Cities around the world that are reducing car access

Sam Russell

Peregrine wrote: »

Not with that attitude. Authorities have the biggest trump card possible: public health. It trumps parking every day of the week. We don't live in normal times. We've shut down most businesses and you can be fined for being caught on a non-essential journey. All in the name of public health with little resistance. These are things that would have resulted in a revolution three months ago. Removing one lane for public health isn't what's going to cause uproar.

We're not the only city that's been prioritising motor traffic. Half of the cities that took radical temporary measures are American cities with worse car dominance than us.

City centre roads and parking spaces are empty because most people who use them don't live anywhere near them. DCC could easily make changes now without motorists even noticing, let alone give out.

DCC could reduce on street parking by say 10% to 20% by removing some parking spaces throughout the city. Then gradually continue the reduction each year, while enforcing parking rules. As t gets harder to find parking, commuters will start parking further out and using PT.

They should also close the multi story car parks, or buy them out.

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

DCC could reduce on street parking by say 10% to 20% by removing some parking spaces throughout the city. Then gradually continue the reduction each year, while enforcing parking rules. As t gets harder to find parking, commuters will start parking further out and using PT.

They should also close the multi story car parks, or buy them out.

If you had to park legally in this city alot of journey would soon become quicker to walk to cycle. People drive because they move their illegally parked car from the footpath outside their house and then illegally park outside a shop. No other mode can compete with that

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

DCC could reduce on street parking by say 10% to 20% by removing some parking spaces throughout the city. Then gradually continue the reduction each year, while enforcing parking rules. As t gets harder to find parking, commuters will start parking further out and using PT.

They should also close the multi story car parks, or buy them out.

That’s all well and good, but the issue with that is how does DCC replace the parking revenue stream. That’s a significant element of their annual budget.

There has to be some sort of move by central government to reform local government funding to replace it. And I haven’t seen that being proposed as yet.

We need a coherent strategy to implement anything like this. Simply saying the council should close off revenue streams without suggesting how they should be replaced is just going to solve one problem but create another massive headache.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

That’s all well and good, but the issue with that is how does DCC replace the parking revenue stream. That’s a significant element of their annual budget.

There has to be some sort of move by central government to reform local government funding to replace it. And I haven’t seen that being proposed as yet.

Well, they could decide not to reduce LPT by 15% if they need a few bob more.

We need a coherent strategy to implement anything like this. Simply saying the council should close off revenue streams without suggesting how they should be replaced is just going to solve one problem but create another massive headache.

I am not suggesting that they eradicate all parking, but they could reduce parking on one side of a street, or the number of places - particularly those close to junctions. Reducing parking spaces by 10% does not reduce revenue by 10%.

They could be more radical in how they enforce current rules re cycle lane obstruction and bus lane incursions. (I assume they get the fines). Extend the resident parking zones, and sort out those untaxed cars parked illegally on the pavement.

Perhaps re-introduce traffic wardens. They would pay for themselves quite quickly while speeding the flow of traffic.

LeinsterDub

LXFlyer wrote: »

That’s all well and good, but the issue with that is how does DCC replace the parking revenue stream. That’s a significant element of their annual budget.

Clamping? Only half joking

Thelonious Monk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Perhaps re-introduce traffic wardens. They would pay for themselves quite quickly while speeding the flow of traffic.

Are there such thing as parking wardens like they have in London here?
On my street in Brixton if you tried any of the carry on that happens in Dublin estates, like parking your whole car up on the footpath where there are double lines, you'd be issued a fine.
Just in my own area right now there are dozens of illegally parked cars, especially near the dart station. They could easily make a fortune out of it.

LeinsterDub

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Are there such thing as parking wardens like they have in London here?
On my street in Brixton if you tried any of the carry on that happens in Dublin estates, like parking your whole car up on the footpath where there are double lines, you'd be issued a fine.
Just in my own area right now there are dozens of illegally parked cars, especially near the dart station. They could easily make a fortune out of it.

No DCC contracted the enforcement out to DSPS
(https://dsps.ie/) and tasked them with revenue protection which they've taken to the extreme. I've seen cases where they'll clamp someone or issue a fine for an expired parking ticket while a car is literally blocking the entire footpath beside it.

Thelonious Monk

Am I imagining things or were there wardens in Dublin in brown uniforms when I were a lad?

LeinsterDub

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Am I imagining things or were there wardens in Dublin in brown uniforms when I were a lad?

There was. In fact you could still see the old auld man in a brown uniforms around Dublin up to about 15 year ago

Curb Your Enthusiasm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No DCC contracted the enforcement out to DSPS
(https://dsps.ie/) and tasked them with revenue protection which they've taken to the extreme. I've seen cases where they'll clamp someone or issue a fine for an expired parking ticket while a car is literally blocking the entire footpath beside it.

Would surely be cheaper and more cost beneficial to do it themselves? As in they'd keep all revenue. They'd make the hiring costs back in no time with proper enforcement of footpath parking, cycle lane enforcement etc. Not just expired discs.

I know Cork City Council use their own wardens, but since the boundary extension there was no new ones hired. There's something stupid like a total of 14 wardens covering the whole city.

LeinsterDub

Curb Your Enthusiasm wrote: »

Would surely be cheaper and more cost beneficial to do it themselves? As in they'd keep all revenue. They'd make the hiring costs back in no time with proper enforcement of footpath parking, cycle lane enforcement etc. Not just expired discs.

I know Cork City Council use their own wardens, but since the boundary extension there was no new ones hired. There's something stupid like a total of 14 wardens covering the whole city.

You'd think that with a lot of things that we've privatised. Worse service for more money

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Cork Chamber backing calls from Cork campaign groups and residents to improve the city centre.

City Council sitting on their hands while other cities act.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cork-Chamber-Pedestrian-Marina-and-ban-Heavy-Goods-Vehicles-from-city-centre-36b85891-b433-42cf-b7c7-755edcc185c2-ds

Thelonious Monk

Taking parking off Capel St and South William St would be an easy win, it's ridiculous people are allowed park there in the first place with such tiny footpaths.

cgcsb

There should be loading areas on caple st but there's no need for parking from one end all the way to the other. Capel street also badly needs a contra flow cycle lane. South William St is like a comedy sketch, parking both sides of a wide carriageway and pedestrian walking sideways like crabs on the little space that's left, zero chance of wheelchair access or even pram access.

Thelonious Monk

cgcsb wrote: »

There should be loading areas on caple st but there's no need for parking from one end all the way to the other. Capel street also badly needs a contra flow cycle lane. South William St is like a comedy sketch, parking both sides of a wide carriageway and pedestrian walking sideways like crabs on the little space that's left, zero chance of wheelchair access or even pram access.

Why on Earth don't they just get rid of the parking on these streets? It's baffling. The city council really are useless, so many easy wins available and they just ignore them.

LXFlyer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why on Earth don't they just get rid of the parking on these streets? It's baffling. The city council really are useless, so many easy wins available and they just ignore them.

As I posted above - on street parking is a major revenue stream for them and forms a major part of their annual budget.

They’ve always been reluctant to reduce it.

Thelonious Monk

In that case I can't see how it'll ever change for the better

LXFlyer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

In that case I can't see how it'll ever change for the better

Well that’s where some alternative funding streams are needed.

I don’t have the magic solution. But something will have to give.

Someone mentioned increasing rates of LPT, but that’s penalising local residents rather than those driving into the city to park.

donvito99

If there was nowhere to park in the City then you'd just have thru traffic, so you could position a reduction in on street parking as a reduction congestion and a reduction in the cost of congestion (approx €350m at the moment rising to €2bn by 2033 for the GDA as a whole).

CatInABox

I think people are going to use on street parking no matter the price, so they could remove X amount of spaces, and increase the cost of parking by Y, so that it's revenue neutral. That'd be a great start, to be honest.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

Well that’s where some alternative funding streams are needed.

I don’t have the magic solution. But something will have to give.

Someone mentioned increasing rates of LPT, but that’s penalising local residents rather than those driving into the city to park.

It was not an increase in the LPT rate, but a removal of the 15% allowed reduction in the rate. Some of Dublin's LPT is redistributed to other councils, but it is the full rate that is used for redistribution, not the reduced amount.

A congestion charge is another possible solution - say at the canals.

However, proper enforcement of parking on pavements, driving in bus lanes and cycle lanes, etc. would be a good start. Raise the FCP for infringements.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

It was not an increase in the LPT rate, but a removal of the 15% allowed reduction in the rate. Some of Dublin's LPT is redistributed to other councils, but it is the full rate that is used for redistribution, not the reduced amount.

A congestion charge is another possible solution - say at the canals.

However, proper enforcement of parking on pavements, driving in bus lanes and cycle lanes, etc. would be a good start. Raise the FCP for infringements.

Again though with your first point you are penalising local residents rather than those driving into the city, thereby antagonising the locals. Not very politically savvy.

I’m merely making the point that (like the notion of implementing the 90 minute integrated travel on buses and trains without regard to company finances) there are costs to this in terms of revenue foregone and it has to be done in an organised manner so that the Council isn’t left short.

People are far too fond saying this kind of thing can be done immediately without thinking of the side effects.

I doubt we will see a congestion charge anytime soon - that’s too radical without having mass transit alternatives in place..

With most of these schemes you need to bring people with you rather than antagonising them.

Increasing existing parking charges and penalties while removing spaces is probably the way to go.

But the key is to do it in a revenue neutral manner.

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It was not an increase in the LPT rate, but a removal of the 15% allowed reduction in the rate. Some of Dublin's LPT is redistributed to other councils, but it is the full rate that is used for redistribution, not the reduced amount.

A congestion charge is another possible solution - say at the canals.

However, proper enforcement of parking on pavements, driving in bus lanes and cycle lanes, etc. would be a good start. Raise the FCP for infringements.

This. I've had people brag to me about how it's cheaper to just park in a cycle lane as they rarely get caught, and if they do, sure it's only 40 quid.

It should be 120 at least IMO, and an immediate tow-away to the outskirts of the city. And penalty points if caught by Gardai.

It's just accepted nowadays with no real enforcement.

Peregrine

Parking charges bring in €35m per year and cost around €15m to maintain. DCC councillors decided to cut the LPT by 15% against all advice which is equivalent to around €12m to the council and a tax cut of just €5-8 per household per month for most houses. I think the LPT is a flawed system but that was very unwise. Meanwhile, parking fees were only increased for the first time in 11 years a few months ago and there's millions to be gotten from enforcement.

DCC's total income is almost €1bn per year (including rates).

Even a 50% reduction in parking income based on current fees (which would transform the city) can be made up elsewhere if the will was there.

Sam Russell

The key to this is the reduction of legal parking places with increased enforcement, plus an increase in parking charges and penalties.

It could also include the use of cameras to enforce buslanes and Motor Tax compliance.

Property tax is another matter, but it was imprudent (but populist) for the City Council to reduce the LPT by 15%. It would be better to adjust the rates for some businesses in the city centre.

LeinsterDub

LXFlyer wrote: »

Well that’s where some alternative funding streams are needed.

I don’t have the magic solution. But something will have to give.

Someone mentioned increasing rates of LPT, but that’s penalising local residents rather than those driving into the city to park.

LAs are chronically underfunded. Central government needs to fund them properly but they won't because there's no votes in saying I funded the person to who fix the potholes by filling out a simple form instead of calling me.

MJohnston

Peregrine wrote: »

Parking charges bring in €35m per year and cost around €15m to maintain.

I think we can dig in a little bit more to this. Here's a great Dublin Inquirer visualisation of the DCC 2018 budget - a bit old but not too far off:
https://d1trxack2ykyus.cloudfront.net/projects/dcc_budget_2018/index.html

From this, we can see that upwards of €40m is spent annually by DCC on road maintenance and traffic management. There are other, smaller expenditures in there too, but those are the biggies.

We can obviously never really calculate this with any great accuracy, but I think it's worth asking the question - how much of that €40m would not need to be spent if there was a drastic reduction of traffic in the city centre? I think a significant amount.

So if parking charges bring in net revenue of about €20m, then it might be the case that the true shortfall from removing all of that parking may not be anything like €35m, or even €20m.

Definitely agree with the point about the idiocy of applying the 15% reduction to LPT. I'm a SocDems member and thankfully they were pretty much universally against it. It was largely a FF/FG decision, with backup from SF, Indies, and a couple of misguided PBP folks:
https://www.counciltracker.ie/motions/869e1328

I would have to hope that whoever wields influence over the next coalition realises that central government needs to provide more direct funding to LAs if we are to succeed at de-motorising our cities.

LeinsterDub

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0424/1134526-parking-charges/

Of the 31 local authorities across Ireland, 13 have suspended the enforcement of parking charges

And another BS reason falls by the wayside

Sam Russell

Suspending parking charges is OK if they continue to enforce illegal parking. They perhaps should reduce the number of legal parking while they are at it for when this current emergency is over..

It is those who park illegally that cause the problems. Parking in cycle lanes and on pavements should always be enforced, as should cars travelling in bus lanes.

It is always difficult to come up with universal rules because there are always cases that are cited as valid exceptions.

AndrewJRenko

Curb Your Enthusiasm wrote: »

This. I've had people brag to me about how it's cheaper to just park in a cycle lane as they rarely get caught, and if they do, sure it's only 40 quid.

It should be 120 at least IMO, and an immediate tow-away to the outskirts of the city. And penalty points if caught by Gardai.

It's just accepted nowadays with no real enforcement.

Penalty points would be the key to proper enforcement

Sam Russell wrote: »

Suspending parking charges is OK if they continue to enforce illegal parking. They perhaps should reduce the number of legal parking while they are at it for when this current emergency is over..

It is those who park illegally that cause the problems. Parking in cycle lanes and on pavements should always be enforced, as should cars travelling in bus lanes.

It is always difficult to come up with universal rules because there are always cases that are cited as valid exceptions.

In Dublin at least, the emphasis is on the reverse - on catching those who park without paying, rather than those who block cyclists, pedestrians or other traffic.