it would also have to look at the reasons that people continue to use cars and to provide viable alternatives - safe, segregated cycle routes; a coherent, comprehensive and reliable citywide bus service rather than a mish-mash of different operators, a subway system that serves to do more than ferry people from the west end to the city centre. Obviously the possibilities are limited by budget, but I think there should be a commitment to use all funds raised from car users to improve public transport and active travel provisions.
  • Posted by johnstonorr October 04, 2016 at 21:05

    Motorists do not pay "road tax" - it was abolished in 1937. Winston Churchill spoke in favour of abolition. What we pay is Vehicle Excise Duty - essentially a small tax on how much our cars pollute. Given the number of deaths attributable to air pollution in a Scotland, as a driver, it seems I'm not paying anywhere near enough. If I didn't have a car, I'd still be paying Council Tax for upkeep of roads I'd barely be using - so non-drivers are subsidising motorists massively. The original poster has a good point here. The city is for people, not cars. As a car owner, it's my responsibility to store mine in a way that doesn't marginalise or oppress my fellow citizens - hence it goes in the garage. I'm happy with the ideas expressed here in the proposal and fully support them.
  • Posted by Moneysaver October 10, 2016 at 11:54

    johnstonorr

    The city is for people, not cars.

    Without cars cities would not exist as it would take too long for a person to travel from one end to the other. You seem to be pushing for an agrarian society.

    Cars don't oppress people. People oppress people. You might be rich enough to have a garage. Most people don't and you should be compassionate and understanding.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas