I’d like to comment on the issue of car widths and parking space dimensions. In the UK, there’s no legal standard for parking space size—only recommendations. The Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) seems to provide the most widely accepted guidance, suggesting spaces should be 2.6 metres wide and 5.0 metres long.
However, a new standard appears to be emerging for EV parking spaces, setting the width at 2.8 metres—regardless of the vehicle's size. Across Europe, space widths vary between 2.3 and 2.6 metres, depending on the country.
Personally, I’d love to own a 1957 Fiat 500—only 1.627 metres wide—but after being driven in one with two others over six feet tall, I can confirm it wasn’t exactly practical. Perhaps this is part of the reason cars have grown in size over the years.
Even my compact EV, which can barely seat four (comfortably two), measures 1.775 metres wide—and it still struggles to fit into ‘modern’ parking spaces in most car parks. Opening the doors is a challenge, even in relatively empty bays.
Perhaps the real campaign should be for decently sized parking spaces that allow everyone—whether able-bodied or infirm—to get in and out of their car without difficulty.
And while we're at it, why is Lambeth Council wasting public money on yet another consultation about SUVs and kerbside parking? They often tell us that fewer than 25% of their residents own a car, yet on my street, there's so much kerbside parking that I could park a bus and still have room for every resident's vehicle.
…And is the air pollution referenced in the article truly coming from vehicles—or is it actually from buildings? I suspect that one day, when the cars are gone, we’ll realise the pollution levels haven’t improved much at all.
What we need is real data that clearly shows how and where pollution is being generated. My hunch is that a significant share comes from gas-fired boilers working overtime to heat poorly insulated homes and commercial properties.
How many businesses, for instance, have proper double glazing—or even a policy to keep their doors closed in cold weather?
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment—you’ve raised some really important points. I’ll respond to each in turn:
1. Parking space dimensions – You’re absolutely right: there’s no legal minimum in the UK, only recommended sizes. The Institution of Structural Engineers suggests 2.6m x 5.0m as a guide, and some EV spaces are now being designed at 2.8m wide (source: IStructE). Across Europe, it typically varies from 2.3 to 2.5 metres depending on the country. But as you hint, making all bays larger to fit wider cars comes at a cost—especially in dense cities where kerbside space is at a premium.
2. Car size vs practicality – Your Fiat 500 story made me smile—classic cars weren’t known for comfort, especially with tall passengers! It’s true that modern cars are wider (your 1.775m compact EV is already above average). But this size creep has serious side effects: bigger cars take up more street space, reduce visibility for pedestrians and cyclists, and consume more energy—even when electric (see: IEA Global EV Outlook 2023). So while some journeys need larger vehicles, designing our streets around them means we end up prioritising cars over people.
3. Getting in and out of cars – I completely agree: parking needs to work for everyone, including those with limited mobility. But there are better ways to do this than simply upscaling every bay. Designated wider bays (like blue badge spaces), better kerb design, and limiting the size of vehicles in dense areas can help everyone access transport without normalising oversized cars across the board.
4. Lambeth Council and SUVs – Many councils (not just Lambeth) are reviewing kerbside policy. Paris, Oslo, Amsterdam and others are all doing the same. In inner London, fewer than 30% of households own a car (TfL London Travel Demand Survey), so it’s not unreasonable for councils to ask whether giving so much public space to large, private vehicles is the best use of land. Reallocating even a small amount of that space to trees, bike storage, disabled bays or seating can benefit far more residents.
5. Air pollution: cars vs buildings – This is a great point. You're spot on that building emissions—especially from gas boilers—contribute significantly to NOx and PM2.5. In fact, heating makes up around 28% of NOx nationally (DEFRA 2023). But in urban areas like London, cars remain the dominant source at street level, especially near roads and schools (London Air Quality Network). So it’s not either/or—we need to address both transport and heating to meaningfully cut pollution.
6. Narrower and fewer cars = better cities – Ultimately, cities work best when we make space for a mix of transport, not just private cars. Narrower vehicles reduce congestion, lower emissions, and free up space for people walking, cycling, using wheelchairs or pushing prams. Fewer cars overall also means quieter streets, better air, and safer journeys. That doesn’t mean banning cars—but it does mean designing for balance.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment—it’s exactly the kind of discussion we need to be having.
1. Parking Space Dimensions - We are talking about two different things. In our part of Brixton, Lambeth, do not mark individual parking bays, so it doesn't matter what size of car we park in the available space. When we talk about parking bays, we often reference off-street parking. On our side of Brixton Hill, there is no shortage of on-street parking, the streets are near deserted, with open spaces of tarmac. Kerside space here is not in a premium. I appreciate that other parts of Brixton or even Lambeth might be different, but then maybe the approach to deal with this needs to be more location-specific. I would also question to what benefit? Lambeth didn't take the opportunity to plant the trees in the roads, as in Fernlea Road, Balham, as suggested by residents, but planted them in the already narrow footpaths. At the request of the residents, Lambeth has also installed a kerbside bench structure, which I have never seen used.
2. Car size vs practicality - Interesting, we seem to forget that cars are driven by people. People are getting taller, and maybe bigger - I know a 14-year-old who is at least 6'3", my 17-year-old is 6'. I would ask what the end goal you desire? Is it zero cars? Or is it an environment that accommodates everyone, regardless of of their preferred method of transport?
3. Why have cars grown? People are taller, bigger, cars are now much safer than in the 50's. We now have airbags, crumple zones, etc. Most cars now have their bumper behind a soft shell to protect pedestrians involved in an accident, extending the length of the car. Euro NAP demonstrates the range of safety stars available. We still see a lot of smaller cars with poor safety ratings. You are still better off being run over by an Audi Q6 Etron than a new smaller Renault 5, and much safer in the bigger Audi and the Renault 5 in a serious accident. At the time of purchase, my Volvo was one of the safest cars on the road, and certainly safer than the smaller Vauxhall it replaced. It is important that we look at these things in the round, and not single out only one aspect. You reference limiting vehicle size in dense areas - are you suggesting that we own two cars, one for the city and one for when we leave the city? I am sure you are not, but that is the point. Most people buy a car/vehicle with their largest requirements in mind, whether that be for the family holiday, or for their work. They do not have the luxury to own two cars, one for the city and one for the trips away with all the children and the dog. That means that the car hs to be parked up, when not in use, ready for when it is needed.
4. What are we proposing to do with the road when it doesn't have the car parked on it? Lots of campaigners reference Amsterdam, but seem to forget a few details. Amsterdam has a different housing model, it has apartment with offices and shops at street level. London, in the majority, has terrace housing, without shops and offices. Campaigners often cite Amsterdam as an example of the proposed model that has a noticeable lack of on streetcar parking as the model London should be adopting. If we consider De Pijp, a district in Amsterdam, that has seen a positive transformation from streets dominated by parking to streets shared by cars, parking, bicycles, trees, seating and cafes. What is often not reported by campaigners is that residents still own cars. They are housed in a newly constructed underground car park, that has 600 spaces, built beneath the Boerenwetering canal. It allows residents in the district to retain their cars for journey when they leave the district. Most of the other journeys in the district are served on foot or by bicycle. The carpark offers 24-hour secure access within a few minutes’ walk of their home. What De Pijp has done is balance the needs of its residents, whether they be owners of cars, cyclists, walkers, of business’. I am sure most Lambeth residents would support this approach, the De Pijp district looks amazing and is reported as a great place to live.
We see these models across other European cities. Lyon has a series of purpose-built underground carparks that allow parking to be relocated to clear the streets of parked cars. Other cities include Barcelona, Bonn, Copenhagen, Lyon, Munich, Reims, Stockholm, Zurich and Vienna which all have similar models. It appears Lambeth, and TfL have only taken on board one aspect of the strategies these cities have adopted, to remove the car from the street, without considering that residents still need access to a car. If we consider De Pijp again it is important to note that residents live in apartment muti-use blocks, with shops and cafes at ground level. Lambeth, in the main, has a different model, Victorian terrace houses with little or no street activity. De Pijp is a similar concept to the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods we are seeing rolled out in parts of London, however, it has two improvements over the current London strategy. A lot of streets have raise and lower bollards that allow residents access to their street, but still have shared on-street parking and street activities, whether it be a café, greening, or bike storage. Maybe, more importantly, it has better use of its boundary roads, known as Stads" (city) road. These are wide and faster connection than the residential streets, served by public transport. These are then connected to ‘A’ roads which are Amsterdam’s motorways (also called "autobahn" or "expressway" in some regions). These are controlled-access highways, meaning they have designated entry and exit points and do not have intersections at grade. Roads marked with the letter "A" are designed for high-speed, long-distance travel and are often used to connect major cities or regions. Most parts of De Pijp are less than two miles from the nearest ‘A’ road, and at the widest point 5 miles. Londoners have to drive at 20mph for typically more than 20 miles before they can find a suitable road where they can travel at speeds of 40mph and over. (In Brixton we have to travel for about 12 miles before we can access the 40mph section of the A3, A4, or A23.)
A lot of SUVs have the same footprint as a family car or estate cars, they just tend to have a higher ride height. So what are we trying to solve?
5. My issue is that Lambeth is not dealing with both; it is only penalising the motorists, who are also people and residents. Your campaigning appears to be aimed only at motorists, forgetting that the people own cars, and will also be pedestrians for some of their time. But more importantly, we all live in houses/homes and therefore all are contributing to the pollution of the whole neighbourhood. So, 100 per cent of residents contribute to the air quality through their homes, compared to the smaller number with their cars.
6. As noted above, Lambeth is pushing cars off the streets, but do not have a plan for what to do with the space they then create. We have a sea of tarmac in our neighbourhood and no plan for its use.
Thanks so much for such a thoughtful and detailed response — you’ve clearly taken a lot of time to consider these points and I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further. I’ll respond to each of your points in turn:
Parking space dimensions
That’s a helpful clarification — the difference between marked bays and informal kerbside parking definitely changes the dynamic. And you’re right: space constraints vary widely even within Lambeth. I agree that location-specific approaches often make the most sense. On your point about the trees and kerbside installations — I share your frustration when well-intentioned changes miss the mark. It’s a reminder of how important genuine local consultation is.
Car size vs practicality
Absolutely — people come in all shapes and sizes, and vehicles need to accommodate that. I’m not calling for zero cars, but rather for a city that prioritises people first — however they travel. It's about giving more space to walking, cycling and transit, while recognising that some residents do still need a car.
Vehicle safety and size
You’re completely right that modern safety standards have contributed to the increase in vehicle dimensions, and safety matters. That said, there’s growing evidence that larger vehicles may protect those inside but can pose higher risks to those outside — particularly vulnerable road users. So again, it’s about balance, and trying to reduce harm across the board. Most people don’t want two cars — but we do need to think about whether vehicles designed for occasional long journeys should be shaping our streets full-time.
What to do with the road space
De Pijp is a great example — and I love that you brought up the underground parking there. You’re spot on: those changes were paired with infrastructure that made car storage easier. I agree — if Lambeth or TfL aim to remove parking, they need to give people practical alternatives. It’s not just about copying cities like Amsterdam, but adapting lessons to our own context. And yes, the differences in road hierarchy and housing stock matter too. I think your point about more flexible access — like retractable bollards — is a really interesting one and deserves more consideration.
Pollution from homes vs cars
A really important reminder. Buildings and heating absolutely contribute to air pollution too, and I agree we need to tackle both. But traffic remains one of the biggest contributors to NO₂ in cities like London, and it’s more concentrated at street level — where people walk, cycle and breathe. I think it's fair to aim for reductions in both sectors.
What happens to the space left behind
This is where I completely agree with you. Reclaiming space from parked cars needs to be paired with meaningful investment in green space, play areas, or community uses. Otherwise, it's just swapping one kind of underused tarmac for another. Good design — and again, listening to local people — is key.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts — it's great to have a conversation that recognises the complexity of these issues rather than reducing it to a simple “for or against cars” debate. I hope we can keep discussing how to build a city that works for everyone.
I’d like to comment on the issue of car widths and parking space dimensions. In the UK, there’s no legal standard for parking space size—only recommendations. The Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) seems to provide the most widely accepted guidance, suggesting spaces should be 2.6 metres wide and 5.0 metres long.
However, a new standard appears to be emerging for EV parking spaces, setting the width at 2.8 metres—regardless of the vehicle's size. Across Europe, space widths vary between 2.3 and 2.6 metres, depending on the country.
Personally, I’d love to own a 1957 Fiat 500—only 1.627 metres wide—but after being driven in one with two others over six feet tall, I can confirm it wasn’t exactly practical. Perhaps this is part of the reason cars have grown in size over the years.
Even my compact EV, which can barely seat four (comfortably two), measures 1.775 metres wide—and it still struggles to fit into ‘modern’ parking spaces in most car parks. Opening the doors is a challenge, even in relatively empty bays.
Perhaps the real campaign should be for decently sized parking spaces that allow everyone—whether able-bodied or infirm—to get in and out of their car without difficulty.
And while we're at it, why is Lambeth Council wasting public money on yet another consultation about SUVs and kerbside parking? They often tell us that fewer than 25% of their residents own a car, yet on my street, there's so much kerbside parking that I could park a bus and still have room for every resident's vehicle.
…And is the air pollution referenced in the article truly coming from vehicles—or is it actually from buildings? I suspect that one day, when the cars are gone, we’ll realise the pollution levels haven’t improved much at all.
What we need is real data that clearly shows how and where pollution is being generated. My hunch is that a significant share comes from gas-fired boilers working overtime to heat poorly insulated homes and commercial properties.
How many businesses, for instance, have proper double glazing—or even a policy to keep their doors closed in cold weather?
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment—you’ve raised some really important points. I’ll respond to each in turn:
1. Parking space dimensions – You’re absolutely right: there’s no legal minimum in the UK, only recommended sizes. The Institution of Structural Engineers suggests 2.6m x 5.0m as a guide, and some EV spaces are now being designed at 2.8m wide (source: IStructE). Across Europe, it typically varies from 2.3 to 2.5 metres depending on the country. But as you hint, making all bays larger to fit wider cars comes at a cost—especially in dense cities where kerbside space is at a premium.
2. Car size vs practicality – Your Fiat 500 story made me smile—classic cars weren’t known for comfort, especially with tall passengers! It’s true that modern cars are wider (your 1.775m compact EV is already above average). But this size creep has serious side effects: bigger cars take up more street space, reduce visibility for pedestrians and cyclists, and consume more energy—even when electric (see: IEA Global EV Outlook 2023). So while some journeys need larger vehicles, designing our streets around them means we end up prioritising cars over people.
3. Getting in and out of cars – I completely agree: parking needs to work for everyone, including those with limited mobility. But there are better ways to do this than simply upscaling every bay. Designated wider bays (like blue badge spaces), better kerb design, and limiting the size of vehicles in dense areas can help everyone access transport without normalising oversized cars across the board.
4. Lambeth Council and SUVs – Many councils (not just Lambeth) are reviewing kerbside policy. Paris, Oslo, Amsterdam and others are all doing the same. In inner London, fewer than 30% of households own a car (TfL London Travel Demand Survey), so it’s not unreasonable for councils to ask whether giving so much public space to large, private vehicles is the best use of land. Reallocating even a small amount of that space to trees, bike storage, disabled bays or seating can benefit far more residents.
5. Air pollution: cars vs buildings – This is a great point. You're spot on that building emissions—especially from gas boilers—contribute significantly to NOx and PM2.5. In fact, heating makes up around 28% of NOx nationally (DEFRA 2023). But in urban areas like London, cars remain the dominant source at street level, especially near roads and schools (London Air Quality Network). So it’s not either/or—we need to address both transport and heating to meaningfully cut pollution.
6. Narrower and fewer cars = better cities – Ultimately, cities work best when we make space for a mix of transport, not just private cars. Narrower vehicles reduce congestion, lower emissions, and free up space for people walking, cycling, using wheelchairs or pushing prams. Fewer cars overall also means quieter streets, better air, and safer journeys. That doesn’t mean banning cars—but it does mean designing for balance.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment—it’s exactly the kind of discussion we need to be having.
Hi,
1. Parking Space Dimensions - We are talking about two different things. In our part of Brixton, Lambeth, do not mark individual parking bays, so it doesn't matter what size of car we park in the available space. When we talk about parking bays, we often reference off-street parking. On our side of Brixton Hill, there is no shortage of on-street parking, the streets are near deserted, with open spaces of tarmac. Kerside space here is not in a premium. I appreciate that other parts of Brixton or even Lambeth might be different, but then maybe the approach to deal with this needs to be more location-specific. I would also question to what benefit? Lambeth didn't take the opportunity to plant the trees in the roads, as in Fernlea Road, Balham, as suggested by residents, but planted them in the already narrow footpaths. At the request of the residents, Lambeth has also installed a kerbside bench structure, which I have never seen used.
2. Car size vs practicality - Interesting, we seem to forget that cars are driven by people. People are getting taller, and maybe bigger - I know a 14-year-old who is at least 6'3", my 17-year-old is 6'. I would ask what the end goal you desire? Is it zero cars? Or is it an environment that accommodates everyone, regardless of of their preferred method of transport?
3. Why have cars grown? People are taller, bigger, cars are now much safer than in the 50's. We now have airbags, crumple zones, etc. Most cars now have their bumper behind a soft shell to protect pedestrians involved in an accident, extending the length of the car. Euro NAP demonstrates the range of safety stars available. We still see a lot of smaller cars with poor safety ratings. You are still better off being run over by an Audi Q6 Etron than a new smaller Renault 5, and much safer in the bigger Audi and the Renault 5 in a serious accident. At the time of purchase, my Volvo was one of the safest cars on the road, and certainly safer than the smaller Vauxhall it replaced. It is important that we look at these things in the round, and not single out only one aspect. You reference limiting vehicle size in dense areas - are you suggesting that we own two cars, one for the city and one for when we leave the city? I am sure you are not, but that is the point. Most people buy a car/vehicle with their largest requirements in mind, whether that be for the family holiday, or for their work. They do not have the luxury to own two cars, one for the city and one for the trips away with all the children and the dog. That means that the car hs to be parked up, when not in use, ready for when it is needed.
4. What are we proposing to do with the road when it doesn't have the car parked on it? Lots of campaigners reference Amsterdam, but seem to forget a few details. Amsterdam has a different housing model, it has apartment with offices and shops at street level. London, in the majority, has terrace housing, without shops and offices. Campaigners often cite Amsterdam as an example of the proposed model that has a noticeable lack of on streetcar parking as the model London should be adopting. If we consider De Pijp, a district in Amsterdam, that has seen a positive transformation from streets dominated by parking to streets shared by cars, parking, bicycles, trees, seating and cafes. What is often not reported by campaigners is that residents still own cars. They are housed in a newly constructed underground car park, that has 600 spaces, built beneath the Boerenwetering canal. It allows residents in the district to retain their cars for journey when they leave the district. Most of the other journeys in the district are served on foot or by bicycle. The carpark offers 24-hour secure access within a few minutes’ walk of their home. What De Pijp has done is balance the needs of its residents, whether they be owners of cars, cyclists, walkers, of business’. I am sure most Lambeth residents would support this approach, the De Pijp district looks amazing and is reported as a great place to live.
We see these models across other European cities. Lyon has a series of purpose-built underground carparks that allow parking to be relocated to clear the streets of parked cars. Other cities include Barcelona, Bonn, Copenhagen, Lyon, Munich, Reims, Stockholm, Zurich and Vienna which all have similar models. It appears Lambeth, and TfL have only taken on board one aspect of the strategies these cities have adopted, to remove the car from the street, without considering that residents still need access to a car. If we consider De Pijp again it is important to note that residents live in apartment muti-use blocks, with shops and cafes at ground level. Lambeth, in the main, has a different model, Victorian terrace houses with little or no street activity. De Pijp is a similar concept to the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods we are seeing rolled out in parts of London, however, it has two improvements over the current London strategy. A lot of streets have raise and lower bollards that allow residents access to their street, but still have shared on-street parking and street activities, whether it be a café, greening, or bike storage. Maybe, more importantly, it has better use of its boundary roads, known as Stads" (city) road. These are wide and faster connection than the residential streets, served by public transport. These are then connected to ‘A’ roads which are Amsterdam’s motorways (also called "autobahn" or "expressway" in some regions). These are controlled-access highways, meaning they have designated entry and exit points and do not have intersections at grade. Roads marked with the letter "A" are designed for high-speed, long-distance travel and are often used to connect major cities or regions. Most parts of De Pijp are less than two miles from the nearest ‘A’ road, and at the widest point 5 miles. Londoners have to drive at 20mph for typically more than 20 miles before they can find a suitable road where they can travel at speeds of 40mph and over. (In Brixton we have to travel for about 12 miles before we can access the 40mph section of the A3, A4, or A23.)
A lot of SUVs have the same footprint as a family car or estate cars, they just tend to have a higher ride height. So what are we trying to solve?
5. My issue is that Lambeth is not dealing with both; it is only penalising the motorists, who are also people and residents. Your campaigning appears to be aimed only at motorists, forgetting that the people own cars, and will also be pedestrians for some of their time. But more importantly, we all live in houses/homes and therefore all are contributing to the pollution of the whole neighbourhood. So, 100 per cent of residents contribute to the air quality through their homes, compared to the smaller number with their cars.
6. As noted above, Lambeth is pushing cars off the streets, but do not have a plan for what to do with the space they then create. We have a sea of tarmac in our neighbourhood and no plan for its use.
Hi there,
Thanks so much for such a thoughtful and detailed response — you’ve clearly taken a lot of time to consider these points and I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further. I’ll respond to each of your points in turn:
Parking space dimensions
That’s a helpful clarification — the difference between marked bays and informal kerbside parking definitely changes the dynamic. And you’re right: space constraints vary widely even within Lambeth. I agree that location-specific approaches often make the most sense. On your point about the trees and kerbside installations — I share your frustration when well-intentioned changes miss the mark. It’s a reminder of how important genuine local consultation is.
Car size vs practicality
Absolutely — people come in all shapes and sizes, and vehicles need to accommodate that. I’m not calling for zero cars, but rather for a city that prioritises people first — however they travel. It's about giving more space to walking, cycling and transit, while recognising that some residents do still need a car.
Vehicle safety and size
You’re completely right that modern safety standards have contributed to the increase in vehicle dimensions, and safety matters. That said, there’s growing evidence that larger vehicles may protect those inside but can pose higher risks to those outside — particularly vulnerable road users. So again, it’s about balance, and trying to reduce harm across the board. Most people don’t want two cars — but we do need to think about whether vehicles designed for occasional long journeys should be shaping our streets full-time.
What to do with the road space
De Pijp is a great example — and I love that you brought up the underground parking there. You’re spot on: those changes were paired with infrastructure that made car storage easier. I agree — if Lambeth or TfL aim to remove parking, they need to give people practical alternatives. It’s not just about copying cities like Amsterdam, but adapting lessons to our own context. And yes, the differences in road hierarchy and housing stock matter too. I think your point about more flexible access — like retractable bollards — is a really interesting one and deserves more consideration.
Pollution from homes vs cars
A really important reminder. Buildings and heating absolutely contribute to air pollution too, and I agree we need to tackle both. But traffic remains one of the biggest contributors to NO₂ in cities like London, and it’s more concentrated at street level — where people walk, cycle and breathe. I think it's fair to aim for reductions in both sectors.
What happens to the space left behind
This is where I completely agree with you. Reclaiming space from parked cars needs to be paired with meaningful investment in green space, play areas, or community uses. Otherwise, it's just swapping one kind of underused tarmac for another. Good design — and again, listening to local people — is key.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts — it's great to have a conversation that recognises the complexity of these issues rather than reducing it to a simple “for or against cars” debate. I hope we can keep discussing how to build a city that works for everyone.