Idea for a grant to modify driveways to accommodate cars

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

We can effectively withdraw taxpayer support by banning parking on the street. It's then up to car owners to find somewhere to store their cars.

One possiblity is "in the front garden", if space permits. There's no obvious reason to pay people to adapt their front gardens; the whole point of this is that the taxpayer should stop subsidising storage for vehicles while they are not being used.

The obvious reason is that it would clear roads, leaving them for use as they were intended. You only have to pay the grant once and that's the road one or many cars clearer for many years. Or they can leave the car on the public road indefinitely as they have been doing as an ongoing cost(and disruption more to the point).

It doesn't have to cover the entire cost of works, could be a VAT exemption like the HRI was. That's not tax payers money as it hasn't gone to revenue yet.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's also the objection that the people most adversely affected by the on-street parking ban are those who don't have front gardens - they are going to have to pay possibly quite a lot to store their cars at what might be an inconvenient distance from their homes. If there's a case to be made for public money being spent to alleviate the plight of those disadvantaged by the change in policy regarding on-street parking, surely that money should be directed first of all towards this group?

Sort of whataboutery isn't it again? If there was a convenient and sensical way to help those without driveways, I'm sure many would be happy to hear it but obviously this is for people who would have room to store the vehicle.

Ush1

JustAThought wrote: »

some houses or streets, their aspect, walls and iorn fencing /streetscaping are considered of historic or architectural interest snd are protected.particularly georgian, edwardian etc which you find quite a lot of in the city centre - hemce the need for planning permission. An Taisce also keep a wry eye on these as do local preservation and special architectural interest groups.

Of course, it's obviously not suitable for all cases.

tigerboon

Without getting into the car ownership debate, planning for new developments should require parking for 2 cars per unit for the simple reason that's what most families have. If they don't have this, they are forced to park on the street. this blocks access for emergency services in a lot of estates. There's not much point in the regulations requiring fire retardant measures if the fire brigade can't get to the fire.

magicbastarder

as an aside, i mentioned earlier in the thread that i lived in phibsboro once. interestingly, the house i was in had a small front garden, but what makes it unusual is that the garden was not there until maybe four or five decades ago. the road was really wide, and the people living in the houses asked the corpo could they had some of it for front gardens, and the corpo agreed. if you dug down about eight inches in the front garden, you'd hit the hardcore of the old road bed.

there are other places in dublin where there are bizarre amounts of space given over to cars, with an obviously inefficient use of space available, e.g. griffith avenue extension:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.379329,-6.2727767,3a,75y,313.84h,85.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1st-j-hQxm1oy3PvBVQVQsBw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dt-j-hQxm1oy3PvBVQVQsBw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D343.7623%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

magicbastarder

tigerboon wrote: »

planning for new developments should require parking for 2 cars per unit for the simple reason that's what most families have.

induced demand, no?

Ush1

MJohnston wrote: »

Hold on a second - you're literally talking about creating a budget to pay people to have a driveway put in.

Not necessarily, many cases from what I can see is a modification to an existing driveway. It's also not "paying" people anything. There are many ways a grant can be leveraged, again the HRI being a good example. That wasn't "paying people" to do up their house.

MJohnston wrote: »

And you're complaining that we're spending money on public transport projects??

Where did I complain about spending money on public transport?

MJohnston wrote: »

This is a nutto thread, it's an idea that's completely going against the tides of where we're headed as a society, I'm out!

I think clearing public roads is a good thing in terms of where society is heading? As with most changes in public behaviour, a carrot and stick approach is required. This could be the carrot, double yellow lines the stick.

Peregrinus

Ush1 wrote: »

The obvious reason is that it would clear roads, leaving them for use as they were intended. You only have to pay the grant once and that's the road one or many cars clearer for many years. Or they can leave the car on the public road indefinitely as they have been doing as an ongoing cost(and disruption more to the point).

You're missing the point. Banning on-street parking will clear the roads anyway; you don't have to in addition pay money to people who have front gardens capable of being converted. They'll convert at their own expense if its cheaper than the alternative of paying for off-site parking.

Ush1 wrote: »

It doesn't have to cover the entire cost of works, could be a VAT exemption like the HRI was. That's not tax payers money as it hasn't gone to revenue yet.

Tax breaks are provided at taxpayer expense just as subsidies are. Different mechanism, but it all comes out in the wash.

Ush1 wrote: »

Sort of whataboutery isn't it again? If there was a convenient and sensical way to help those without driveways, I'm sure many would be happy to hear it but obviously this is for people who would have room to store the vehicle.

Who are, by definition, the people in less need of help. The people who have the really expensive problem are those who don't have a front garden capable of conversion.

If you're determined to compensate people for the loss of the taxpayer subvention they have enjoyed for free up to now, I think the first thing you would do is give them a tax deduction for amounts spent on paying for off-street parking. That would certainly come before a grant or tax deduction for front garden conversion.

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's not just a matter of historical or architectural interest. Any creation of a vehicular entrance on/off the street needs to be looked at - traffic engineers want to know how close it is to any junction, whether it creates a hazard, how it relates to or affects streetlamps, street trees or other street furniture, what the sight-lines are like, etc, etc.

This would not apply to many housing estates though.

Peregrinus

Ush1 wrote: »

This would not apply to many housing estates though.

Housing estate or not, in every case you need to examine each proposal separately. Even housing estates have junctions, street furniture and sight-lines.

In some areas you might approve a much higher proportion of garden conversions than in others, but each does require consideration on its own merits, and therefore all require planning permission.

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing the point. Banning on-street parking will clear the roads anyway; you don't have to in addition pay money to people who have front gardens capable of being converted. They'll convert at their own expense if its cheaper than the alternative of paying for off-site parking.

I never mentioned banning on street parking, which can obviously cause issues of it's own. This would be a more passive method of clearing roads.

Being realistic most housing estates are not going to outright ban parking on the roads, certainly not overnight without the local government offering alternative solutions. This is an alternative solution.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tax breaks are provided at taxpayer expense just as subsidies are. Different mechanism, but it all comes out in the wash.

It's a different argument, regardless this would be a drop in the ocean. If peoples only issues were cost I wouldn't be too worried. Again, look at the HRI.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Who are, by definition, the people in less need of help. The people who have the really expensive problem are those who don't have a front garden capable of conversion.

If you're determined to compensate people for the loss of the taxpayer subvention they have enjoyed for free up to now, I think the first thing you would do is give them a tax deduction for amounts spent on paying for off-street parking. That would certainly come before a grant or tax deduction for front garden conversion.

Why not do both? Again, it's whataboutery.

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Housing estate or not, in every case you need to examine each proposal separately. Even housing estates have junctions, street furniture and sight-lines.

In some areas you might approve a much higher proportion of garden conversions than in others, but each does require consideration on its own merits, and therefore all require planning permission.

Does changing grass to tarmac or paving require planning permission?

dazberry

Ush1 wrote: »

Does changing grass to tarmac or paving require planning permission?

If it's a change of use it requires PP, i.e. front garden to car parking.

D.

Ush1

dazberry wrote: »

If it's a change of use it requires PP, i.e. front garden to car parking.

D.

Thanks for that.

Interesting, I would have thought most people getting there driveways redone including any garden part would not have applied for planning permission. Certainly plenty around where I live have had the work done and I haven't seen any planning application signs up.

Peregrinus

Ush1 wrote: »

I never mentioned banning on street parking, which can obviously cause issues of it's own. This would be a more passive method of clearing roads.

It would just increase the taxpayer support for private motorists; instead of funding one storage option for them, you'd be funding two. This only make sense, if at all, as a mechanism for alleviating the impact of an on-street parking ban. There is no case at all for subsiding garden conversions as well as providing free storage on the street.

Ush1 wrote: »

Being realistic most housing estates are not going to outright ban parking on the roads, certainly not overnight without the local government offering alternative solutions. This is an alternative solution.

It's not the optimal alternative solution, for the reason already pointed out.

Ush1 wrote: »

It's a different argument, regardless this would be a drop in the ocean. If peoples only issues were cost I wouldn't be too worried. Again, look at the HRI.

There's a difference, though, from HRI. We want the country's housing stock improved, so there's a case for public support for improving houses. We don't want more private motoring - we'd like less - so there's a case against public support for storing private cars while they're not being used.

Ush1 wrote: »

Why not do both? Again, it's whataboutery.

Not whataboutery at all; if we care about the people adversely affected by an on-street parking ban, we presumably care about all the people affected.

And the reason not to do both is obvious; it costs more. If taxpayer subsidies for private motoring are a bad thing, then bigger taxpayer subsidies for private motoring are a worse thing.

But, if we are going to provide some taxpayer subsidy to ease the impact of this change of policy, then the fairest way is probably a subsidy for the provision of of public off-street parking in residential areas. This is fair, because it provides a similar benefit to everyone affected, whether they own a convertible front garden or not. You might offer a front garden conversion subsidy only to those who can't reasonably be expected to use neighbourhood parking, e.g. those with a mobility disability.

Peregrinus

Ush1 wrote: »

Does changing grass to tarmac or paving require planning permission?

Generally not. It's opening or widening a vehicle entrance that will require PP. Converting a one-car drive to a two-car drive will often require PP because, unless the garden is quite large, it means an existing entrance has to be widened.

Peregrinus

dazberry wrote: »

If it's a change of use it requires PP, i.e. front garden to car parking.

D.

From memory, parking a car in your garden is considered an aspect of garden use, so doesn't count as a change of use. The usual trigger for a PP requirement in this context is the need to create or widen the entrance.

You'll also need approval from the local authority, separately from PP, for the work needed to dish the footpath, or any other work that may need to be done outside your boundary, e.g. moving street furniture.

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

It would just increase the taxpayer support for private motorists; instead of funding one storage option for them, you'd be funding two. This only make sense, if at all, as a mechanism for alleviating the impact of an on-street parking ban. There is no case at all for subsiding garden conversions as well as providing free storage on the street.

You can coincide with double yellow lines and parking restrictions but this offers people a solution before those measures are in place. Carrot and stick.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not the optimal alternative solution, for the reason already pointed out.

There really is no "optimal" solution, because that's going to depend on your viewpoint. This is a solution where people can voluntarily opt in.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a difference, though, from HRI. We want the country's housing stock improved, so there's a case for public support for improving houses. We don't want more private motoring - we'd like less - so there's a case against public support for storing private cars while they're not being used.

We do want clearer roads though. This is a short term solution. We would like everyone on public transport or electric cars but these things won't happen overnight so you have interim solutions.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not whataboutery at all; if we care about the people adversely affected by an on-street parking ban, we presumably care about all the people affected.

It is whataboutery, you can start another thread if you would like to introduce a grant to subsidise people with no driveways parking.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And the reason not to do both is obvious; it costs more. If taxpayer subsidies for private motoring are a bad thing, then bigger taxpayer subsidies for private motoring are a worse thing.

But it's not subsidising private motoring, it's subsidising the clearing of public roads. As I said, you could introduce a date limit for when the car was purchased if there was a fear of induced demand.

I don't think it would cost much regardless compared to many other incentives.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, if we are going to provide some taxpayer subsidy to ease the impact of this change of policy, then the fairest way is probably a subsidy for the provision of of public off-street parking in residential areas. This is fair, because it provides a similar benefit to everyone affected, whether they own a convertible front garden or not. You might offer a front garden conversion subsidy only to those who can't reasonably be expected to use neighbourhood parking, e.g. those with a mobility disability.

Okay but it's not the grant I'm proposing, feel free to start another thread.

dazberry

Ush1 wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Interesting, I would have thought most people getting there driveways redone including any garden part would not have applied for planning permission. Certainly plenty around where I live have had the work done and I haven't seen any planning application signs up.

I've seen a few around my way with retention planning permissions - so they do get noticed. I had to get PP when we did ours. The planning conditions waffled on about DCC car usage policy not encouraging car usage and being close to a bend in the road (although there are other driveways nearer to the bend) but we got PP for it no problem. I guess some people get paid to write reports

Peregrinus

Nah, it's a subsidy that only goes to (a) private car owners who also own (b) convertible front gardens. Why single out these people? If there is to be a subsidy for storage of private cars to replace on-street parking, it should be available on equal terms to all car-owners (just like on-street parking is). That's obviously fair. Focussing the subsidy on the group who can most easily adapt to the ban is (a) unfair and (b) an inefficient use of taxpayer resources.

Zebra3

Is on street parking not illegal as it changes the use of the public road to a car park without planning permission?

(Thinking of the cul-de-sac I live on).

magicbastarder

many areas affected with this proposal would be under the paid parking scheme, yes?
i am curious as to how much change the proposed grant would bring about. because if you've paid parking outside your house for €40 a year, unless the grant was a 100% grant, most people would opt for the much cheaper on street parking option.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you've paid parking outside your house for €40 a year

btw, this itself is a considerable subsidy. being able to rent a space probably 2.5m x 5m of public space in areas of high land value, for €40 a year, is for nothing.
try renting a yard one hundred times that size (say 25mx50m) for €4000 a year near the city.

Zebra3

Is that what DCC charge for car parking spots some of which are basically in the city centre? €40 p.a.? :eek:

Ush1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nah, it's a subsidy that only goes to (a) private car owners who also own (b) convertible front gardens. Why single out these people? If there is to be a subsidy for storage of private cars to replace on-street parking, it should be available on equal terms to all car-owners (just like on-street parking is). That's obviously fair. Focussing the subsidy on the group who can most easily adapt to the ban is (a) unfair and (b) an inefficient use of taxpayer resources.

I'm singling them out because that's the specific issue I'm looking to address.

Ush1

magicbastarder wrote: »

many areas affected with this proposal would be under the paid parking scheme, yes?
i am curious as to how much change the proposed grant would bring about. because if you've paid parking outside your house for €40 a year, unless the grant was a 100% grant, most people would opt for the much cheaper on street parking option.

I can see how it could help those areas but from my experience I'm talking more housing estates where parking isn't paid for.

To be honest I think you're right though, my main concern would be a lack of take up but at least could say I tried.

magicbastarder

Zebra3 wrote: »

Is that what DCC charge for car parking spots some of which are basically in the city centre? €40 p.a.? :eek:

for residents parking; i was wrong, it's €50, or €80 for two years. the car has to be insured at an address where you want to park it.
residents in permit parking areas can also buy 24 hour general passes for €1.25 each, for the aforementioned 'i've a plumber coming round' scenario.

Thelonious Monk

tigerboon wrote: »

Without getting into the car ownership debate, planning for new developments should require parking for 2 cars per unit for the simple reason that's what most families have. If they don't have this, they are forced to park on the street. this blocks access for emergency services in a lot of estates. There's not much point in the regulations requiring fire retardant measures if the fire brigade can't get to the fire.

I don't actually know anyone with 2 cars, even those with kids, so it's not as normal as you may think. We are in a housing crisis and one of the things that has held back developments in the past is the requirement to have a parking space, never mind two.

Ush1

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't actually know anyone with 2 cars, even those with kids, so it's not as normal as you may think. We are in a housing crisis and one of the things that has held back developments in the past is the requirement to have a parking space, never mind two.

If you're in a suburb and both parents work, it's highly likely there will be two cars per household. Not even taking into account when kids grow older and get cars.

Thelonious Monk

Ush1 wrote: »

If you're in a suburb and both parents work, it's highly likely there will be two cars per household. Not even taking into account when kids grow older and get cars.

I live in a suburb, but most people I know don't drive to work, except those with trades. Both my parents worked and there was only ever one car.
I really think 2 cars per household is something we should be trying to move away from given how packed the streets are with cars already.

TheBoyConor

Vic_08 wrote: »

Unless an entire street was done at the same time with the road being double yellowed as well it will do no good, some will have driveways but the street will just fill up with other parked cars.

And even if you did do all that, the next problem you will have is speeding. Because cars parked either side of the road actually make for very effective passive traffic calming - they narrow the roadway and cause drivers to have to navigate their way through the street at a lower speed.

So you do all that, driveways and double yellows, no parking on street. Next thing cars are flying up and down unimpeded. Then you'll have residents bitching about speeding and wanting traffic calming and ramps and speed display signs. Then they might get ramps, then you have a whole other set of busybodies and cranky residents bitching about the noise of cars hitting the speed ramps and wanting them taken out.

The OPs proposition is absolutely brain dead thinking, and the traffic reason I have outlined above is only one of many reasons that it is a silly idea. It also flies in the face of any sort of sustainable transport policy as it facilitates the private car, and it is an attack on urban biodiversity as you'd be pulling up small green patches everywhere. Also would result in greater run-off entering sewers and, taken together, all these drive ways would exacerbate local flooding to some degree.

Very very bad idea and a very much outdated way of thinking. Probably belongs in the 1950s or 60s when car was king.