tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post2353957578914526464..comments2024-03-18T16:22:10.302-04:00Comments on Urban kchoze: The perverse effects of on-street parkingsimval84http://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-90025640536010610852015-07-29T17:50:25.539-04:002015-07-29T17:50:25.539-04:00The 5000 spots/km2 is an interesting number; looki...The 5000 spots/km2 is an interesting number; looking at urban population densities in the US, that's seemed about the plateau for cities (Boston, Chicago) that try to juggle transit (especially for going downtown) with widespread (and surface parked) car ownership, going as high as 7000 people/km2 for SF or Somerville. Vs. Brooklyn at 14,000.Damien Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321329197063620556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-46259346525243994692015-07-29T15:55:29.482-04:002015-07-29T15:55:29.482-04:00I agree with you it would be much better for our q...I agree with you it would be much better for our quality of life in the city if parking was not permitted on street. <br /><br />As we are all aware for the time being, this is only a pipe dream and the only way we can even dream of getting cars off the road is by having some major rethink on parking charges. In order to make developers build more off street parking, we would require major policy changes for new owners or occupiers to only allow them parking on street by having to pay at least a daily rate, but even better, would be an hourly charge. <br /><br />This would be seen by many citizens a major drawback to living in the city, but over a period of time as we see less and less cars on street, we would quickly see the benefits.<br /><br />The only way such a policy could have any chance of succeeding, would be by having national and local politicians fully behind it and in reality this would be an even bigger pipe dream. Manny Rasores de Toro - Mr. Parkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11095149582905156269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-87221311223842040062015-07-21T23:28:14.525-04:002015-07-21T23:28:14.525-04:00Well, the pro-on-street-parking urbanists I know a...Well, the pro-on-street-parking urbanists I know also oppose rush-hour parking restrictions...<br /><br />Bear in mind that my contact with urbanists is largely in very dense cities, like New York, or the densest parts of Boston, and there, 5,000 parking spots per km^2 can fill even at low car ownership rates. This means that most of the spots are taken, and even at less busy times, enough are taken that the parking lane is not a useful moving lane.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-15890351135878950792015-07-20T21:59:37.462-04:002015-07-20T21:59:37.462-04:00Indeed, the "proof of parking" has been ...Indeed, the "proof of parking" has been a genius move by putting the responsibility for finding parking on the prospective car owner rather than on government and planners. Japan still has some off-street minimum parking requirements in certain places, but the amount is really low, like one half or one quarter of that in North America.simval84https://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-61259656169043634222015-07-20T19:18:29.417-04:002015-07-20T19:18:29.417-04:00The master stroke of the Japanese was to require e...The master stroke of the Japanese was to require every vehicle to have its own off-street parking space instead of requiring developments to provide spaces for which there may or may not be a car; this immediately creates a market for parking by establishing a demand, while leaving supply up to the market ensuring that only as much parking as needed is provided.<br /><br />This in combination with their people-focused street widths has made their cities some of the best in the world, despite the architecture being lackluster in many cases.Coreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09898009214875407226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-56099751097114461832015-07-20T12:41:22.037-04:002015-07-20T12:41:22.037-04:00One thing that's always bothered me about the ...One thing that's always bothered me about the support for on-street parking by urbanists is that it presumes the parked cars will always be there to provide that buffer from traffic. Reality isn't usually so simple. There's rush-hour parking restrictions, street cleaning times, no overnight parking, or in commercial areas a simple lack of need for much street parking at night. This is when these wide streets become drag strips, or during rush hours the worst kind of automobile sewers, but that's exactly when people on the sidewalks need the most protection. <br /><br />The visual and psychological impact is hard to deny too. I'd also make the comparison between a parking lot and a plaza. Who wants to look out onto a big parking lot? What about a big open plaza though? The only real difference is that one has parked cars in it and the other doesn't. Many plazas are also rather sparsely vegetated and monolithically paved, but the difference in having cars versus no cars is like night and day. Jeffrey Jakucykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04092631645389171565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-80930621028742378612015-07-20T11:22:02.725-04:002015-07-20T11:22:02.725-04:00Is $300,000 over 30 years really a winner over $15...Is $300,000 over 30 years really a winner over $150,000 up front? If you can get a 2.4% return on investment, then you'd rather take the $150,000 up front.Kennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09588770173317316837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-42476030538696940902015-07-20T01:18:42.390-04:002015-07-20T01:18:42.390-04:00Not all NIMBYism of course is about parking, but t...Not all NIMBYism of course is about parking, but that comes out often when people already use street parking a lot. It may be just a rationalization for some, but it is also a real fear for others. For example, one of the measures proposed that allowed the Roslyn-Ballston corridor development to beat opposition was making street parking around the area limited to residential permit holders, and giving those permits only to residents, reassuring them that only they and their visitors would be able to park in the street.<br /><br />Higher density development could indeed trigger NIMBY opposition for fear of rate increases. But I think rate increases are a lesser fear for people already paying for their parking than not finding any parking near their home, especially as people who own a parking spot on their property wouldn't be affected at all.simval84https://www.blogger.com/profile/10615053214354191224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-5954812422813135672015-07-20T01:03:35.469-04:002015-07-20T01:03:35.469-04:00I'd like to zoom in on one comment: "most...I'd like to zoom in on one comment: "most of the objections to new developments in already dense areas are rooted in fear of overwhelming existing on-street parking, making it harder for residents to find parking there."<br /><br />It's true that most middle- and upper-middle-class NIMBYs in central cities frame their objections in terms of parking, but the universality of NIMBYism along all classes and forms of development suggests that this is an excuse. In some cases, the NIMBYs are open about what they want: see, for example, the "apartment dwellers and renters are yucky" comments made in richer neighborhoods, e.g. the examples recently quoted by Daniel Kay Hertz. In other cases, the neighborhood doesn't even have high car ownership, but the NIMBYs either oppose any road diet that they perceive as coming from outsiders (Washington Heights) or explicitly say they don't want new people who they don't identify with (the Mission).<br /><br />But for a moment, let's suppose that the NIMBYism really is about parking. Why would off-street parking change things? More development in the neighborhood would raise the price of parking. There would be more demand; very roughly, the price of parking would go up proportionally to land value assuming free development, as lot owners converted parking to buildings. Development restrictions are a nifty way of disconnecting land values from parking rates, and are especially useful since urban drivers usually own apartments but usually rent parking space, possibly from their own building manager.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4153985804832811048.post-64651992153205800312015-07-19T23:04:27.851-04:002015-07-19T23:04:27.851-04:00I agree with you in general but because we're ...I agree with you in general but because we're stuck with all these wide streets, there's not much we can do. It always bugs me when new streets are built with on-street parking bays included. Wasted opportunity.<br /><br />There's another obstacle to reclaiming the parking spaces as wider sidewalks: business owners generally fight to the death for 'their' parking spaces. You could propose to replace all the parking spaces by creating an off-street garage, but that's expensive, and made even more difficult by having wide streets in the first place. The on-street parking that was created by cars squatting on existing streetscape is cheap, already there, and hard to push aside for political reasons.<br /><br />By the way, places like Brookline, MA ban overnight on-street parking (effectively), so presumably you have to find yourself an off-street parking space if you own a car there. Unfortunately, the Brookline zoning code still has onerous off-street parking minimums, even though there's no 'spillover effect'. The old-timers are quite attached to the notion, presumably for class or status-seeking reasons.<br /><br />And there is actually spillover, but it happens across the border in Boston, where decades of incoherent parking policy has resulted in many blocks having unregulated parking, other than street-cleaning. The result: many Brookliners (and other suburbanites) dump their cars on Boston streets overnight or during the day. Then we get the twisted outcome of Boston residents demanding that off-street parking be supplied in new Boston developments "because all of the on-street parking is occupied" (by outsiders!). New Boston developments effectively subsidize the free parking of suburbanites. It's quite amazing...<br />Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027332620204904993noreply@blogger.com