THW ban parking lots in megacities

Proposition

-PM

Introduction:

Side government believes that private vehicle use unquestionably produces vast pollution in megacities. Motor vehicles are the single largest contributor to air pollution emissions. We believe this not only lowers the efficiency of commuting but also lowers the quality of life of residence in the megacities.

To minimize such harms, we believe government must reduce the number of private cars in the megacities, hence, reduction of parking lots is the most effective way to solve the problem.

BOP:

The affirmative side’s burden is to prove that the significant problem in megacities will be best solved by the motion and passing the motion brings greater benefits to the residents in megacities.

Definition:

In this debate, we would like to define megacities as very large cities with more than 10 million residents, such as Seoul, Tokyo, Delhi and Beijing.

Parking lot include all private and public large area for parking motor vehicles, usually cars and motorcycles.

Policy:

This will accompany 3 layers of policies:

1. Government will improve current public transportation system by increasing the number of routes and public transportations. Also improving the services for minorities such as disabled and pregnant women.

2. We would ban the construction of new parking lots while requiring existing parking lots to be rezoned for other purposes, such as commercial or residential usage.

3. Temporary on-street parking or short-term loading zones will be allowed for commercial and freight activity where necessary.

Team split:

1. How significant is the problem in SQ?

2. Why is this motion the best way to solve the problem?

3. How this promote more efficient transportation and provide exclusive benefits to residence?

Let’s move on to our 1st argument.

1. How passing this motion solves the problem and why is this the best way?

We have two level of analysis:

1. How significant is the problem in the SQ?

2. Why parking lots promotes private vehicle ownership?

(Congestion and pollution)

Currently, the CO2 emissions from vehicles burning fuels account for most air pollution emissions in the world. It is also blamed for heavy smog and global warming.

Especially, megacities in developing countries suffer crippling traffic congestion under the status quo, often in part due to a lot of private motor vehicle use but also due to enormous population density. In Dhaka, Bangladesh a trip of 7km can take as long as an hour. Korea, for example, in 합정 or Gangnam station, it takes more than 30 minutes to pass by one station distance during the rush hours.

This is more problematic in newly rising megacities in developing countries, where rapid urban development take place with narrow streets and previously built building forests. These infrastructures barely accommodate large number of private vehicles which causes greater chaos on the streets.

(Health issues and decreasing quality of life.)

Aside from heavy pollution and congestion in megacities, it also causes tremendous health issues to the daily commuters and especially the residence in megacities. Aside from the smog and polluted air that people inhale every second, megacity residences complain of serious traffic noise and suffocating air pollution. The smog released by cars is also blamed for respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and skin diseases such as atopy.

We believe that such unpleasant environmental harm and massive congestion have lowered the quality of life of individuals. For example, citizen living in apartment in Seoul and Manila complain the loud noise of car honks and motorbike engines heard over at home. They can hardly take a walk at park without a mask due to fine dust. People in Beijing rarely open their window since the polluted smog wind fill in the room.

Many residence living in megacities are stuck in various problem that they cannot solve nor escape without paying the cost of moving their shelter somewhere else.

2) Why parking lots promotes private vehicle ownership?

In the status quo, widespread availability of parking lots has been promoting the private car ownership since individuals know they can easily find parking space when they need to use them. Currently, the government also requires the buildings to provide minimum parking space in new residential and commercial developments.

In fact, private transportation and public transportation are in zero-sum relationship where the more people ride private vehicles, they are less like to take the other option. Hence, the availability of parking space supports the use of private vehicle.

When parking lots disappear, the burden of taking care of private vehicles sole depends on the users. As the cost of riding private vehicles increase, people will less likely to choose to take private transportation.

 

1. Why is this motion the best way to solve the problem?

1. Why residence and civil society can’t solve this problem alone?

When it comes to solving environmental problem, it is extremely difficult to ask for voluntary participation since environment is a common good. According to the theory of tragedy of commons, people tend to prioritize own convenience and hope to free-ride on others effort.

That is why despite of government campaign and education, we have seen minimal changes from people. Current policy efforts have also failed since it allows people to get around with the loop-holes in regulations.

For example, the ‘odd-even’ system where even-number plates and odd-number plates can simultaneously drive on given days, it allowed wealthier citizens to simply buy cars with both types of number plates. Congestion taxes also excludes the working poor from accessing vital economic opportunities and give disproportionate burden to less privileged. License plate lotteries implemented in Beijing since 2011 also seems to have some problem with fairness issues. In conclusion, these policies had mainly two problems. First, it unfairly burdens the less wealthy group. Second, it is fundamentally ineffective since privileged individuals can take advantage of the policies.

This proves why government intervention is necessary in solving the problems in the megacities.

  2) Then, why is this the best way?

Side government believes that banning parking lots effectively deter the use of private vehicles and promote the use of public transportation. The reason is very simple, because people cannot park their private vehicles once they ride into the megacities. Cars and motor cycles occupy quite a size in any places, hence, once all parking lots disappear, people will choose to take public transportation.

Furthermore, we think this is the best way since we fundamentally provide the ultimate reason not to drive private vehicles in megacities and equally discourage everyone to drive private vehicles regardless of who they are.

We think this is totally justifiable given the fact that current megacities suffer serious harms from environmental problems, congestions and low quality of lives of residence due to problems mentioned above. For these reasons, we are very proud to propose.

---

Proposition-DPM

From our previous speaker, we proved to you how significant the problem is and why banning parking lots fundamentally solve the problem by reducing the number of private cars in the megacities. The UN Development Program has also diagnosed this problem to be solved by increasing the usage of public transportation.

As the deputy-prime minister, I will talk about how this motion promotes more efficient transportation and provide greater benefits to the people.

That being said, let’s move on to my third argument.

1. How this promote more efficient transportation and provide exclusive benefits to the residence?

1. Increasing number of public transportation and its route

When government pass this motion, we believe it allows the government to plan better transportation policies. Furthermore, less congestion allows public transportation to achieve orderly driving and efficiently planned road networks.

Furthermore, it is harder to ensure that private vehicles use efficient and environmentally friendly fuels, since the private vehicle users, especially poor people are more likely to use dirty fuels. By contrast, government can use economies of scale to operate public transportation systems using electronic and renewable energy sources.

We believe increase in public transport use encourage more efficient use of small vehicles. For example, jeepney in the Philippines, is a relatively smaller public transportation to that of public bus. This electronically powered vehicle is small which could pass through narrower streets and allow individuals to get on and off closer to residential areas. Government could further increase the number of public bicycles like ‘따릉이’ in Korea, or ‘OFO’ in China. The promotion of riding bicycle in short distance not only reduces CO2 emissions but also encourage people to choose healthier life style.

1. Improving the services for minorities

2. Rezoned space for commercial and residential use

---

Opposition

– LO

Introduction: (Agree with the problem, but disagree with the solution.)

Side opposition believe the usage of private vehicle is important for individual’s movement and we should leave the individuals to self-regulate and manage the use of it. Furthermore, we believe passing this motion will not solve the problem, rather make transportation in megacities more ineffective.

In this debate, we will prove to you three things.

First, why is this motion principally unjustifiable?

Second, why this motion is ineffective and harmful?

Third, how people are capable of self-regulating the use of private vehicles.

Rebuttals: -

That being said, let’s move on to our 1st argument.

1. Why is the motion principally unjustified?

1. It hinders the choice and freedom of individual to effectively move.

Freedom of movement, or mobility rights is a human rights concept which ensures individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country, and to leave and return to it. This mobility right may include ensuring the people to choose and manage the way they want to travel. However, banning parking lots brutally limits people’s choice on how to move, since elimination of parking lots impose great burden to the use private vehicles. Consequently, it removes entire option from individuals to consider bringing their private vehicle, or if still choose to do so, required to pay significant cost of using private vehicle.

Understanding that public transportation rotates the designed route to accommodate all the passengers along the way, citizens are not given the choice to design their commuting routes with shorter paths. Hence, it public transportation deprives the individuals’ choice to design the most effective way to reach the destination and save time. In the end, it unjustly punishes individuals who are seeking for the most effective way to travel or commute to their work, school and leisure.

As such, people would not simply stop using cars as a result of this model (the fact that people starting buying multiple cars in Beijing after an odd-even system was imposed is revealing). Instead, they will hire drivers to mind their cars, use private parking space, use taxis and ridesharing, etc.

Parking lots serve an important function—keeping excess cars off busy roads. This model will flood roads with traffic.

1. Infringing privacy

Furthermore, this motion also infringes upon people’s right to pursue their privacy. Why is this?

In the status quo, private vehicles not only function as the means to travel. As private vehicles became people’s necessity and private alternative to transport, it has also provided convenient space for individuals to have private communication or relaxation.

This private space offers some people to release their stress from work, a space to organize their thoughts, to talk about important issue with their family members or a place to simply relax. Although it may seem less significant as this space is guaranteed for individuals in the status quo, the deprivation of collective amount of privacy is significant when we force individuals to take public transportation no matter what.

Especially during the rush hours, the public transportation will be extremely crowded and stressful for every passenger since everyone must be squeezed in limited space in the bus, subway, and railways. We believe this brings detrimental harm to certain group of people. This will be further elaborated in second argument.  

1. Why passing this motion is ineffective and cause more harm?

1. This government intervention is environmentally and economically harmful since the public transportation cannot estimate the hypersensitivity of megacities to sudden changes.

Megacities attract a lot of people in daily basis due to closely gathered corporations, shopping malls and special events such as art and music festivals. Hence, it is very difficult to estimate the number of individual traffic in daily basis. Due to such uneven fluctuation of movement, we believe government won’t be able to manage the number of public transportation which leads to either over or under-invest on the public transportation.

1. Furthermore, increased number of public transportation such as taxies and buses can rather cause adverse effect to environment and congestion problem. It is inclined to the nature of public transportation: That public transportations should constantly move even if there are no passengers! (unlike private cars: that they stop if you don’t use) Given that it is extremely difficult to estimate the number of individual traffic in megacities, just limiting use of private cars through banning parking lots is extremely ineffective.

2. Worse of all, a ban on parking lots will prompt people to keep vehicles on the road, rapidly congesting and polluting urban areas. When people can’t park in places they should, people will keep on driving in megacities (finding places near megacities where they can park) which makes more cars to flow on the road. It burdens individuals for their increased cost for use of private cars, and it also makes megacity further congested and polluted.

---

The opposition side believes that the usage of private vehicle is important for individual’s movement, and banning parking lots is not a good way to solve the problem in the status quo.

Our leader of opposition already told you why banning parking lots is principally infringing various fundamental rights. We also told you why this motion cannot solve the problem that government had identified, rather cause greater harms.

As the deputy-leader of opposition, I will explain how a ban would deprive low income users access to efficient and affordable transport, and how it will marginalize and impoverish the working poor in megacities

 

Before then, rebuttals.

1. Parking lots are essential for low income residents to access transport and economic security

• Low income residents depend on cheap, available parking space in order to access urban areas for work, education, and leisure.

• This is because, due to the unaffordability of living in many urban areas and the mere complexity of urban design and infrastructure, people rely on private vehicle transport to move around efficiently in megacities, particularly considering their circumstances in relation to employment are likely to change frequently.
  
  

2. Alternatives for other road users, such as ride sharing and taxi services, are unavailable to low income users

• Higher income residents will be able to escape the need for parking, for example by relying on drivers or taxis, and so will be less hard hit by this ban—even if them keeping their vehicles on the road will lead to other negative externalities with relation to congestion and the environment.

• Low income residents will be able to afford these luxuries, particularly since they often rely on cheap cars and motorcycles under the status quo with little capacity to spend more on transport.

3. A ban on parking lots would marginalise and impoverish the working poor in megacities

• Urban transport would thus either become more expensive for the working poor or they would be banished from urban areas due to their inaccessibility. Access to urban areas is crucial for upward economic and social mobility, whereas this model would condemn the working poor to the outskirts of cities, which they could feasibly access by transport, further disenfranchising their families from health and educational opportunities.