THW ban parking lots in megacities_OPP

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.