Latest News
In this Issue
Most Popular on DTE Site
- Poison in disguise 1
- Health ministry sets timeframe for keeping animals treated with antibiotics out of food chain
- Chaos in the iron age 2
- It’s a demographic disaster
- Gujarat pollution board gets a makeover in efficiency 33
- Mirage of a river 1
- Auroville’s alternative galaxy
- Carbon dioxide crosses 400 ppm mark
- Activist lands in jail for protesting lack of health facilities in tribal district five years ago
- So much to give
- Environment ministry wants to restore night traffic through Bandipur tiger reserve 52
- A green facade 44
- Diesel: when bad policy makes for toxic hell 38
- Gujarat pollution board gets a makeover in efficiency 33
- What’s good insulation? 30
- How vulnerable are India's nuclear power plants to disaster 28
- Grand distraction called river interlinking 28
- Eat at your own risk 27
- Green energy takes toll on green cover 26
- Temporary solution, permanent jam 25
On Facebook
Good job bringing this to light. People won't realise how huge the problem is and municipalities are woefully ill equipped to...
Gerard de Souza
Agreed; mining can never be sustainable, but then how do you get the metals to make all the things you need in the course of...
Anonymous
Editor's Page
Parking that can’t be found
23 Comments
Issue Date: Aug 31, 2011
.jpg "Illustration: Vaibhav Raghunandan")
Illustration: Vaibhav RaghunandanKhan Market in boulevard Delhi is said to be the most expensive real estate in India, maybe even in the world. But in this richest shopping destination, buyers do not want to pay for parking their vehicles.
The shopkeepers’ association has taken the local city council to court, saying it has the right to free parking. In court, it ridiculed the connection between parking and car restraint—how can pricing of parking spaces bring down car usage in cities? The very idea was farfetched, said its lawyer to the judge. Standing in the court, I could see the judge was also bemused.
This is when Indian cities are desperately jostling for space for parking their growing fleet of personal cars. Just about every street is chock-a-block with cars, so much so that there is no space to walk and there are fights—even shootouts—over parking. This is also when Indian cities are adding huge numbers of vehicles every day on to roads, worsening pollution and congestion, and also adding pieces of hardware, which need to be parked. And this is when space is at a premium in cities and unavailable for most important needs, including housing for the poor.
A car’s requirement for space is not small. Just think: each vehicle we own and use needs to be parked at home, at office and then at shopping space or anywhere else we may need to go. Planners who think of car spaces, therefore, always assume three car spaces for each vehicle. On this basis, the current fleet of vehicles in Delhi already occupies nearly 10 per cent of the urbanised space. The daily registration of cars will need an additional 2.5 million sq m, which is equivalent to 310 international football fields.
Now in fact, the city municipal corporation is desperately looking for more land; it sees all parks in the city as potential parking spaces. It wants to rip them out, build parking lots underneath and turn the top into pretty green museums or shopping arcades. But where will the children play? This is what the statutory authority, of which I am a member, has asked. Nobody wants to answer.
So what does a city do in this situation where cars are growing but land is limited? Can the price of parking reduce car use? Can a parking policy, based on the principle of payment of user charges and no subsidy to the personal vehicle owner, control numbers of vehicles on roads?
First, look at the issue of parking spaces. Should a city provide for more space for parking or restrict parking spaces? In the case of Khan Market, for instance, shopkeepers have demanded free parking for not just their clients but also for their own cars. The court has not accepted the demand; it asked the association to pay the monthly parking rate to the city council. But it has reportedly directed the city to transfer land—currently green land—to construct a multilevel parking structure.
Is more parking the answer to parking crunch? Even if it is, why should the city provide subsidised land for parking vehicles and even subsidise its use? In multilevel parking structures the cost of an equivalent car unit is Rs 6-10 lakh. This does not reflect in parking charges, thanks to Indian-type socialism, where the rich are subsidised in the name of the poor. Using the convenient argument of the middle class burden, policy allows for some 25 per cent of the area for commercial use. It then subsidises each vehicle. But more land is now needed to park the vehicles for the commercialised space.
Demand keeps growing. Policy, therefore, should be to reduce space. Most cities use parking norms to drive this change: they ask developers of buildings to satisfy parking demand. Globally, cities are learning that there is just no way they can plan for parking all cars, so they are working to reduce parking spaces in congested areas, which, in turn, forces people not to drive. In India, cities do have parking norms in municipal byelaws but enforcement is poor and, more importantly, there is a belief that all cars—today’s and tomorrow’s—can be fitted. This will have to change.
One important driver of this change is pricing for parking. An ordinary car needs some 23 sq m to park. In prime locations this space would cost Rs 40,000 - Rs 50,000 per month to rent. But the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for instance, charges some Rs 10 for a day’s parking. Any talk of increasing this is met with the Khan Market-type resistance.
Some cities are, however, finding that if they can price right, then they can also do more that is right. New York’s high parking rates have led to lower car ownership; in Shenzhen an increase in parking fees reduced parking demand by 30 per cent. The list goes on. Needless to say, getting the parking price right will be a powerful incentive for changes in mobility patterns.
Another question is whether parking rates should be raised without adequate public transport—another argument of the Khan Market variety. This means the chicken-and-egg story continues. When is public transport convenient enough to start charging for parking? Or should we stop making connections where they don’t exist?
Tags: Transport, Editor's Page, Cars, Congestion, Delhi, India, Parking Policy, Parking Pricing, Public Transport, Subsidies, Sunita Narain, Transport, Urban Land Use, Urban Transport, Vehicular Pollution
O
P
E
N
DTE Must Read
I agree with your points on lack of parking space and need for a solution to this problem in delhi and other metros.however, India can not be compared with US or europe for the basic fact that quality of both nations is very different from what we have. A nation is formed by the group of people it has and their common living style. Our living style ,i.e. civic sense, is very poor which hinderes rmulation of good practices prevailent in developed countries. take for example,metro train service...how many times you are people like you might have travelled? just ask this question.I travelled a lot in metro trains in other countries includinga trams of small country like Tunisia;I travel in delhi as well in metro which always runs full and is nowdays seeing deterioration of quality,nevertheless,it is very difficult to travel I can say for sure. therefore it is notjust public transport but aso the quality and civic sense that is important. what you have proposed is end of pipe solution which in Indian condition is not easy implementable. I would rather ask you to have a look of all environmental clearances granted to buildings in recent past and seee how parking lots have been justified by the buildres.we do not have any provision in our bylawas for visitors who would be visiting the building for various purposes ,be in residential or commercial. Gurgaon and Ghaziabad are two satelite towns which are facing parking problems due to such omissions.list would be quite long if i go on wriitng. however,point i wanna make here is that we need to have several solution toools than just one and we also need to focus more on preventive soultions than end of pipe kind. Wstern countries have better planning aspect while we are almost nil in this area.
anand
While this is true, I think if public transport could be made more convenient and organised, it could be a bigger driver for people leaving their cars behind. The metro has been useful thus far, but the DTC buses still ply at irregular timings, I myself prefer taking a bus to work but there is no predictability as far as timings are concerned. You could be standing for an hour without a single bus that goes your way, and then suddenly you could see 4 buses of the same route jostling with each other to reach the stop. Cities like NY or even Mumbai where people take public transport, ensure that the buses ply on time. The bus numbers are painted on the bus stands, and route maps are clearly laid out for people new to the city. Couldn't we ensure these small things?
Antara Ray
Dear Editor,
This essentially draws attention of all citizens who have eyes and a bit of conscience. My suggestion and let this be a demand that car sizes must be controlled, ownership of cars must have to be controlled like flat and house ownership. And no one should be allowed to buy any vehicle without showing a space where it may be sheltered with consent letter of the owner of space. Selling vehicles thus improving the industry at the cost of public space is harming the civic life in every way disproportionately.
Best wishes,
Aju Mukhopadhyay
Anonymous
The Planning Commission run (amock) by World Bank interests needs to come to its senses. Can the World Bank interests be served with more and affordable PUBLIC TRANSPORT? Has India got its own priorities defined to alleviate the suffering of the common man? Are more cars and more parking spaces in the interest of a green world? do we believe that those policy makers sitting there are duds? They may for some time be able to hoodwink the public. But their days are numbered...AMEN
Vijay Chaudhari
I agree with every word in the article, except the last para that seems dismissive of first having good public transport in place. If we don't insist on this then we allow government to put the onus and burden on us, the public, instead of taking measures itself to provide decent and affordable public transport. The cities abroad that charge high prices for parking have an alternative the public can use.
sherna
I agree with your rhetorical question and its implied negative answer: "Is more parking the answer to parking crunch?"
A transportation engineer said "providing more parking and roads to ease out traffic woes is like loosening our belt to deal with obesity".
Sanjay Prakash
Need to regain public spaces for people:
Many European cities are adopting policies to make use of private vehicles "expensive and just plain miserable" enough to tilt drivers toward more environmentally friendly modes of transportation and making cities more inviting with less traffic.
Read on:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=1&part...
Anonymous
In an enormously skewed country like ours, for some unfathomable reason, the needs of the haves, always seem to supercede the needs of the have-nots. Increased parking costs will discourage car-usage, in a mileage-obsessed market like ours. Everybody calculates per kilometer running costs and parking costs will escalate it indirectly thus creating a city like London, where far too few people own/drive cars due to congestion charges. A line of things needs to be sorted: 1) corruption-free parking officials 2) more efficient public transport system 3) wider and/or larger road space, including more subways, highways 4)creative use of underground areas of urban landfills etc, if possible. Notwithstanding all these, I do urge that parking at shopping areas should be per hour and exhorbitant, so that husbands can have one more excuse to drag their wives back home, with lesser damage to their purse!!
Rex Joshua
"Parking" should correctly be seen as "taking the vehicle off the road". An immobile huge box should not sit on the road, particularly when it is more than 4x2x1.5 meters in size. This is because the road is central to civilization, just like the river was earlier the criteria to locate cities. The many functions of the road aid or govern our lives, depending on how good it flows. All utilities (power, water, gas), waste disposal and most communication are piped or moved through the road. The surface of the road is of course mainly used for surface transport; but only a fraction of that is motorized. Rest walk, cycle or cart along. Most important is that the Road determines our location! Whether we are at work or leisure, we are likely to be within 100 meters of the road. So, the problem with "parking" is that it is a transgression on our life-line-road, with no justification. People should keep their belongings with them, in their house or at workplace. If they are out shopping, then their box should be deposited at government designated places. The worst culprits are in Delhi, where the "gated colonies" steal public places, and build houses with no parking. Most readers of CSE would like to shout slogans or light a candle, and continue to park their cars on the road.
S. Mubashir
If the fleecing by autos and taxis can be stopped and the drivers of public transport buses would be more polite to the people then even the car owners won't mind taking public transports.
Anonymous
I think in all this are we questioning the quality of public transport, more people are taking to private vehicles because the local city transports have become overcrowded and has not kept pace with the growing poulation. For a city like Chennai which I think used to have good public transport system few years back, is in a bad shape- ramshackle buses, erratic timings, no proper information at the bus depot, rude crew behaviour and public who think that if they have bought a highly subsidised ticket of few rupees can assault other passengers with their mobile talks! And where each time government changes, it thinks that they can wave a magic wand and solve the public's transport worries by either having a metro (me too syndrome) or the current topic in Chennai on monorails. This city has experimented with the MRTS, but questionable how many passengers it actually caters to for the cost it was put up. If public transports are not made more convenient and people friendly, Chennai is going to see lot more new four and two wheelers who are going to be reluctant to use the metro or the monorail (whenever that is ready, all we know is that parks have been killed to make way for the metro.
If people abroad are using the public transport, it is not essentially that they are turning to it just because of high parking fees, it is because of the connectivity and convenience (granted even there during peak times it is crowded) if any city can promise even a quarter of that convenience, why would most common people use private vehicles?
Manjula
You have raised a very important issue which if not addressed immediately, can go out of hand. The story is not very different in my city, Pune. In fact, this issue is affecting every city in our country. Is there any reasonable solution to the problem? It may sound like communist ideology that 10% people can not be allowed to occupy 100% of the available road, leaving no room for pedestrians and cyclists. But then we can not go back to bullock-cart days either! I would think that most of the existing problems on city roads can be solved by two simple measures – (1) by developing efficient public transport system, and (2) by not allowing more than one car per family. There is no substitute for the first measure. However the second measure can be indirectly enforced by heavy road-tax, as done in London and some other cities all over the world. We need to act now, lest the damage will be irreversible within a decade.
Dr. N. N. Joshi
I am a research scholar in environmental sciences and as a part of Young Researchers School, I recently went to Tokyo and I must accept that they have wonderfully managed their transport system. No congestion and very less private vehicles on roads. I felt this was not only because of policies. Though some of their policies were highly commendable like; no car should be parked on road at night (and they strictly implement this) and high parking prices along with adequate public transport system and proper rights for pedestrians. But in addition to this I would also like to appreciate the discipline that public follows there.
Here we have problems on policy structure and implementation as well as the problem is there on our part. Another problem specifically in Delhi is the problem of show-off. Apart from being an issue of need, cars have become a prestige issue for many of us.
So I suggest that what we need in Delhi is not only policy reforms but we also need to reform our attitudes as well.
Richa Sharma
I guess making parking expensive will be helpful in managing the countless increasing number of vehicles on Delhi roads. Also we can learn from Tokyo's policy of not allowing parking on roads at night.
But I strongly feel that not only policy reforms are required in Delhi but there is also a need for public to become more disciplined and considerate about the plight of Delhi and its congested roads.
Also I would like to highlight the strong need for pedestrian rights and well managed public transport to discourage use of private vehicles.
And a humble request to Delhites, please buy cars for need and not for prestige!!
Richa Sharma
I support the concept of policy reforms in Delhi regarding the private vehicle parking. We can surely have higher parking prices as they have in European nations. We can also take lessons from Tokyo’s policy of no private vehicle parking on road at night. But apart from reforms in law and policies and their implementation strategies we also need to improve the conditions on our part as well. We as public should behave more disciplined and considerate for the plight of our city and its congested roads.
I would like to humbly request to all Delhites that please buy cars for need and not for prestige!!
Richa Sharma
The demand for parking spaces in prime areas raises issues of urban planning, urban aesthetics, market policies and public transport which remain ignored. All these are intricately linked to one another, a fact which remains ignored for long. There has to be a policy as to what kind of commercial activity should be allowed when any commercial area is built or promoted. When the commercial premise is let, there has to be forethought about how much crowd the commercial activity will attract, which socio-economic class will be attracted more often and what will be the parking requirement. This cannot be left ignored till after the commercial activity begins. Then it is something like building a carriage to suit the horse’s height. The issues of space constraint then create complex situations that we term as “problems”. What can be done in order to avoid these complexities? Then in order the accommodate and support the mess that is already created we scramble to set things right by introducing parking charges, by building ugly vertical parking places and if this does not work we blame citizens for using private vehicles. On the other hand, Indian as well as foreign auto manufacturers are encouraged to market their products in our cities. We contemplate the growing car sales and then we think of demand-supply models. We create a sense of achievement when markets are flooded with all such unnecessary wealth; while the true needs of the city go ignored. In a city like Pune where 48% percent of the population is struggling to survive and needs the best possible means of affordable and accessible transportation, the organization handling public bus service does not catch the eye of the government nor the elite. To those 48% people affordable, accessible, efficient and safe transport means assurance that they will be able to earn their daily bread. For the city it means progress as efficient transport will ensure that people will reach their work in time; safe transport means that the citizens will not be under stress of navigating through the chaos on roads and the chances of accidents will be reduced substantially; affordable transport for all will ease everyone of the monitory load for daily commute; accessibility will ensure reduction in hassle and in time, for reaching the daily bus. If we have to seek further growth we will have to free ourselves of our basic worries and it is the transportation sector that we have to focus on and change radically. We have to rethink our cities and take care not to repeat mistakes we have already made in city planning. Our cities virtually have no sense of aesthetics. Any new construction houses commercial businesses on the ground floor level. Where there could have been small gardens, green hedges and flowerbeds skirting the construction, we see ugly parking spaces. Where there could be communal spaces to allow people to gather, share, entertain and generally relieve their daily stress, we have the same ugly parking spaces. We are doing a lot of damage to our own worlds, our own cities by giving priority to wrong things.
Arundhati Vishwasrao
The shopkeepers association could propose that a parking structure be built ABOVE the Khan Market, from 4th floor to 10th floor, for parking, The geological feasibility has to be checked, and zoning laws may have to be altered, but it seems like the best solution. This is a common solution in Europe and in New York City, and it works.
Bhaswati B.
It is a great pity that CSE writes about the problem of too many cars, and so many other environmental issues, without connecting these issues to the fundamental problem of too many people. As long as the population keeps doubling every 30 years or so, and all these new people expect a modern energy-intensive life style, there can be no solution to the environmental issues. If the population issue is tackled first, the other issues might over time have solutions.
Dan
CSE doesn't write about too many people, because the issue of too many cars and environmental degradation has nothing to do with it.
In any typical Indian city, car ownership is in the range of 50 - 80 per 1000 people. Our cities are in dire trouble even with such low ownership levels. But is means that it is not the overall population that is the problem, but the small percentage of car-owning population that is the problem. Put another way, even if the population was a fourth of what it is now, IF car ownership levels kept rising, we would soon have the exact same problem.
Environmental degradation is not because of too many people, it's because of the wrong choices people make and the policies that enable/support/drive people to make those choices. If an overwhelming majority of people used public transport, cycled or walked and car usage was severely restricted (by charging more for parking and not having too much parking), even with our growth rates, we'd be fine.
Ranjit
This article about non-availability of parking space is full of facts. We face this problem daily in almost every city of India. I read somewhere that in Japan they have a rule that driving licence will be issued to a person only after the authorities have verified that the applicant has parking space in his house and in his office. I think in India we should follow the same rule. Moreover, no shopping complex should be allowed to be constructed without sufficient amount of parking space. These measures need to be augumented with a strong efficient public transport system. A better planning is required at all levels.
Rajneesh Anand
I agree with you Sunita ji. Parking pressure on land is a growing menace which if not controlled on an emergency basis, is going to assume monster proportions very soon. It is already destroying goodwill and friendly relations in our neighborhood. Parks, back-lanes, footpaths, in fact any space which we see is being quickly encroached upon to park cars. Heavy parking charges, reduction of parking spaces and very strict restriction of parking or 'waiting' on roads or market places is absolutely essential if we want to control this menace. But, the million dollar question is - who will pass these strict laws and enforce them?
Dr JB Ratti
just two points for consideration:
1. Given that cars are used by well-to-do folks, one suggestion to wean them away from using them would be to provide airconditioned luxury buses either on the charter bus model or pooled-car model with no standing passengers (or a limited number)to start off with.
2. the bus stops in Singapore is worth emulating. The bus numbers and the stops enroute are clearly printed on a board.Also, GPS activation on the buses ensure that they maintain a schedule.
Sanjay Parmar
Sunita Narain raised an important issue. In my opinion increasing the parking fee and frequency of traffic tickets for illegal parking would certainly control the number of cars and traffic situation in the city; improve over all environmen...t and quality of life.
This is one of many elements which can be included into the urban transportation policy design, and in my opinion, is an essential first step to improve the current situation.
Delhi has relatively young metro system and will take many more years to improve before it is convenient. There is no point to wait for increasing parking fees and traffic tickets. Situation may get worse.
The architects and transportation planners may have to design new streets and retrofit existing, keeping in mind pedestrians and people who use bicycles and motorbikes, as (I read other day) they are much more than who own cars in Delhi. As the open spaces and size of roads are limited and will even decrease further in future, a logical design will limit cars to only those areas where there is no public transport system or to designated paid parking locations only. (Of course emergency services like ambulances, fire trucks, police etc. need access to all areas).
If taking public transport system is the only option to reach from A to B and if it will not pinch people’s pockets, cars will become the second choice for people. Cars will become choice of only those who can afford, or have no choice, and at the same time do not mind walking long distances from parking areas. This will not only make the pedestrians healthy, but also the car owners. In addition to the parking fees, illegal parking traffic tickets, additional tolls for access to each zone or city centers would help funding for improvement of existing public transport system and urban transportation planning. Again people prefer cars against public transport system and walking, as it is currently stressful to take public transport system more than its social non-acceptance. We have made a terrible mistake in some areas; the urban planners and policy makers who made flyovers for vehicles, overhead and underground walkways for pedestrians have made the city ugly and an inhabitable place for most of its fellow citizens and themselves.
Social acceptance for public transport system will come with education and not with increase or decrease in citizen’s wealth. Education on pros and cons on various transportation systems, quality of life and environment at the education institutes/school will certainly help citizens to make responsible and correct decision in future. There are many more points one can add to my description above or disagree. I am putting forward one of many things one can do to reduce cars and improve quality of life.
I am happy that more and more citizens of Delhi thing logical and understand the apparent problem with growing number of cars in Delhi. More and more people and professional are responsibly taking actions and designing for future.
Frequency, reliability, safety, overcrowding and quality of public transports is not only the issue in Delhi but is now in every country and city in the western and eastern world. It is slowly improving and is something we anticipate to improve in near future.
Today in India cars are affordable and cheap(of course the parking is almost free), but I am happy and surprise to see changing attitude of educated professional, who prefer public transport system over cars. This is not about rich or poor. We should not wait for the public transport to become convenient and then take action about increasing the parking fee.
Sandeep
Post new comment