Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking(econlib.org)
econlib.org
Charge, Baby, Charge for Parking
https://www.econlib.org/charge-baby-charge/
191 comments
I feel like that's not all of it; there is a certain expectation for parking to be free from many people and I feel like it's because the demand for parking can be drastically different in geographically nearby locations.
For example, in the bay area, parking in SF is difficult to say the least and usually in paid garages. But go less than 30 miles to east bay (far east or south east bay, not Oakland or Berkeley), parking is much more plentiful everywhere and the expectation for parking is free.
If you live in the east bay and visit SF once in a while, you are coming from a daily life of the expectation of free parking to suddenly seeing signs for $20 a day, $50 a day, and so on. Without really consciously thinking about the economics and thinking, oh, it makes sense, because millions of people want to park in the city, it can definitely drive some emotional responses. If you live in SF and have thought about the economics and have accepted that parking is expensive, then the emotion and impatience and anxiety can be reduced/removed by the UX.
For example, in the bay area, parking in SF is difficult to say the least and usually in paid garages. But go less than 30 miles to east bay (far east or south east bay, not Oakland or Berkeley), parking is much more plentiful everywhere and the expectation for parking is free.
If you live in the east bay and visit SF once in a while, you are coming from a daily life of the expectation of free parking to suddenly seeing signs for $20 a day, $50 a day, and so on. Without really consciously thinking about the economics and thinking, oh, it makes sense, because millions of people want to park in the city, it can definitely drive some emotional responses. If you live in SF and have thought about the economics and have accepted that parking is expensive, then the emotion and impatience and anxiety can be reduced/removed by the UX.
> For example, in the bay area, parking in SF is difficult to say the least and usually in paid garages
I think it's useful to consider that SF downtown parking is - in the grand scheme of things - an exception, not a norm.
As it turns out, parking is free in most geographical locations. Even within SF, there's plenty of free street parking around areas like the Sunset or Potrero Hill for example, a mere 20 mins away from downtown core. Go another 15 mins further south and there's free parking at Home Depot, Costco, etc. Go further out to places like San Jose, and strip malls with abundant free parking dominate the landscape.
IMHO it doesn't make sense to think parking space can be easily replaced with residential space. This has been a theme in places like downtown Toronto, where parking lots were literally getting turned into condo buildings. Without a supporting transportation strategy, all that ends up happening is overloaded roads because more residences equal more people, and people need transportation. Going back to Toronto, they're now apparently talking about expropriating businesses to make space for public transit expansion in the worst congested subway station (Ironically, several businesses were already displaced from a lot to build a high rise mix use condo building in this exact intersection some 5 years ago, and there's now another high rise in construction right across the street from it). I honestly wish them good luck with scaling public transit to match demand, as all forms of traffic there - including the subway - already get to pretty bad levels.
I think it's useful to consider that SF downtown parking is - in the grand scheme of things - an exception, not a norm.
As it turns out, parking is free in most geographical locations. Even within SF, there's plenty of free street parking around areas like the Sunset or Potrero Hill for example, a mere 20 mins away from downtown core. Go another 15 mins further south and there's free parking at Home Depot, Costco, etc. Go further out to places like San Jose, and strip malls with abundant free parking dominate the landscape.
IMHO it doesn't make sense to think parking space can be easily replaced with residential space. This has been a theme in places like downtown Toronto, where parking lots were literally getting turned into condo buildings. Without a supporting transportation strategy, all that ends up happening is overloaded roads because more residences equal more people, and people need transportation. Going back to Toronto, they're now apparently talking about expropriating businesses to make space for public transit expansion in the worst congested subway station (Ironically, several businesses were already displaced from a lot to build a high rise mix use condo building in this exact intersection some 5 years ago, and there's now another high rise in construction right across the street from it). I honestly wish them good luck with scaling public transit to match demand, as all forms of traffic there - including the subway - already get to pretty bad levels.
Paying for parking changes the calculus of life. It makes everything significantly more expensive and really puts a damper on membership type things.
Like we've got a membership to the children's museum. But parking is ~$15 a time so we go far less frequently than we otherwise would.
Economic arguments about freeloading are good and something I theoretically agree with. But in practice when the other option is 2 busses & 45 minutes you end up not going to as many places as you otherwise would.
Like we've got a membership to the children's museum. But parking is ~$15 a time so we go far less frequently than we otherwise would.
Economic arguments about freeloading are good and something I theoretically agree with. But in practice when the other option is 2 busses & 45 minutes you end up not going to as many places as you otherwise would.
To some extent, this is the very point of having these charges. They relieve congestion on scarce resources by ensuring the only people using it are the people who want it really badly and are willing to pay, in either time, money, or inconvenience.
> this is the very point of having these charges. They relieve congestion
Yes.
>> ensuring the only people using it are the people who want it really badly
Not necessarily. People using it could just have more money.
Yes.
>> ensuring the only people using it are the people who want it really badly
Not necessarily. People using it could just have more money.
You're paying either way - the time you'd otherwise waste on finding a parking spot has a direct value, which makes 'free' parking even more costly than paid-for parking.
> For example, in the bay area, parking in SF is difficult to say the least and usually in paid garages.
Funnily enough, when you live in SF, you find parking to be easy and mostly free :-)
Funnily enough, when you live in SF, you find parking to be easy and mostly free :-)
I was halfway through your comment and getting ready to tell you about this great solution call PayByPhone that's used for parking all around my city. Thanks for that :)
However I would argue that charging sufficiently high prices for parking solves #1 too, the remaining difficulty would be finding cheap parking, not expensive parking.
However I would argue that charging sufficiently high prices for parking solves #1 too, the remaining difficulty would be finding cheap parking, not expensive parking.
If parking gets too expensive, I can imagine self-driving cars circling the block until the owner is ready to go.
This will run you afoul of existing no-cruising laws.
(...which were put on the books decades ago to keep taxi drivers trolling for fares out of high-congestion areas.)
(...which were put on the books decades ago to keep taxi drivers trolling for fares out of high-congestion areas.)
Passing an enforceable law against that will be a lot easier, since the companies responsible for self-driving car algorithms can be bashed upside the head with it.
Send the car on an errand and have it come back, or even send it “home” and summon it later. (I’m deeply skeptical that we’ll have level 5 self-driving cars in my lifetime, but if we do, we won’t need to pay $50 in today’s money to park anywhere…)
Agreed on the likelihood of having ubiquitous level 5 self-driving cars in my lifetime as well (I'm in my mid-30s). But I'm also very skeptical about the desirability of this kind of a transformation, and the desirability of (re-)building cities around it. Your examples are two of infinitely many that illustrate how self-driven or not, cars fuck things up.
In short, many people agree that the human-driven, gasoline-powered car is the problem. But far too many zero in on the adjectives, implying that solving the "human-driven" part will solve our cities' problems (love the traffic-light-free intersection visualizations, totally want to be a pedestrian trying to live next to those). Then there are people pretending electric cars are more than just marginally better for the environment when the full life cycle of both the energy required to power them and the materials that go into them is considered.
Stop trying to fix the car. The car is the problem. Specifically, at a certain point (you can quantify it as certain population density, or population size) there are too many of them to rely on them for transportation of most people and to have liveable cities. In North America, we sacrificed the liveability of cities to keep the car, in Europe they're sacrificing the car for liveability. There's not too much more to it than that.
Electric self-driving cars change this a bit, but not enough to matter. It's basically the same as above.
In short, many people agree that the human-driven, gasoline-powered car is the problem. But far too many zero in on the adjectives, implying that solving the "human-driven" part will solve our cities' problems (love the traffic-light-free intersection visualizations, totally want to be a pedestrian trying to live next to those). Then there are people pretending electric cars are more than just marginally better for the environment when the full life cycle of both the energy required to power them and the materials that go into them is considered.
Stop trying to fix the car. The car is the problem. Specifically, at a certain point (you can quantify it as certain population density, or population size) there are too many of them to rely on them for transportation of most people and to have liveable cities. In North America, we sacrificed the liveability of cities to keep the car, in Europe they're sacrificing the car for liveability. There's not too much more to it than that.
Electric self-driving cars change this a bit, but not enough to matter. It's basically the same as above.
Even outside of "cheating" like this, self-driving would have a pretty significant impact on parking economics. You don't need to have parking spread throughout the city in convenient places, because you can send your car to the central parking depot while you're shopping and recall it when you're done.
This sounds wonderful, except for the part where your desire to avoid paying for parking is creating gridlock for everyone else, as your car drives around, creating traffic. [1]
Since I'm not interested in paying the taxes necessary to double the amount of roads in town, and since I hate traffic, I'd rather just make what you describe illegal [2], just like how many other nuisances are illegal on public roadways. It should be pretty easy for legislatures to force vendors to disable self-driving summons/parking on public roads.
[1] And no, even if the traffic you create is counterflow, we will still need more road capacity, and I'm not paying for it. Where I live, there is no 'counterflow' - traffic consistently sucks in both directions of travel.
[2] Or toll you, preferably to the point where you'll find it more advantageous to just pay for parking.
Since I'm not interested in paying the taxes necessary to double the amount of roads in town, and since I hate traffic, I'd rather just make what you describe illegal [2], just like how many other nuisances are illegal on public roadways. It should be pretty easy for legislatures to force vendors to disable self-driving summons/parking on public roads.
[1] And no, even if the traffic you create is counterflow, we will still need more road capacity, and I'm not paying for it. Where I live, there is no 'counterflow' - traffic consistently sucks in both directions of travel.
[2] Or toll you, preferably to the point where you'll find it more advantageous to just pay for parking.
I think you misunderstood. I'm not talking about driving around in a holding pattern. I'm saying that instead of interspersing valuable real estate with parking lots so that people can walk from their car to the shop/restaurant, you can put all the parking in one (realistically, a few) places.
I don't think sending a car on an errand is cheating in any way. In fact I think it's one of the great promises of self driving cars. People already do curbside pickup of groceries, dry cleaning, restaurant food, etc... There's no reason a person needs to be in that car.
> Send the car on an errand and have it come back, or even send it “home” and summon it later
Now imagine what this will do to rush hour traffic - There would be twice as many vehicle trips for the same number of people. Road tolls (particularly on unoccupied cars) would be needed as part of any solution, which everyone loves even more than parking fees.
Now imagine what this will do to rush hour traffic - There would be twice as many vehicle trips for the same number of people. Road tolls (particularly on unoccupied cars) would be needed as part of any solution, which everyone loves even more than parking fees.
A lot of rush hour traffic is asymmetric so increasing the number of cars headed on the reverse commute isn’t as bad as doubling them on the primary direction. I suspect new equilibriums would arise pretty naturally, with a mix of solutions depending on the circumstances.
"Road tolls (particularly on unoccupied cars)"
Why should the number of occupants affect the amount of the toll?
Why should the number of occupants affect the amount of the toll?
To disincentivize cars driving around empty.
You mean like the autonomous delivery van?
Clearly it's not that simple and we want certain vehicles to be devoid of human occupants.
Clearly it's not that simple and we want certain vehicles to be devoid of human occupants.
A toll on all cars (not just empty cars) would already disincentivize driving around empty.
A larger toll on empty cars would disincentivize it more.
"A larger toll on empty cars would disincentivize it more."
A larger toll on all cars would disincentivize it just as much.
My point is: why not set the toll at an optimum level, and then let each car owner decide whether it's worth the car driving at a particular time and place?
If we want to charge people based on the contents of the car, why not charge lower tolls for cars with 5 occupants instead of 4. Or lower tolls for cars carrying older or fatter people (who are less able to take public transport)?
It seems to me that road usage prices should be high enough to limit/eliminate congestion and that, if they were that high, there would be no need to discriminate based on what is being carried.
A larger toll on all cars would disincentivize it just as much.
My point is: why not set the toll at an optimum level, and then let each car owner decide whether it's worth the car driving at a particular time and place?
If we want to charge people based on the contents of the car, why not charge lower tolls for cars with 5 occupants instead of 4. Or lower tolls for cars carrying older or fatter people (who are less able to take public transport)?
It seems to me that road usage prices should be high enough to limit/eliminate congestion and that, if they were that high, there would be no need to discriminate based on what is being carried.
> My point is: why not set the toll at an optimum level, and then let each car owner decide whether it's worth the car driving at a particular time and place?
Because to a person stuck in traffic, seeing a bunch of empty cars beside you wasting space is infuriating regardless of if they paid the government their $3 toll or whatever
> If we want to charge people based on the contents of the car, why not charge lower tolls for cars with 5 occupants instead of 4.
Yep, I'm fully on board with scaling the toll down as the number of occupants increases (and so are most people - HOV lanes exist for exactly that reason)
> Or lower tolls for cars carrying older or fatter people (who are less able to take public transport)?
Yeah, on board with this too, as are most regulatory bodies - thus the handicap only parking spaces, bus+handicap loading zones, etc.
Equal isn't always fair.
Because to a person stuck in traffic, seeing a bunch of empty cars beside you wasting space is infuriating regardless of if they paid the government their $3 toll or whatever
> If we want to charge people based on the contents of the car, why not charge lower tolls for cars with 5 occupants instead of 4.
Yep, I'm fully on board with scaling the toll down as the number of occupants increases (and so are most people - HOV lanes exist for exactly that reason)
> Or lower tolls for cars carrying older or fatter people (who are less able to take public transport)?
Yeah, on board with this too, as are most regulatory bodies - thus the handicap only parking spaces, bus+handicap loading zones, etc.
Equal isn't always fair.
"a bunch of empty cars beside you wasting space"
So if you're sending your car to pick up your grandparents, you are 'wasting space' for the first leg of the journey if you don't sit in the car during the round trip?
So if you're sending your car to pick up your grandparents, you are 'wasting space' for the first leg of the journey if you don't sit in the car during the round trip?
Tolls of some type are probably the answer to shaping congestion. If my car is going to pick up my dry cleaning, I probably only care that I have it by tomorrow and don't care if my car picks it up at 10 am or 10 pm.
Why do that when you could send it somewhere where parking is cheap? The behind anti-cruising laws is to prevent cars from jamming up popular locations, if you send it somewhere other than your destination block then the law is working.
If there’s a place nearby that’s more advantageous than a farther away place, people will naturally do that. It would hopefully spur some competition for economy parking someplace close but not in the city center.
Fortunately we're still quite a long ways away from self driving cars in the sense of truly driverless cars that can be relied upon to navigate safely on their own in random settings, like a city block.
Yeah, for sure.
Malcolm Gladwell wrote about his experience in a Waymo and he came to an interesting conclusion. Because self driving cars always defer to pedestrians, pedestrians will get very bold and not be scared about stepping off the curb in front of a self driving car. It could mean traveling through dense urban centers by car is almost impossible.
Of course, car owners vote in enough numbers that, if this were to happen, I could see cities installing barriers between side walks and streets like Las Vegas has in the strip area.
Malcolm Gladwell wrote about his experience in a Waymo and he came to an interesting conclusion. Because self driving cars always defer to pedestrians, pedestrians will get very bold and not be scared about stepping off the curb in front of a self driving car. It could mean traveling through dense urban centers by car is almost impossible.
Of course, car owners vote in enough numbers that, if this were to happen, I could see cities installing barriers between side walks and streets like Las Vegas has in the strip area.
Better yet, with some planning it could go quite far to a place with ample parking (or even back home) to wait. Then come pick me up.
But that trades a lot of unnecessarily wasted energy to move those 4000+ pounds to a faraway place and back, empty, just to work around the parking rules.
(See parallel thread on "Lufthansa confirmed that 18k flights had been flown empty to keep slots", which feels related.)
(See parallel thread on "Lufthansa confirmed that 18k flights had been flown empty to keep slots", which feels related.)
Compared to constant driving around the block it can’t be much worse? Worst case it drives away and comes back later with no stop. Best case it drives home or to a parking and waits then returns. The former could be worse than cruising constantly (due to potential higher speed) but the latter is better than constant cruising.
The university near my house uses a parking app that requires all sorts of permissions to install. So I think there needs to be a hard limit with teeth (e.g., auditing and stiff penalties) on collection and storage of personal data.
Another idea is some kind of open API standard, where you can use the app of your choice in a particular locale, rather than being locked to a particular vendor. Then the apps can compete on which one has the best user experience, privacy, and so forth.
Another idea is some kind of open API standard, where you can use the app of your choice in a particular locale, rather than being locked to a particular vendor. Then the apps can compete on which one has the best user experience, privacy, and so forth.
I use paybyphone on the reg.
background: I'm friends with Kush.
background: I'm friends with Kush.
I can't help but think that many of our economic, social, and environmental issues stem from a culture of cars. Cars push out urban sprawl weakening economies of scale, cars take up a massive amount of expensive real-estate (roads and parking), cars produce a tremendous amount of pollution in addition the environmental impacts of the previous two points.
At least in the US, I do not see a path forwards tho. The houses have been built and the people live where they live.
At least in the US, I do not see a path forwards tho. The houses have been built and the people live where they live.
It took decades of intentional development to go from a United States where every big city had a streetcar system and basically nobody had a car, to the suburban hellscapes that exist throughout the country today. It will take decades more to fix.
The path forward is zoning changes. Make it legal to build small apartments in a neighborhood, make it legal to run a corner shop, etc. We can build walkable environments in suburban hellscapes if we tweak the laws.
I like this framing of the zoning issue much more than “build build build on every scrap of land you can get your hands on”.
Ownership of land is really important for ensuring everyone in America is literally bought into the American Dream. Until you’re ready to buy a house, I feel no compunction forcing you into high-density housing in the meantime (paired with greatly increasing low-income mortgage assistance).
Ownership of land is really important for ensuring everyone in America is literally bought into the American Dream. Until you’re ready to buy a house, I feel no compunction forcing you into high-density housing in the meantime (paired with greatly increasing low-income mortgage assistance).
Where I live, lots of people own a unit in a multi-family house as either a condo or a co-op. Coming from California, I thought of housing as always being a SFH on .25ac or something like that, but for what you get in terms of quality of life, I would be very happy to own a co-op in a triple-decker in my neighborhood.
I live in a midrise condo in the suburbs of NYC. One thing I've noticed is that similar condos in the area have not risen in price significantly (if at all) whereas SFHs have.
Is this because of the pandemic that the demand of dense multi-family housing has stagnated while isolated SFHs have risen?
The thought has crossed my mind the past two years where I've encountered more rude, aggressive, and hostile fellow residents in my building. Our building staff members have commented the same. Pleas from building management to mask up or avoid riding the elevator with other households go unheeded. Likewise pleas to not smoke in outdoor, but common areas (lounges, rooftops, etc.) go unheeded, and now add marijuana smell as a bonus.
It's gotten to the point my wife and I specifically want to move to a SFH so that we don't have to deal with such people.
Is this because of the pandemic that the demand of dense multi-family housing has stagnated while isolated SFHs have risen?
The thought has crossed my mind the past two years where I've encountered more rude, aggressive, and hostile fellow residents in my building. Our building staff members have commented the same. Pleas from building management to mask up or avoid riding the elevator with other households go unheeded. Likewise pleas to not smoke in outdoor, but common areas (lounges, rooftops, etc.) go unheeded, and now add marijuana smell as a bonus.
It's gotten to the point my wife and I specifically want to move to a SFH so that we don't have to deal with such people.
On the housing density spectrum there's a lot of room between 'unit in midrise condo' and SFH. I really like where I live. Boston metro, 6-unit building where I know almost all the tenants. Most of the rest of my neighborhood is 2 or 3 unit multifamily, and it really is a very pleasant density.
You can own a home without owning the land. It's pretty common in denser parts of the world. I recall a wealthy family in Padova, Italy where I lived that had a flat on the 3rd floor of some building right in the historic downtown. It was both large and very nice.
I guess it comes down to definitions.
To me a home would mean no shared walls/floors/ceilings with other tenants.
To me a home would mean no shared walls/floors/ceilings with other tenants.
A home is where you live. If you stop to think about it, it's a very US sort of bias to define a 'home' as the single family detached house, whereas other things like apartments are not considered a 'home'. Not picking on you; people do this all the time. You even see it in the press, where they'll talk about some kind of development that includes both single family homes as well as apartment units (which sounds kind of cold and unappealing).
Zoning means someone that owns a property cannot do with it as they see fit. How does allowing individual people to make their own decisions about their land have anything to do with forcing people into high density?
Zoning is good. It came about because industrialists were building factories next to people's houses and they were dying of pollutant inhalation. You need rules for what kind of buildings can go together, but the historic mistake (intentional or not) was to zone retail away from housing and force everybody to drive to get to anything that isn't a single family home.
I don't want to live in 'libertopia', where there are no rules at all, but zoning always had a component of keeping 'those people' away from 'nice neighborhoods'. In the city I live in, right now there's a group fighting to keep duplexes out of their wealthy neighborhood. That has nothing to do with legitimate concerns about truly noxious smells or noises. And, ironically, the whole town grew up around a smelly, noisy, river clogging mill.
> You need rules for what kind of buildings can go together, but the historic mistake (intentional or not) was to zone retail away from housing and force everybody to drive to get to anything that isn't a single family home.
Yes, sure--I was referring mainly to American single use zoning, which is terrible. There are certainly approaches that have way less in terms of downsides, such as the Japanese style zoning.
Yes, sure--I was referring mainly to American single use zoning, which is terrible. There are certainly approaches that have way less in terms of downsides, such as the Japanese style zoning.
NIMBY. Asking people if they want the poor in their wealthy neighborhood and school district is like asking if they want a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood.
>"Asking people if they want the poor in their wealthy neighborhood"
I'm generally anti-NIMBY but this kind of sentiment is a dramatic oversimplification. I really don't think we should immediately frame this as a rich people are afraid of poor people problem. For one thing, it doesn't explain why NIMBYism is also present in poor and working class neighborhoods.
I'm generally anti-NIMBY but this kind of sentiment is a dramatic oversimplification. I really don't think we should immediately frame this as a rich people are afraid of poor people problem. For one thing, it doesn't explain why NIMBYism is also present in poor and working class neighborhoods.
It would be fixed because the car industry does not have anymore power to stop the improvements.
Now, it's tech companies the ones that have the money to create a bad for humans landscape. Will the USA repeat the same mistake and let them create an unfit for society digital neighborhood, or has it learned that to take corporation interests above everything else create inefficient societies?
Now, it's tech companies the ones that have the money to create a bad for humans landscape. Will the USA repeat the same mistake and let them create an unfit for society digital neighborhood, or has it learned that to take corporation interests above everything else create inefficient societies?
There isn’t a single appropriate viewpoint, I think cars are amazing and I will never be giving mine up. I support those who want to trade theirs in, but don’t force that on me.
Cars are highly subsidized right now. I think it would be good for everyone, car lovers included, if all the externalities would be priced into car ownership. Noise, pollution, space taken up, and road damage should be priced into use of cars. Cars may be private property but they use ridiculous amounts of public space. Everyone can keep their car if they want, but the cost of car ownership should reflect the externalities. This could be done through tolls, annual registration fees based on noise, emissions, and usage or similar measures.
I think non-residential street parking, paid or not, should probably be illegal. Or at least eye-wateringly expensive and limited to a few minutes at a time (e.g. food pickups). I say this as someone who drives regularly. The lack of visibility street parking creates in densely developed areas is a major safety hazard for all. Cyclists can get doored, drivers have diminished environmental awareness of things such as pedestrians emerging unexpectedly between two cars (perhaps to get to their own car, or just jaywalking), parked cars blocking visibility of oncoming traffic for motorists trying to turn, etc. None of it good.
For residential street parking, I guess it should be up to those communities to decide what they want. The town where I live has outlawed overnight street parking which prevents people turning single-family homes into overcrowded communal living situations like you see in many parts of California. It makes the streets very safe and pleasant for walkers and kids on bikes, but also works against housing density which I recognize as problematic. I support density, but not density with cars; we need a lot of investment in transportation alternatives.
For residential street parking, I guess it should be up to those communities to decide what they want. The town where I live has outlawed overnight street parking which prevents people turning single-family homes into overcrowded communal living situations like you see in many parts of California. It makes the streets very safe and pleasant for walkers and kids on bikes, but also works against housing density which I recognize as problematic. I support density, but not density with cars; we need a lot of investment in transportation alternatives.
I'm wondering if there are cultural practices in play regarding your mention of SFH being used as "overcrowded communal living situations".
For example, it's not uncommon in Asia to find multiple generations living in the same household. AFAIK California has a lot of Asians.
While not in California, the town my parents live in has had an influx of Chinese immigrants the past decade or so. This has resulted in situations like the above, where multiple generations (grandparents, parents, grown children, grandkids) are living in the same SFH. Often times all three adult generations are driving, so that's at least 3 cars. Even more if say, each working individual have their own cars.
The result is that the street in front of my parents' home is jam packed with parked cars that would not fit in these homes' driveways/garages.
I don't not-sympathize, being an Asian myself, as I also happen to think the American obsession of kicking out adult children out of the household ASAP regardless of circumstances is stupid (or from the other side, clawing tooth and nail to achieve so-called "independence" from parents regardless of circumstances). At the same time, the street parking situation is not sustainable.
For example, it's not uncommon in Asia to find multiple generations living in the same household. AFAIK California has a lot of Asians.
While not in California, the town my parents live in has had an influx of Chinese immigrants the past decade or so. This has resulted in situations like the above, where multiple generations (grandparents, parents, grown children, grandkids) are living in the same SFH. Often times all three adult generations are driving, so that's at least 3 cars. Even more if say, each working individual have their own cars.
The result is that the street in front of my parents' home is jam packed with parked cars that would not fit in these homes' driveways/garages.
I don't not-sympathize, being an Asian myself, as I also happen to think the American obsession of kicking out adult children out of the household ASAP regardless of circumstances is stupid (or from the other side, clawing tooth and nail to achieve so-called "independence" from parents regardless of circumstances). At the same time, the street parking situation is not sustainable.
Thansk for the comment. I have no problem with multi-generational living. I'm not Asian but I lived with my in-laws for a few years while we were saving up to buy a home and it was great. The problem I have is when there are more people in a given housing unit than it was designed to accommodate and so you make up for that lack by consuming something in the commons, specifically street parking.
The pattern I saw in the Bay Area was not so much multi-generational families as groups of multiple unrelated working adults moving into a single-family home together as roommates, each adult individual having their own car and quickly exceeding the 2 spaces provided by a typical Bay Area driveway. Maybe they could park more in the driveway but nobody wants to block in other vehicles so they park in the street for every car beyond 2. Pretty soon the neighborhood is fully parked up.
This is unrelated, but there was also a guy in my Palo Alto neighborhood who hoarded junk cars. He had them parked in his garage, his driveway, yard, and when he ran out of space he started parking them all up and down the street near his house in front of neighbors houses. It was a real nuisance and the police never did anything about it that I could see. Behavior like that shows a real lack of respect for the commons.
The pattern I saw in the Bay Area was not so much multi-generational families as groups of multiple unrelated working adults moving into a single-family home together as roommates, each adult individual having their own car and quickly exceeding the 2 spaces provided by a typical Bay Area driveway. Maybe they could park more in the driveway but nobody wants to block in other vehicles so they park in the street for every car beyond 2. Pretty soon the neighborhood is fully parked up.
This is unrelated, but there was also a guy in my Palo Alto neighborhood who hoarded junk cars. He had them parked in his garage, his driveway, yard, and when he ran out of space he started parking them all up and down the street near his house in front of neighbors houses. It was a real nuisance and the police never did anything about it that I could see. Behavior like that shows a real lack of respect for the commons.
> I have no problem with multi-generational living.
> groups of multiple unrelated working adults moving into a single-family home together as roommates
From the number of cars perspective, it doesn't make any difference if the multiple adults in the house are family or not, it's still one car per adult.
> groups of multiple unrelated working adults moving into a single-family home together as roommates
From the number of cars perspective, it doesn't make any difference if the multiple adults in the house are family or not, it's still one car per adult.
That's an interesting observation! I've noticed from my Instagram feeds that there is a trend of "hackerspace" homes where multiple SWE/tech people will live in a SFH dormitory style. I reckon this might be peculiar to the SFBA and the tech scene?
Yes, I think the hacker house idea and adult roommate living situations more generally are very common in the Bay Area due to housing shortage and high costs. It's the only place I've ever lived where it would not be surprising to find adult professionals making $100k+ living with roommates. These folks could get their own place if they really wanted, but since most people are young and unattached when they come to the Bay Area it makes sense to save money by splitting housing with others. Or, they recognize that by having roommates they can get access to trendier or more convenient areas that would otherwise be unaffordable for them. These observations are pre-pandemic, of course, as I left the Bay Area in 2018. Things could be a lot different now.
For lower wage people, like the janitors, cooks, gig economy people, etc needed to serve tech elites, there's really no option except to crowd in with other people. Even if you move to the limits of a practical commute, it's still very very expensive for those not pulling engineering salaries.
For lower wage people, like the janitors, cooks, gig economy people, etc needed to serve tech elites, there's really no option except to crowd in with other people. Even if you move to the limits of a practical commute, it's still very very expensive for those not pulling engineering salaries.
>The lack of visibility street parking creates in densely developed areas is a major safety hazard for all.
I believe that when used right*, "lack of visibility" can be a very useful design feature to get drivers to Slow The Fuck Down. In general, North American fetishization of "clear lines of sight", leading to removal of supposed "obstacles" like trees, bushes, etc., leads to streets that are far easier to speed on. Places where planners know how to plan properly (i.e. not North America) use everything at their disposal to make it intensely uncomfortable to speed, with features that send speeders to the auto shop before they gain enough speed to send pedestrians and cyclists to the hospitals.
Parked car lanes on alternating sides of the street can be judicially used to force a previously straight street to meander, for example. It's not as good as other solutions, but it can be useful.
* For example, grade-separated cycle lanes, placed between the parked cars and sidewalk (rather than between parked cars and the street) significantly reduces, and with enough of a buffer completely removes the dooring risk for cyclists.
I believe that when used right*, "lack of visibility" can be a very useful design feature to get drivers to Slow The Fuck Down. In general, North American fetishization of "clear lines of sight", leading to removal of supposed "obstacles" like trees, bushes, etc., leads to streets that are far easier to speed on. Places where planners know how to plan properly (i.e. not North America) use everything at their disposal to make it intensely uncomfortable to speed, with features that send speeders to the auto shop before they gain enough speed to send pedestrians and cyclists to the hospitals.
Parked car lanes on alternating sides of the street can be judicially used to force a previously straight street to meander, for example. It's not as good as other solutions, but it can be useful.
* For example, grade-separated cycle lanes, placed between the parked cars and sidewalk (rather than between parked cars and the street) significantly reduces, and with enough of a buffer completely removes the dooring risk for cyclists.
> "lack of visibility" can be a very useful design feature to get drivers to Slow The Fuck Down.
That's why I personally do, as I live in such a city with cars parked literally everywhere so that in order to drive safe I need to slow down. As you imply, it's almost a feature, not a bug.
That's why I personally do, as I live in such a city with cars parked literally everywhere so that in order to drive safe I need to slow down. As you imply, it's almost a feature, not a bug.
> I think non-residential street parking, paid or not, should probably be illegal. Or at least eye-wateringly expensive and limited to a few minutes at a time
So basically you don't want me to go there. Ok, I won't. I'll take my business somewhere else.
I personally never shop at small local stores in my area because of lack of parking. I go to the huge stores 10 minutes away that have parking lots.
So basically you don't want me to go there. Ok, I won't. I'll take my business somewhere else.
I personally never shop at small local stores in my area because of lack of parking. I go to the huge stores 10 minutes away that have parking lots.
I'm not sure why this is a controversial take. I absolutely make decisions about activities, where I shop or eat, etc. based on whether--if I drive into the city--I can find parking and, if so, how expensive it is. Cities (and to a lesser degree businesses) can absolutely decide they don't care if they discourage people from coming in from outside. And I'll act accordingly. Which is fine.
Same. I entirely avoid Downtown Austin for this reason. I used to go when I could park for free at the state parking garages after-hours (was a state employee at the time), but now it's just expensive and/or tedious to park there.
I even passed on a job offer for a downtown office when I was informed they didn't have a parking lot/garage but would instead provide a monthly parking allowance. Wasn't interested at all in hunting for parking on-street or around various garages every morning.
I even passed on a job offer for a downtown office when I was informed they didn't have a parking lot/garage but would instead provide a monthly parking allowance. Wasn't interested at all in hunting for parking on-street or around various garages every morning.
[deleted]
That's the market at work, isn't it. Different businesses make different choices. Get rid of parking regulations and let each business figure out what works best.
He was specifically talking about street parking.
While I understand the sentiment, this makes cities even more unfriendly to families with kids. How can grandparents or relatives visit for a weekend?
I guess we have to ask ourselves a different question if we truly want to create a sustainable urban environment:
Why can grandparents only visit by car? Why are there no (better) alternatives?
Why can grandparents only visit by car? Why are there no (better) alternatives?
Because when you live 75 miles from the nearest major city, in a township of a couple hundred, a bus line or really any sort of infrastructure for that matter isn't practical?
I think a lot of people forget how sparse much of the country really is.
I think a lot of people forget how sparse much of the country really is.
Well, this is exactly the opposite to an urban environment - this is urban sprawl.
Is it better to construct and maintain 75 miles of roads (and all the other infrastructure) for a couple of hundred folks?
I highly recommend this video on the finances around urban sprawl and their long term consequences:
https://youtu.be/XfQUOHlAocY
Is it better to construct and maintain 75 miles of roads (and all the other infrastructure) for a couple of hundred folks?
I highly recommend this video on the finances around urban sprawl and their long term consequences:
https://youtu.be/XfQUOHlAocY
Huh, so at 2:23 the speaker brings up Brainerd Minnesota. A town I am very familiar with, having visited family there many times growing up. Cute little town, big chunk of the economy is people coming up to go fishing.
He really cherry picked the least flattering angle on modern Front Street. Here's a better angle - https://goo.gl/maps/CBnqs6i9YLG1mSEG6
It's a very strange town to pick to make an argument about sprawl with - Brainard is a pretty densely packed small town as far as towns in Minnesota go.
He really cherry picked the least flattering angle on modern Front Street. Here's a better angle - https://goo.gl/maps/CBnqs6i9YLG1mSEG6
It's a very strange town to pick to make an argument about sprawl with - Brainard is a pretty densely packed small town as far as towns in Minnesota go.
I just see a huge parking lot. What do you see?
I think you overestimate the share of Americans who live in rural communities. If the only people driving into developed areas were coming from that far afield, managing traffic and parking would be trivial problems.
And the reason they drive all the way into downtown and crowd up the streets as opposed to the nearest major train stop (with far cheaper lad for parking) is?
Or to come into a city for an evening event. I'm actually quite close to commuter rail to the 40 mile away large city. Which I take if I'm going in 9-5 but it's completely impractical to use for going in for dinner and a show.
Why is it impractical for dinner and a show?
Not the OP, but I had the same issue living in North Austin, TX. I was nearly outside ATX, and would have loved to take the rail downtown for a night of bar-hopping and then not have to drive back. But the last northbound train was at like 10 or 11pm.
That meant while I could take the train to downtown, it wasn't practical (at least for a night of bar hopping) unless I wanted to spend a hefty sum on a return Uber at the end of the night.
That meant while I could take the train to downtown, it wasn't practical (at least for a night of bar hopping) unless I wanted to spend a hefty sum on a return Uber at the end of the night.
It takes longer (with reverse commute traffic and less going home). I'd have to leave early to make it in time for dinner. And I'd have to hope I hit one of the infrequent trains that run after rush hour. It's completely impractical. I just wouldn't do it.
Why don't more people ask for better train connections?
Trains would allow kids, elderly, people without a driver's license or the financial means to afford a car to participate in society as well.
Trains would allow kids, elderly, people without a driver's license or the financial means to afford a car to participate in society as well.
You pretty much need a car/ride to take commuter rail anyway. Relatively few people live walking distance from a suburban/exurban station. And there's just very little demand for the train outside of commuting hours--and would be even if they ran significantly more trains.
Some commuter rail lines in the U.S. are designed to only cater to commuters. So they may not run any train into downtown at night, or they may stop running well before the shows end at night, so there's no way to use the trains to get back home.
There are a few out of the city until about 11:30 or so. I'd be hanging around for maybe an hour+ then a fairly long train trip to my car.
I'll say it before someone else inevitably does - they're supposed to take public transportation and/or cabs.
When I was young, I didn't live in a big city, and I tried to believe someone who said "just take public transportation", rather than the 3 hours trip, by car. It was 13 hours and $60 by bus (the shortest/cheapest option). By cab, it would have been, literally, 5x my car payment. It wasn't a sane option.
>How can grandparents or relatives visit for a weekend?
Speaking as someone who moved the family to the city and had a fair number of (free) on and (paid) off street parking options nearby, for about 50% of the people we knew, it was like we moved to the moon. Even though we only moved about 5 miles, but that "parking" thing was a massive disincentive for people to come to visit.
On the other side of the coin, my small town mom loved that she didn't have to drive at all and could take a 90 minute bus ride to come visit.
For the other set of grandparents, who were uncomfortable with driving in and parking, we'd simply drive out to pick them up.
EDIT: I'm also reasonably confident that the 4th floor walkup was just as intimidating as the parking situation
Speaking as someone who moved the family to the city and had a fair number of (free) on and (paid) off street parking options nearby, for about 50% of the people we knew, it was like we moved to the moon. Even though we only moved about 5 miles, but that "parking" thing was a massive disincentive for people to come to visit.
On the other side of the coin, my small town mom loved that she didn't have to drive at all and could take a 90 minute bus ride to come visit.
For the other set of grandparents, who were uncomfortable with driving in and parking, we'd simply drive out to pick them up.
EDIT: I'm also reasonably confident that the 4th floor walkup was just as intimidating as the parking situation
> we need a lot of investment in transportation alternatives.
Some small changes can have a pretty minimal investment. The city of Austin lets motorcycles use street parking for free.
Some small changes can have a pretty minimal investment. The city of Austin lets motorcycles use street parking for free.
I live in the Paris, France area, and I think most people here that are not themselves driving such things are hoping that motorized two wheel vehicle gets outlawed.
I'm not sure why, but people driving those seem to completely ignore driving laws (red lights, stop sign, lanes, etc) which makes them very dangerous and annoying.
Not to mention the noise (for those which are not electric)
I'm not sure why, but people driving those seem to completely ignore driving laws (red lights, stop sign, lanes, etc) which makes them very dangerous and annoying.
Not to mention the noise (for those which are not electric)
It would be nice to see them outlawed in city centres but for a completely different reason. Pollution. Those 2-stroke engines pollute a lot more than cars nowadays and with the rise in food delivery services these vehicles have been on the rise. Likely undoing the effects of banning old cars from city centres.
In Austin, motorcycles generally follow the same rules as cars. The two wheeled vehicles that seem to annoy most people are bicycles and for the reasons you state (except noise).
I think you'll find this true in most places, at least in the US.
The main differentiating factor is probably the consequences - or lack of.
Disobey traffic laws and get caught in a car or motorcycle - you face consequences that can range from harsh to at least significantly annoying enough that you'd rather not.
Do the same in a bike, and most people don't care beyond giving you the finger or a nasty look. Even cops don't care more often than not.
True - you don't have a cage of steel surrounding you like in a car so you also risk being killed or maimed, but I've found most cyclists also have a sense of invincibility until they actually get hurt. I am guilty of this myself.
The main differentiating factor is probably the consequences - or lack of.
Disobey traffic laws and get caught in a car or motorcycle - you face consequences that can range from harsh to at least significantly annoying enough that you'd rather not.
Do the same in a bike, and most people don't care beyond giving you the finger or a nasty look. Even cops don't care more often than not.
True - you don't have a cage of steel surrounding you like in a car so you also risk being killed or maimed, but I've found most cyclists also have a sense of invincibility until they actually get hurt. I am guilty of this myself.
Yes, bicycles too, maybe worse. But I tolerate them better because at least it's good for our planet. Also when I drive (very very rarely), I have been much more annoyed by motorcycles which are passing on the right or driving between cars than by bicycles which tend to only be in areas where you can to drive really slow anyway, do it's much less dangerous.
Residential bans on overnight on-street parking are essentially a tool for preventing new affordable housing from being built. It doesn't so much work against housing density as foreclose on it.
I live in one of two Chicago suburbs notable for excellent connectivity to Chicago's transit fabric (we're on both the Blue and the Green CTA train lines, a major regional commuter rail route, and a zillion bus routes). But people have jobs all over the metro area; to live here, take a job anywhere but the center of the city, and rely on public transit, you'd have to commute downtown and then back out, adding 45-90 minutes to your commute each way. Even if you don't drive every day, most people still need cars. Taking one of the few existing affordable apartments here essentially requires you to kick in several hundred dollars extra per month for a parking spot somewhere else in the area.
What really happens here is that, of course, most residents, working class or not, own cars. But if you don't live on an SFH lot with a garage, you scavenge for parking where you can find it, often parking on the street and getting cited for it; our overnight parking ban generates about $400k/yr, mostly from renters. Gross.†
We've banned overnight parking here as well, and I've been working for years now to build a case against that ban. Many other Chicago suburbs have repealed their overnight bans and replaced them with sticker systems.
Meanwhile, we enforce off-street parking requirements for new residential construction. The sufficiency of those requirements is probably the single most important lever in trying to get new developments rejected at the plan commission, and to ratchet up the cost of new apartments so that fewer are built and for wealthier people. The pattern is to make a case for requiring more parking spots than can reasonably be provided on a residential lot, and, when that obviously can't happen, demand fewer units and less density.
The Planning Association article linked here seems to have things exactly right. What we should be doing is eliminating all off-street parking requirements --- developers can build them if they think the market needs them --- and then simply charging for convenient on-street parking (perhaps with means-tested subsidies for residents). It doesn't seem complicated.
† I did a FOIA request on this a year or so ago and mapped the tickets out, and, because I didn't know the right FOIA request to find all the apartments, surveyed the area for multi-family buildings, and threw together a dumb static HTML page; I just got the 2021 batch of FOIA data and am throwing together an Elixir app to render it this week. https://oak-park-parking.fly.dev/
I live in one of two Chicago suburbs notable for excellent connectivity to Chicago's transit fabric (we're on both the Blue and the Green CTA train lines, a major regional commuter rail route, and a zillion bus routes). But people have jobs all over the metro area; to live here, take a job anywhere but the center of the city, and rely on public transit, you'd have to commute downtown and then back out, adding 45-90 minutes to your commute each way. Even if you don't drive every day, most people still need cars. Taking one of the few existing affordable apartments here essentially requires you to kick in several hundred dollars extra per month for a parking spot somewhere else in the area.
What really happens here is that, of course, most residents, working class or not, own cars. But if you don't live on an SFH lot with a garage, you scavenge for parking where you can find it, often parking on the street and getting cited for it; our overnight parking ban generates about $400k/yr, mostly from renters. Gross.†
We've banned overnight parking here as well, and I've been working for years now to build a case against that ban. Many other Chicago suburbs have repealed their overnight bans and replaced them with sticker systems.
Meanwhile, we enforce off-street parking requirements for new residential construction. The sufficiency of those requirements is probably the single most important lever in trying to get new developments rejected at the plan commission, and to ratchet up the cost of new apartments so that fewer are built and for wealthier people. The pattern is to make a case for requiring more parking spots than can reasonably be provided on a residential lot, and, when that obviously can't happen, demand fewer units and less density.
The Planning Association article linked here seems to have things exactly right. What we should be doing is eliminating all off-street parking requirements --- developers can build them if they think the market needs them --- and then simply charging for convenient on-street parking (perhaps with means-tested subsidies for residents). It doesn't seem complicated.
† I did a FOIA request on this a year or so ago and mapped the tickets out, and, because I didn't know the right FOIA request to find all the apartments, surveyed the area for multi-family buildings, and threw together a dumb static HTML page; I just got the 2021 batch of FOIA data and am throwing together an Elixir app to render it this week. https://oak-park-parking.fly.dev/
> What we should be doing is eliminating all off-street parking requirements […] and then simply charging for convenient on-street parking
Where does all this on-street parking come from? It does not compute that it’s impossible to build sufficient parking on the lot, but there is an abundance on the street. To the extent there is an abundance of street parking, this almost certainly means that previous development created sufficient off street parking for their residents.
Nor does it makes sense to encourage developers to dump the cost of building those spaces onto the city. Allowing developers to build without spaces means the rest of the neighborhood pays the cost for the parking congestion. As do the residents who now don’t have a legal parking space.
Where does all this on-street parking come from? It does not compute that it’s impossible to build sufficient parking on the lot, but there is an abundance on the street. To the extent there is an abundance of street parking, this almost certainly means that previous development created sufficient off street parking for their residents.
Nor does it makes sense to encourage developers to dump the cost of building those spaces onto the city. Allowing developers to build without spaces means the rest of the neighborhood pays the cost for the parking congestion. As do the residents who now don’t have a legal parking space.
On-street parking comes from the streets, obviously.
That’s a glib non-answer. How many housing units can squeeze onto a city block is zoned for multi family units? Now how many cars can park on the street in front of those apartments?
I expect my house’s lot could hold a 6 unit building. I have exactly 2 parking spots in front of my house. It would be 3 if I had no driveway. So at best residents could get 50% of their parking needs met with street parking if my house were converted to a multi family dwelling. This holds for many of the apartments and townhomes around me. Lots of my neighbors have 1 or even 0 spots for cars in front of their houses.
Looking at a map of Chicago, I would roughly guesstimate that streets are maybe 15% of the land area in gridded areas. Assume that half of that is “parkable” space. I don’t buy that this is sufficient space for all the cars to park. And if I’m wrong, I fail to see why developers are unable to set aside similar amounts of space off-street for their residents to park.
I expect my house’s lot could hold a 6 unit building. I have exactly 2 parking spots in front of my house. It would be 3 if I had no driveway. So at best residents could get 50% of their parking needs met with street parking if my house were converted to a multi family dwelling. This holds for many of the apartments and townhomes around me. Lots of my neighbors have 1 or even 0 spots for cars in front of their houses.
Looking at a map of Chicago, I would roughly guesstimate that streets are maybe 15% of the land area in gridded areas. Assume that half of that is “parkable” space. I don’t buy that this is sufficient space for all the cars to park. And if I’m wrong, I fail to see why developers are unable to set aside similar amounts of space off-street for their residents to park.
I don't think you can reasonably say I'm being glib about this, given that I've posted actual data about the specific parking usage in the area I'm talking about, and you're just spitballing based on "a map of Chicago".
You posted data about parking tickets. This is not evidence that street parking provides sufficient capacity.
If you have actual data about parking usage in this area, I'm all ears. I'm much less interested in your axiomatic derivation of how parking here works.
At any rate: I answered your question about "where all this on-street parking comes from". You can do the math on the carrying capacity of an Oak Park street for parking; you've got the maps, after all.
At any rate: I answered your question about "where all this on-street parking comes from". You can do the math on the carrying capacity of an Oak Park street for parking; you've got the maps, after all.
I think my back of the envelope math is more compelling than your assertion that parking tickets implies sufficient parking capacity.
If there’s enough street parking, then why the proposal to charge so much for street parking to moderate demand?
If there’s enough street parking, then why the proposal to charge so much for street parking to moderate demand?
You don't understand my argument, which has nothing to do with whether we should charge for street parking (we should). There's not much point in us continuing here.
I absolutely do not understand your argument. That’s why I’ve asked you to clarify it several times. This is what I responded to:
> What we should be doing is eliminating all off-street parking requirements […] and then simply charging for convenient on-street parking
I don’t understand how this solves for any parking issues. It seems like it will create a significant parking issue.
There is insufficient street parking for this to work. Yes, you can hypothetically charge to death until most people stop parking on the street but that just means they’ll vote out the board who instituted the parking fees that make it “convenient”, and the poor will be screwed over either way.
> What we should be doing is eliminating all off-street parking requirements […] and then simply charging for convenient on-street parking
I don’t understand how this solves for any parking issues. It seems like it will create a significant parking issue.
There is insufficient street parking for this to work. Yes, you can hypothetically charge to death until most people stop parking on the street but that just means they’ll vote out the board who instituted the parking fees that make it “convenient”, and the poor will be screwed over either way.
None of our problems involve insufficient street parking.
> I live in one of two Chicago suburbs notable for excellent connectivity to Chicago's transit fabric (we're on both the Blue and the Green CTA train lines, a major regional commuter rail route, and a zillion bus routes). But people have jobs all over the metro area; to live here, take a job anywhere but the center of the city, and rely on public transit, you'd have to commute downtown and then back out, adding 45-90 minutes to your commute each way. Even if you don't drive every day, most people still need cars. Taking one of the few existing affordable apartments here essentially requires you to kick in several hundred dollars extra per month for a parking spot somewhere else in the area.
This is more of a problem with our lackluster transit network than a problem requiring cars. If we just stopped investing into car infrastructure and instead focused on build new train lines to increase interconnectivity and updated our current train lines to run at least 80-100 MPH in the city, you'd be singing a different tune.
I'm personally of the opinion that Chicago itself should have a massive congestion fee for the entire Central Business District and that the parking taxes should be ramped up massively both inside the district and anywhere in the city with a population density of 20,000 people/sq. mi. or higher even without increasing our transit capacity. That system should include an exemption for people with disability tags or placards; delivery vehicles performing a delivery to the area; and registered and taxed taxi and livery service vehicles. Currently, it's a $6/exit tax on parking structures in the Central Business District. I see no reason why that shouldn't be $20/exit or even $50/exit to truly discourage individual passenger vehicles there.
Now, where you live, you're well below that 20,000 people/sq. mi. metric and not even in the city. So no need to get extreme on modifications. But, if we invested more in high-speed, highly inter-connected transit, you would not need a car.
This is more of a problem with our lackluster transit network than a problem requiring cars. If we just stopped investing into car infrastructure and instead focused on build new train lines to increase interconnectivity and updated our current train lines to run at least 80-100 MPH in the city, you'd be singing a different tune.
I'm personally of the opinion that Chicago itself should have a massive congestion fee for the entire Central Business District and that the parking taxes should be ramped up massively both inside the district and anywhere in the city with a population density of 20,000 people/sq. mi. or higher even without increasing our transit capacity. That system should include an exemption for people with disability tags or placards; delivery vehicles performing a delivery to the area; and registered and taxed taxi and livery service vehicles. Currently, it's a $6/exit tax on parking structures in the Central Business District. I see no reason why that shouldn't be $20/exit or even $50/exit to truly discourage individual passenger vehicles there.
Now, where you live, you're well below that 20,000 people/sq. mi. metric and not even in the city. So no need to get extreme on modifications. But, if we invested more in high-speed, highly inter-connected transit, you would not need a car.
This sentiment is crazymaking, because even with political will and concerted effort, there's no realistic way we'd have anything like this infrastructure within the next 15 years. People have to live here now, and they're being soaked for parking fines --- not because we don't charge for parking, but because we deliberately use parking policy as a lever to keep renters out of the neighborhood. I don't accept better transit as a solution here.
I generally prefer to walk by a lane of parked cars than walk so close to a lane of moving car traffic.
An extra-wide sidewalk with trees and other decoration or a well-protected bike lane can provide a similar benefit, but parking isn't the worst option.
An extra-wide sidewalk with trees and other decoration or a well-protected bike lane can provide a similar benefit, but parking isn't the worst option.
If this topic interests you, Strong Towns is a national non-profit working on parking reform as one of its top issues. The movement is growing, and there's a lot you can do to support it!
Some relevant content:
1. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/20/the-many-cost...
2. https://www.strongtowns.org/parking
Some relevant content:
1. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/20/the-many-cost...
2. https://www.strongtowns.org/parking
They are great! Other groups worth looking at:
* https://yimbyaction.org/2021/
* https://parkingreform.org/
It's possible to make progress: here in Bend, Oregon a recent code update removed some parking requirements for "middle housing"!
* https://yimbyaction.org/2021/
* https://parkingreform.org/
It's possible to make progress: here in Bend, Oregon a recent code update removed some parking requirements for "middle housing"!
I like how the Japanese do it. No street parking. If you purchase a car, you have to prove that you have parking for it. The parking spot can be on your property or a rental spot, but it had to be accounted for.
The problem with paid parking at least in North America is that many/most cities are designed so that you need a car to get around -- driving is a necessity not a luxury. This makes paid parking feel like a tax rather than a service.
Contrast that to, say, a dense city like Tokyo or Beijing where parking is both scarce and almost always comes at a cost. There is much less backlash, because you can get to pretty much everywhere just using public transit. In this case, people accept that point-to-point driving is a luxury -- you're choosing convenience so it's natural that that would come at a cost.
Contrast that to, say, a dense city like Tokyo or Beijing where parking is both scarce and almost always comes at a cost. There is much less backlash, because you can get to pretty much everywhere just using public transit. In this case, people accept that point-to-point driving is a luxury -- you're choosing convenience so it's natural that that would come at a cost.
Sure parking is a "tax", the same way the car payment, insurance, annual registration, maintenance, repairs, tolls, gas are all taxes. If someone can be expected to pay for all of this, why not parking as well?
Implying people are happy to pay those things...? There's just as much drama about all of those things as there is for parking. Have you seen how much people complain every time registration fees, insurance costs or gas prices increase?
Heck, the federal gas tax in the US has not been increased since 1993 because people are so sensitive about stuff like this...
Heck, the federal gas tax in the US has not been increased since 1993 because people are so sensitive about stuff like this...
Is the public transit free? If not, then it’s friction hindering being there, adding baseline cost just to be there. Having added cost, I’m expecting commensurate payoff for being there. I’m apt to just peruse/enjoy if no cost to be there (and likely spend on a whim), but if it’s $10 just to be there then I’m expecting to spend >$100 on something - and I’m likely to balk at that, and not go at all.
Paid parking is generally very expensive. There is a reason WalMart has free parking: over the life of the parking lot it doesn't cost them much, so they can afford to take it out of their profits.
Actually, the reason WalMart has free parking is because it is always placed far from where people live so everyone has to drive there, and because everybody has to drive they all have to park eventually. Then, to accommodate all this parking cheaply, the stores will have to be placed on cheap land which is far away from residential areas and you get a vicious cycle...
The notion that parking is somehow a necessity is only really because of crappy public transit and sprawling cities. In a dense city with good transit options, point-to-point driving wouldn't even be among the top options for getting places to begin with.
The notion that parking is somehow a necessity is only really because of crappy public transit and sprawling cities. In a dense city with good transit options, point-to-point driving wouldn't even be among the top options for getting places to begin with.
The core of this post is the linked article The Pseudoscience of Parking Requirements. The core of that article is three bullet points:
• Remove off-street parking requirements. Developers and businesses can then decide how many parking spaces to provide for their customers.
• Charge the right prices for on-street parking. The right prices are the lowest prices that will leave one or two open spaces on each block, so there will be no parking shortages. Prices will balance the demand and supply for on-street space.
• Spend the parking revenue to improve public services on the metered streets. If everybody sees their meter money at work, the new public services can make demand-based prices for on-street parking politically popular.
Given the mix-use urban buildings I've encountered recently, hotels from floor 1-5, offices from floor 6-10, condos up to the top (or something like that), street level shops, office space, I don't see how removing off-street parking requirements would address anything. If you have office workers you must allocate off-site parking space. You're still building for cars, cost of parking is subsidized by the employer or the business. The Tysons development in Northern Virginia is an example of this hell, it's attached to a giant mall and also near a metro (so there's commuter parking involved). I suppose the people who can afford this enclave will not need cars but most everyone else who visits must have one. Every time I go there I think I'm in a dystopian future where the swells live and work in shiny high towers and take futuristic transport to "the country" to take in the air and their children can pet goats. It's not a space for built for humans, at all, but I bet the architectural model looked great.
Point (2), you have to make charging for parking frictionless. There's another development in Northern Virginia called Reston Town Center, they switched from free parking to paid with an app and that caused in an unexpected furor that hasn't died down yet, I think renters are still suing the developers over that. People may be willing to pay cash but making them pay with an app, and a crappy app at that, took them over the edge. Still don't know why you just can't pay with a swipe. Also, payment systems are vulnerable to theft. People who had a choice of driving there or not, decided to not. It's mixed with condos so the people who live there, shop there, but then you've only made an enclave, have you solved anything?
• Remove off-street parking requirements. Developers and businesses can then decide how many parking spaces to provide for their customers.
• Charge the right prices for on-street parking. The right prices are the lowest prices that will leave one or two open spaces on each block, so there will be no parking shortages. Prices will balance the demand and supply for on-street space.
• Spend the parking revenue to improve public services on the metered streets. If everybody sees their meter money at work, the new public services can make demand-based prices for on-street parking politically popular.
Given the mix-use urban buildings I've encountered recently, hotels from floor 1-5, offices from floor 6-10, condos up to the top (or something like that), street level shops, office space, I don't see how removing off-street parking requirements would address anything. If you have office workers you must allocate off-site parking space. You're still building for cars, cost of parking is subsidized by the employer or the business. The Tysons development in Northern Virginia is an example of this hell, it's attached to a giant mall and also near a metro (so there's commuter parking involved). I suppose the people who can afford this enclave will not need cars but most everyone else who visits must have one. Every time I go there I think I'm in a dystopian future where the swells live and work in shiny high towers and take futuristic transport to "the country" to take in the air and their children can pet goats. It's not a space for built for humans, at all, but I bet the architectural model looked great.
Point (2), you have to make charging for parking frictionless. There's another development in Northern Virginia called Reston Town Center, they switched from free parking to paid with an app and that caused in an unexpected furor that hasn't died down yet, I think renters are still suing the developers over that. People may be willing to pay cash but making them pay with an app, and a crappy app at that, took them over the edge. Still don't know why you just can't pay with a swipe. Also, payment systems are vulnerable to theft. People who had a choice of driving there or not, decided to not. It's mixed with condos so the people who live there, shop there, but then you've only made an enclave, have you solved anything?
Removing off street parking transitions from an "everyone pays" model to a "user pays" model.
Under a user pays model, parking will be allocated to those who need it the most. Those whose need for parking is not as strong will make more use of alternatives. But when everybody pays there is no incentive to reduce individual consumption, as you will not personally be better off.
If you have office workers why must you allocate parking? Why can't some of those office workers choose to take the bus or a train, or cycle or walk? When the cost of driving is subsidised by everyone, there is no incentive to consider or develop these alternatives.
Under a user pays model, parking will be allocated to those who need it the most. Those whose need for parking is not as strong will make more use of alternatives. But when everybody pays there is no incentive to reduce individual consumption, as you will not personally be better off.
If you have office workers why must you allocate parking? Why can't some of those office workers choose to take the bus or a train, or cycle or walk? When the cost of driving is subsidised by everyone, there is no incentive to consider or develop these alternatives.
> The Tysons development in Northern Virginia is an example of this hell
That's insane, and even more that when I searched for it it's being marketed as "liveable".
Google Maps shows business names, but flip to Open Street Map [1] and two things stand out: motorways and car parks.
> also near a metro ... most everyone else who visits must have [a car]
Um... the metro?
But you're clearly right. To get from Tysons Corner metro into the mall you must climb stairs, cross an 8+-lane highway in a tube, then another road, then cross a plaza. They didn't think of connecting that tube straight into the mall building, or connecting it to the opposite end of the platforms.
Outside North America, the parking garages for a mall like this would be below (sometimes above) the shops and the mall would be oriented to have a very short, covered walkway connection to the metro, and if possible the station would be in the middle of the mall.
There would not be 21 road lanes to the east, 10 to the north, 9 to the west and 4 to the south.
> dystopian future
Looking on Wikipedia, I'm amazed at how recently much of this was constructed.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.9224/-77.2233 (shows railways better).
That's insane, and even more that when I searched for it it's being marketed as "liveable".
Google Maps shows business names, but flip to Open Street Map [1] and two things stand out: motorways and car parks.
> also near a metro ... most everyone else who visits must have [a car]
Um... the metro?
But you're clearly right. To get from Tysons Corner metro into the mall you must climb stairs, cross an 8+-lane highway in a tube, then another road, then cross a plaza. They didn't think of connecting that tube straight into the mall building, or connecting it to the opposite end of the platforms.
Outside North America, the parking garages for a mall like this would be below (sometimes above) the shops and the mall would be oriented to have a very short, covered walkway connection to the metro, and if possible the station would be in the middle of the mall.
There would not be 21 road lanes to the east, 10 to the north, 9 to the west and 4 to the south.
> dystopian future
Looking on Wikipedia, I'm amazed at how recently much of this was constructed.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/38.9224/-77.2233 (shows railways better).
> Given the mix-use urban buildings I've encountered recently [...] I don't see how removing off-street parking requirements would address anything.
It would allow the developer to choose the appropriate amount of parking spaces for their building, instead of being forced to follow the requirements resulting from central planning by the city administrators.
They cannot simply rely on on-street parking instead, since (per the second bullet point) the prices would for those parking spaces would increase dramatically, providing the developer with a competitive disadvantage.
I could see this working out perfectly fine for businesses who compete for customers, as those will likely be very sensitive to the cost of a parking space. However, for buildings where people do not have a choice of whether to travel there, this seems more problematic. Imagine e.g. a courthouse – missing parking spaces would just impose a negative externality on the unfortunate “customers”. I guess the question is in which category office buildings and residential areas fall into, arguments could be made either way.
It would allow the developer to choose the appropriate amount of parking spaces for their building, instead of being forced to follow the requirements resulting from central planning by the city administrators.
They cannot simply rely on on-street parking instead, since (per the second bullet point) the prices would for those parking spaces would increase dramatically, providing the developer with a competitive disadvantage.
I could see this working out perfectly fine for businesses who compete for customers, as those will likely be very sensitive to the cost of a parking space. However, for buildings where people do not have a choice of whether to travel there, this seems more problematic. Imagine e.g. a courthouse – missing parking spaces would just impose a negative externality on the unfortunate “customers”. I guess the question is in which category office buildings and residential areas fall into, arguments could be made either way.
[deleted]
> I don't see how removing off-street parking requirements would address anything.
It doesn’t. It allows developers to dump the problem on public streets. Seattle does this stuff now. 42 unit buildings with 5 parking spots. This is great for developers. They get to build more units and let Seattle deal with the additional parking pressure.
It’s car hostile, which fine, but then you need to provide alternatives to the car. If a developer wants to build without appropriate parking, they should have to pay Seattle a big chunk of that savings to fund better public transit. Instead it’s just a bunch of money in the developer’s pocket and people driving around for 20 minutes trying to find a spot to park. Adjacent neighborhoods pay the price.
It doesn’t. It allows developers to dump the problem on public streets. Seattle does this stuff now. 42 unit buildings with 5 parking spots. This is great for developers. They get to build more units and let Seattle deal with the additional parking pressure.
It’s car hostile, which fine, but then you need to provide alternatives to the car. If a developer wants to build without appropriate parking, they should have to pay Seattle a big chunk of that savings to fund better public transit. Instead it’s just a bunch of money in the developer’s pocket and people driving around for 20 minutes trying to find a spot to park. Adjacent neighborhoods pay the price.
I don’t understand why this is the developer’s responsibility. People choosing this apartment building will be aware of their parking options and can plan accordingly.
I know, right? They should just plan to park 4 blocks away every day, because that’s what they will do no matter where they rent, because all of the buildings are built this way.
It’s the developer’s responsibility for the same reason anything else is: because the law says so (or should). If developers could get away with it, they wouldn’t put in fire alarms or sprinklers and they’d skip out on insulation, and they would probably cut all sorts of corners on plumbing and electric. We establish codes so they can’t do that. Nor can they build unreasonably small bathrooms or excessively low ceilings in finished spaces.
I think it’s reasonable that builders be required to include parking spaces, just as builders are required to have sufficient water supply and sewer capacity for their residents. It’s unfair to the residents and it’s unfair to the rest of the city that developers should be able to externalize their costs onto the public.
It’s the developer’s responsibility for the same reason anything else is: because the law says so (or should). If developers could get away with it, they wouldn’t put in fire alarms or sprinklers and they’d skip out on insulation, and they would probably cut all sorts of corners on plumbing and electric. We establish codes so they can’t do that. Nor can they build unreasonably small bathrooms or excessively low ceilings in finished spaces.
I think it’s reasonable that builders be required to include parking spaces, just as builders are required to have sufficient water supply and sewer capacity for their residents. It’s unfair to the residents and it’s unfair to the rest of the city that developers should be able to externalize their costs onto the public.
An argument for making it the developer's responsibility is that buildings should last a long time, so should be designed with flexibility to deal with future neighborhood and city developments.
Take the building in his example, with 42 units and only 5 parking spots. That means 37 units are only useful to people who either don't have cars or who can find their own parking such as on street or at nearby paid lots.
Now imagine that other building are built nearby with similar ratios of units to lots, which might lead to a neighborhood where there is not enough street parking or nearby lots, and most units are only useful to people who have no car.
If the neighborhood has good public transit that might work. If transit is not great through you could end up with a lot of units that are only useful to people who can spend most of their time within walking distance of their home.
How well that works depends on what else is in the neighborhood.
By building buildings with only parking for a fraction of the units, you are making a building that only works in some plausible evolutions of that neighborhood.
If on the other hand you make it a requirement that the developer provide parking for all or most units, so they then include a parking level under the units you end up with a building that works in a much larger range of possible futures for development in the neighborhood and for changes in public transit.
If at the time you build the building a mix of 37 units without parking and 5 with parking would be fine for that neighborhood, build in the parking level but partition it into 5 parking spaces and and 42 storage. The storage units will make the units more attractive, and if future needs change so that what you need there is a building with more parking you can change the partitioning of the parking level. You can even configure it back and forth as the neighborhood and city evolve over the lifetime of the building.
Take the building in his example, with 42 units and only 5 parking spots. That means 37 units are only useful to people who either don't have cars or who can find their own parking such as on street or at nearby paid lots.
Now imagine that other building are built nearby with similar ratios of units to lots, which might lead to a neighborhood where there is not enough street parking or nearby lots, and most units are only useful to people who have no car.
If the neighborhood has good public transit that might work. If transit is not great through you could end up with a lot of units that are only useful to people who can spend most of their time within walking distance of their home.
How well that works depends on what else is in the neighborhood.
By building buildings with only parking for a fraction of the units, you are making a building that only works in some plausible evolutions of that neighborhood.
If on the other hand you make it a requirement that the developer provide parking for all or most units, so they then include a parking level under the units you end up with a building that works in a much larger range of possible futures for development in the neighborhood and for changes in public transit.
If at the time you build the building a mix of 37 units without parking and 5 with parking would be fine for that neighborhood, build in the parking level but partition it into 5 parking spaces and and 42 storage. The storage units will make the units more attractive, and if future needs change so that what you need there is a building with more parking you can change the partitioning of the parking level. You can even configure it back and forth as the neighborhood and city evolve over the lifetime of the building.
> I don’t understand why this is the developer’s responsibility.
Because otherwise they're just raking in the profits (from many additional units) and externalizing all the negatives.
> People choosing this apartment building will be aware of their parking options and can plan accordingly.
In a perfect world with perfectly rational people, you're right. But the leasing office will claim "you can always find a spot nearby" and people tend to be optimistic about having it work out even if rationally it won't.
Because otherwise they're just raking in the profits (from many additional units) and externalizing all the negatives.
> People choosing this apartment building will be aware of their parking options and can plan accordingly.
In a perfect world with perfectly rational people, you're right. But the leasing office will claim "you can always find a spot nearby" and people tend to be optimistic about having it work out even if rationally it won't.
Agreed, it's not enough to just be car-hostile. Pain and inconvenience do not automatically lead to increased public transit utilization.
Especially not when public transit is extremely inconvenient and painful.
I live in a planned high density office/shopping/residential development.
When the developer switched to paid parking, there were literal protests: folks with signs.
It absolutely gutted the shops. Foot traffic was way down. And now with COVID, we have dozens of empty storefronts.
Consumers vote with their wallet, and lots of folks are dead set against paying for parking.
When the developer switched to paid parking, there were literal protests: folks with signs.
It absolutely gutted the shops. Foot traffic was way down. And now with COVID, we have dozens of empty storefronts.
Consumers vote with their wallet, and lots of folks are dead set against paying for parking.
The problem with paid parking in the US is we need to supplement the perceived/actual scarcity with adequate alternatives. If parking is made paid because of demand, that is one thing, however if made as a deterrent to drive, that is another and alternatives should be thought about before plans for paid parking are made.
Who was paying for the parking before?
I'm the same way, if there's only paid parking, or a parking shortage, I just don't go there unless forced.
I definitely factor in the price of parking when deciding whether to shop at X vs Y location. There’s very little reason for me to go 3 miles into Boston to shop when I can go 3 miles in another direction and shop in a suburb with free and plentiful parking.
I don’t see the problem; I get what I need and the people in Boston presumably get what they need. If a shopkeeper wants to cater to traffic that comes by car, they presumably set up shop in a suburb (where rents are cheaper anyway).
I don’t see the problem; I get what I need and the people in Boston presumably get what they need. If a shopkeeper wants to cater to traffic that comes by car, they presumably set up shop in a suburb (where rents are cheaper anyway).
I live outside Boston just barely out where walking to the subway is infeasible (30min walk). But, it's only $2 or $7 to park at the T station and take the train in. This is a win-win for me, if I feel the desire/need to go into Boston. I don't have to worry about paying exorbitantly for a parking garage (or finding a parallel parking space and then parallel parking), and it isn't terribly inconvenient, even with a 2-year-old.
Increase city parking until there is always available space on every street. Use the parking money to subsidize mass transit and parking (and construction of it) near mass transit.
As a longtime NYC resident with a vehicle, I experienced first-hand the unending frustration and anger amongst drivers over parking. I saw literal fights break out; windows smashed;
I myself grew tired and weary of circling the block looking for on-street parking in and around Manhattan and Brooklyn... only to see someone take a spot that I'd been desperately circling for, looking, hoping, praying I'd find. "If only I'd KNOWN they were leaving?!?!?!?"
So, to solve the problem for myself, I built BTON:
https://bton.app/
you signal that you're leaving... someone comes and hands you a bton - you can use it to find your next spot; BTONs also have floating value to incentivize the spot leaver. Its free and in the App Stores; Again - I built it for a problem I directly and repeatedly experienced (trying to find parking in NYC). Would love to hear your feedback.
So, to solve the problem for myself, I built BTON:
https://bton.app/
you signal that you're leaving... someone comes and hands you a bton - you can use it to find your next spot; BTONs also have floating value to incentivize the spot leaver. Its free and in the App Stores; Again - I built it for a problem I directly and repeatedly experienced (trying to find parking in NYC). Would love to hear your feedback.
I think the best way to do it is to make short term parking free (under 30 minutes or so), and to charge for long term parking.
This ensures that there are parking spaces available for people running errands or people who transport heavy things, while at the same time making it less attractive for commuters or residents to block parking spaces all day long.
This ensures that there are parking spaces available for people running errands or people who transport heavy things, while at the same time making it less attractive for commuters or residents to block parking spaces all day long.
In practice people do this all the time already because there's no perfect enforcement.
Plenty of people will risk parking in "no parking" / "permit only" spaces if they expect to only be away for a short duration (<30 mins).
Plenty of people will risk parking in "no parking" / "permit only" spaces if they expect to only be away for a short duration (<30 mins).
That's true. But I was also thinking that long term parking should be expensive -- when long term parking is cheap, you won't find a space.
The worst places in the city to park are streets where residents are allowed to park free / cheap. There's almost never a free spot!
I lived in a street like that, and it was really annoying. Visitors / people running errands wouldn't find a spot, and residents wouldn't find a spot either. Once I found a good spot I tried to avoid using my car because I wouldn't find such a good parking spot when I returned -- oh the absurdity.
The worst places in the city to park are streets where residents are allowed to park free / cheap. There's almost never a free spot!
I lived in a street like that, and it was really annoying. Visitors / people running errands wouldn't find a spot, and residents wouldn't find a spot either. Once I found a good spot I tried to avoid using my car because I wouldn't find such a good parking spot when I returned -- oh the absurdity.
Hmm, many parking starved cities I've lived in tend to have permit systems in the especially bad areas that (1) only allow residents to acquire permits and (2) have ramping cost structures (like $0-$10/mo for the first permit per household, ramping to something really high like $100/mo for like the third).
It's also pretty common for apartment complexes to have a "loading only" spot in front of a building for deliveries and moving etc.
Also most cities tend to have restrictions for free street parking like "no more than 72hrs in a spot". Although I suspect this is to discourage RVs...
It's also pretty common for apartment complexes to have a "loading only" spot in front of a building for deliveries and moving etc.
Also most cities tend to have restrictions for free street parking like "no more than 72hrs in a spot". Although I suspect this is to discourage RVs...
Think: why am I parking there? Who benefits? Will added friction hinder? How does charging enhance that benefit, making me want to pay vs avoid?
We’re in the age of COVID, discovering the benefits of not going places, and creating new options not to. Charging for parking makes me reconsider going there at all, raising the cost and hassle - more likely to go elsewhere, stay home and do remotely, or forego the activity. Low-cost or low-planning activities don’t happen if parking sets minimum cost to >$0; random purchases will be passed up. If I do pay for parking, I expect convenience, security, and ease for the act. I’m less likely to visit a local city precisely because parking will at least double my cost getting there (gas); I’d rather spend that $ going somewhere farther, more interesting and free parking.
Want more business? Figure out how to make it cheaper for me to be there: reduce friction, make parking free and easy.
We’re in the age of COVID, discovering the benefits of not going places, and creating new options not to. Charging for parking makes me reconsider going there at all, raising the cost and hassle - more likely to go elsewhere, stay home and do remotely, or forego the activity. Low-cost or low-planning activities don’t happen if parking sets minimum cost to >$0; random purchases will be passed up. If I do pay for parking, I expect convenience, security, and ease for the act. I’m less likely to visit a local city precisely because parking will at least double my cost getting there (gas); I’d rather spend that $ going somewhere farther, more interesting and free parking.
Want more business? Figure out how to make it cheaper for me to be there: reduce friction, make parking free and easy.
> Parking clouds people’s minds, shifting analytic faculties to a lower level. Some strongly support market prices — except for parking. Some strongly oppose subsidies — except for parking.
I wonder if you could replace this with: "some people strongly support X - except in circumstances where it negatively affects them personally".
I wonder if you could replace this with: "some people strongly support X - except in circumstances where it negatively affects them personally".
People do divide things up. There are some stuff they don't care much about paying, and some they care a lot.
We’ve a massive problem here in Western Europe (UK and Ireland) with people parking on the footpath (sidewalk). They’ll put all four wheels up blocking the passage all pedestrians rather than use their driveway or a legal space. Unfortunately there is little to no enforcement.
Apparently nowhere it is as much of a problem as in Russia. Stop a Douchebag has two entire Youtube channels (with shockingly frequent releases) to film people driving (often quite recklessly) and parking on the sidewalks of Moscow and Saint Petersburg.
https://www.youtube.com/c/StopaDouchebag
https://www.youtube.com/c/StopaDouchebagWorld
https://www.youtube.com/c/StopaDouchebag
https://www.youtube.com/c/StopaDouchebagWorld
I’ve watched several of these now. What’s incredible is how they expose the entitlement of those illegally parking and how quickly they lie and exaggerate rather that admit fault. It’s exactly how it unfolds here when some driver nearly kills me on my bike reacts.
If most people get there by car, then yeah parking should be free or close to it.
But if a lot of people get there by walk, bike, or transit - it makes no sense for parking to be free, especially if street parking can be replaced by outdoor (truly outdoor, with air flowing freely) dining.
But if a lot of people get there by walk, bike, or transit - it makes no sense for parking to be free, especially if street parking can be replaced by outdoor (truly outdoor, with air flowing freely) dining.
People supporting "new urbanism" -- a camp I was in until pretty recently -- should come look around downtown Seattle and see how it's working out.
Our downtown is a grim wasteland. Shoppers, workers and residents have voted with their feet -- and they voted to avoid downtown.
And it's not just Covid. The suburbs are booming. Walkable areas (most with free parking) in the 'burbs have new stores opening and have crowds of people eating, shopping, and enjoying life. Houses are in high-demand, while apartments near the core of the city are easy to find.
I say all this to say that maybe we should pause and reconsider new urbanism. The push to remove cars (less parking, more expensive parking, removing lanes, "road diets") isn't making our cities better, it's pushing people away. Strong Towns told us this would make our city better, but all evidence points to our cities getting markedly worse.
Our downtown is a grim wasteland. Shoppers, workers and residents have voted with their feet -- and they voted to avoid downtown.
And it's not just Covid. The suburbs are booming. Walkable areas (most with free parking) in the 'burbs have new stores opening and have crowds of people eating, shopping, and enjoying life. Houses are in high-demand, while apartments near the core of the city are easy to find.
I say all this to say that maybe we should pause and reconsider new urbanism. The push to remove cars (less parking, more expensive parking, removing lanes, "road diets") isn't making our cities better, it's pushing people away. Strong Towns told us this would make our city better, but all evidence points to our cities getting markedly worse.
> People supporting "new urbanism" [...] should come look around downtown Seattle and see how it's working out.
People can go look around the downtown of any given city to see a "grim wasteland", but it has little to do with new urbanism and much to do with covid causing major shift to work from home + avoiding a lot of in-person events.
People can go look around the downtown of any given city to see a "grim wasteland", but it has little to do with new urbanism and much to do with covid causing major shift to work from home + avoiding a lot of in-person events.
I agree, Covid has been a catalyst for the change.
But 1) the start of the shift pre-dates Covid and 2) suburbs are booming with in-person activity, so it's not just Covid.
But 1) the start of the shift pre-dates Covid and 2) suburbs are booming with in-person activity, so it's not just Covid.
Isn't that just because people live in the suburbs? I think your example proves the opposite point to the one you're making - people would rather live in walkable mixed developments than have their destinations zoned away from their accommodation.
“Walkable” doesn’t give much room for options. 30 minutes walking covers far less area than 30 minutes driving.
Have you ever lived or travelled to a walkable city? You'd be surprised how much you can fit into a walkable area. In the UK basically all the cities are walkable just due to historical inertia; you can fit plenty of city into walkable areas. For bigger cities like London there's the underground system to travel further out.
HN seems to have a radical anti-car faction, which is probably why you're being downvoted, but I agree. Turning cities into the equivalent atmosphere of a factory farm is a disturbing trend which seems to mainly come from one side of the political spectrum, the same one that's also anti-car.
The lack of a subway system can't help here. How reasonable is it to live without a car in Seattle?
It's pretty easy for a childless adult who works downtown and can afford to live in one of the more central neighborhoods of Seattle, and still workable in certain neighborhoods further out that have walkable amenities and good transit connections. If you're willing and able to get occasional rental cars/ride shares then it's absolutely trivial.
It's not easy for a lot of other people though. Rent in those neighborhoods is too expensive for most, and while you can take kids around by transit or by bike (and I certainly encourage people to do that when it's convenient), you'd have to be a pretty dedicated urbanist to do that for all your trips.
It's not easy for a lot of other people though. Rent in those neighborhoods is too expensive for most, and while you can take kids around by transit or by bike (and I certainly encourage people to do that when it's convenient), you'd have to be a pretty dedicated urbanist to do that for all your trips.
The opposite is true in NYC. Do you have public transit?
You can always ride a bike :)
> Rational people quickly become emotional about parking, and staunch conservatives turn into ardent communists
I don't follow the reasoning. Conservatives are against taxes, right? How is not wanting a tax on parking, something that is naturally free, "communist"?
I don't follow the reasoning. Conservatives are against taxes, right? How is not wanting a tax on parking, something that is naturally free, "communist"?
Parking isn't "naturally free". You're using a scarce resource, land, which typically isn't given away for free in a capitalist system.
Parking spots are often small enough, used for short enough periods of time, or in places with low enough land prices that it's not worth charging for them, but people often continue to insist that parking should be free even when those descriptions no longer apply.
Parking spots are often small enough, used for short enough periods of time, or in places with low enough land prices that it's not worth charging for them, but people often continue to insist that parking should be free even when those descriptions no longer apply.
What I mean by "naturally free" is that if I was alone on earth, I could park anywhere, for free, without having to work for it. Gold? I'd have to dig it up, I'd have to smelt it; a lot of work there, not naturally free. Parking? It's a free resource.
The "scarcity" is largely manufactured. Go to Google earth, take the street view dude, plunk it randomly anywhere in the central United States - and there will almost certainly be untapped free parking space as far as the eye can see.
The "scarcity" is largely manufactured. Go to Google earth, take the street view dude, plunk it randomly anywhere in the central United States - and there will almost certainly be untapped free parking space as far as the eye can see.
That's certainly an interesting perspective. To help me understand your viewpoint, do you think unimproved land should be free in general?
If a parking spot is paved, does it become more reasonable to charge for it?
If a parking spot is paved, does it become more reasonable to charge for it?
remove or charge for parking and people park on the street...no one is giving up their cars, all of the social engineering just ends up creating more problems
in many Bay Area communities you will see cars as tightly aligned on both sides of residential streets as is physically possible...homeowners don't even have room to put out trash bins without blocking their own drives. and why? because apartment complexes and offices don't provide spaces for their users. so, people just clutter up the streets. win?
any time there are measures to make parking inconvenient, you end up with annoying ordinances banning street parking...or "members only" local passes...or meter maids who exist to torment us all
how can the government get us out of our cars when they otherwise encourage car use as broadly as possible?
in many Bay Area communities you will see cars as tightly aligned on both sides of residential streets as is physically possible...homeowners don't even have room to put out trash bins without blocking their own drives. and why? because apartment complexes and offices don't provide spaces for their users. so, people just clutter up the streets. win?
any time there are measures to make parking inconvenient, you end up with annoying ordinances banning street parking...or "members only" local passes...or meter maids who exist to torment us all
how can the government get us out of our cars when they otherwise encourage car use as broadly as possible?
The last line of your reply there really says it all. Every facet of how our cities are built caters to the automobile owner. Universal street parking, parking minimums, highways through urban cores, not prioritizing public transit infrastructure... these things all reinforce automobile dominance, and they've been public policy for the last 70 years.
In order to fix the issue of congested and dangerous streets, we need to get drivers to shift to other transit modes, and part of the answer is to stop coddling them with free parking.
In order to fix the issue of congested and dangerous streets, we need to get drivers to shift to other transit modes, and part of the answer is to stop coddling them with free parking.
I've been thinking about other transit modes for medium and long distances and I'm having a hard time thinking of great ideas for where I live (central Texas).
Public transportation is one, but the last thing many of us want to do right now is get on a crowded train.
Bicycles are great until it gets too hot or too cold which is a pretty large chunk of the year. They also aren't an option for many of us with health issues.
Ride sharing and taxi services are available, but they can be more expensive and unreliable.
In smaller neighborhoods I think electric golf carts can work, but the range isn't great and they usually don't have heat or air conditioning.
I saw an older Waymo video where the car was somewhere between a golf cart and a regular car. I think something like that has a lot of promise, but nobody is making them.
If downtown areas get rid of free parking, I wonder if that would just push business out to the 'burbs where there's unlimited parking? That's not great for cities either.
Public transportation is one, but the last thing many of us want to do right now is get on a crowded train.
Bicycles are great until it gets too hot or too cold which is a pretty large chunk of the year. They also aren't an option for many of us with health issues.
Ride sharing and taxi services are available, but they can be more expensive and unreliable.
In smaller neighborhoods I think electric golf carts can work, but the range isn't great and they usually don't have heat or air conditioning.
I saw an older Waymo video where the car was somewhere between a golf cart and a regular car. I think something like that has a lot of promise, but nobody is making them.
If downtown areas get rid of free parking, I wonder if that would just push business out to the 'burbs where there's unlimited parking? That's not great for cities either.
If you try to conceive of The One Weird Trick that will solve urban mobility, it's an impossible problem.
The best general purpose plan I can conceive of is to build mixed housing and commercial in places where there is already decent transit. No parking minimums.
Build in earnest for a city where people can literally walk to any errand they may need. European planners actually do this -- they require neighborhood plans that offer a mix of residential, commercial (restaurants and nightlife), schools, other amenities. If the local grocery store is 2 blocks away, you don't need to get on a crowded train at all!
The best general purpose plan I can conceive of is to build mixed housing and commercial in places where there is already decent transit. No parking minimums.
Build in earnest for a city where people can literally walk to any errand they may need. European planners actually do this -- they require neighborhood plans that offer a mix of residential, commercial (restaurants and nightlife), schools, other amenities. If the local grocery store is 2 blocks away, you don't need to get on a crowded train at all!
But what's decent transit? I don't think mass transit options like buses or trains fit that description anymore, at least not for everyday.
Cities ultimately have to be built for the people who live there. In Austin, I'm pretty sure voters are going to continue to demand better car-based infrastructure first and then bus, train, and bicycle infrastructure second.
Definitely agree with mixing commercial and residential though. I live in the suburbs but that's because my office is also out here.
Cities ultimately have to be built for the people who live there. In Austin, I'm pretty sure voters are going to continue to demand better car-based infrastructure first and then bus, train, and bicycle infrastructure second.
Definitely agree with mixing commercial and residential though. I live in the suburbs but that's because my office is also out here.
> we need to get drivers to shift to other transit modes
No thank you. I've tried them all, and driving is better than all of them.
> and part of the answer is to stop coddling them with free parking.
Yup, can't make the other options better, so instead the only alternative is to make driving worse. Great plan.
No thank you. I've tried them all, and driving is better than all of them.
> and part of the answer is to stop coddling them with free parking.
Yup, can't make the other options better, so instead the only alternative is to make driving worse. Great plan.
> we need to get drivers to shift to other transit modes, and part of the answer is to stop coddling them with free parking.
Another approach might be to make other transit modes suck less. A lot less.
Another approach might be to make other transit modes suck less. A lot less.
If you approach the issue holistically, you both improve transit and wind down subsidies and aids for drivers.
Tangent: there's an interesting equilibrium effect with commuter traffic - if a commute is served by an automobile route and a train line, the commute times will be similar. If for some reason, automobile traffic is delayed by loss of road capacity, over the long term some of that auto traffic will switch modes to the rail option, until the systems are in equilibrium once again.
Obviously in the real world this is much more complex but it's still observable... let me see if I can find a link...
Tangent: there's an interesting equilibrium effect with commuter traffic - if a commute is served by an automobile route and a train line, the commute times will be similar. If for some reason, automobile traffic is delayed by loss of road capacity, over the long term some of that auto traffic will switch modes to the rail option, until the systems are in equilibrium once again.
Obviously in the real world this is much more complex but it's still observable... let me see if I can find a link...
I can believe that; I look at total door to door time as the primary factor in choosing my transit (with cost as a second, but pretty distant second [I’m not commuting daily into the city->I’d have to consider cost higher if doing it 20x/month]).
I live in Cambridge, MA (1.4 miles from the Boston red line subway) and, excluding rides where I’m coming home from the airport, I bet I ride the subway less than once per year on average. It’s just not remotely competitive on door-to-door time with a private car, an Uber, or [most commonly] driving in the other direction to an alternative restaurant or shop with parking. (And Boston is probably in the top 10 of functioning mass transit systems in the US.)
I live in Cambridge, MA (1.4 miles from the Boston red line subway) and, excluding rides where I’m coming home from the airport, I bet I ride the subway less than once per year on average. It’s just not remotely competitive on door-to-door time with a private car, an Uber, or [most commonly] driving in the other direction to an alternative restaurant or shop with parking. (And Boston is probably in the top 10 of functioning mass transit systems in the US.)
Somerville here :)
Like you, I commute to somewhere where it's annoying to take transit. I've settled on a combination of cycling, WFH and driving on occasion. I can pick up a rail trail for about half my commute, which means that it's actually faster to bike than to dive.
I'm actually looking for employment that's a little bit closer. If I worked within about a 2 mile radius, I'd actually have a feasibly walk-only lifestyle.
Like you, I commute to somewhere where it's annoying to take transit. I've settled on a combination of cycling, WFH and driving on occasion. I can pick up a rail trail for about half my commute, which means that it's actually faster to bike than to dive.
I'm actually looking for employment that's a little bit closer. If I worked within about a 2 mile radius, I'd actually have a feasibly walk-only lifestyle.
I had that living by Museum of Science and later in Cambridgeport and walking to Kendall Sq for years. It was awesome! When it came time to have a family, a one BR apartment didn’t cut it any more so we moved to a less dense part of Cambridge and I got a job in a suburban office park just off Rt 128 with a reverse commute. My 9 mile commute time went way down, but it’s not nearly as pleasant as a 1.5 mile walk in the city.
> no one is giving up their cars
When you live in the downtown of a city, and parking at your apartment is $300/month, that's a strong incentive to give up your car
When you live in the downtown of a city, and parking at your apartment is $300/month, that's a strong incentive to give up your car
As I've found out first hand, when you live in a neighborhood where it's more convenient to walk to the grocery, gym, bar, friends' houses, it really makes you wonder what you're spending all that money on that car for. Not just the parking spot, but depreciation, fuel, maintenance, insurance, parking tickets...
> it's more convenient to walk to the grocery, gym, bar, friends' houses, it really makes you wonder what you're spending all that money on that car for
I would never use my car for any of those examples (living in a small EU city). The car is just there for leisure activities, to access skiing in winter and mountain biking/hiking/camping spots in the summer. Yeah it's more expensive than not owning a car but for some hobbies it's hard to give it up.
I would never use my car for any of those examples (living in a small EU city). The car is just there for leisure activities, to access skiing in winter and mountain biking/hiking/camping spots in the summer. Yeah it's more expensive than not owning a car but for some hobbies it's hard to give it up.
Same. Most places in the US aren't built in a way where everyday errands are walkable. I feel insanely lucky to have semi-randomly ended up in one of the few places that are. I'm in love with the format of small European cities, enough that I'm considering attempting to emigrate before trying to start a family.
Even if day to day errands are reasonably walkable/bikable/transitable, in most US cities you're adding a lot of overhead and inconvenience for carless people who want to regularly get out of the city on weekends. Very few people I know (so somewhat older folks) don't own cars even in walkable cities.
Speaking as someone who lived in the Bay Area, most of the impediment to getting out of town on the weekends was traffic on 80/101 from people commuting to and from work. Once you escaped past Sacramento most of the traffic disappeared.
That’s strong incentive to give up living downtown, parking costing 1/4 of far more spacious accommodations (with lots of parking).
>any time there are measures to make parking inconvenient, you end up with annoying ordinances banning street parking...or "members only" local passes...or meter maids who exist to torment us all
"annoying ordinances banning street parking", as if street parking isn't itself extremely annoying to pedestrians and cyclists.
"free" parking is not free. just like any other scarce good that the government mandates to be "free", someone, somewhere is paying for it.
"annoying ordinances banning street parking", as if street parking isn't itself extremely annoying to pedestrians and cyclists.
"free" parking is not free. just like any other scarce good that the government mandates to be "free", someone, somewhere is paying for it.
> all of the social engineering
Do you mean forcing, by law, business and homebuilders to provision parking?
Do you mean forcing, by law, business and homebuilders to provision parking?
no, I mean the laws that mandate that they can only build a maximum of 80% of parking needed
these laws aren't new...when Yahoo's "new" campus was built in 1999, only 8 parking spots per 10 employees were allowed to "encourage mass transit use" (lol)...so people just wasted hours driving around aimlessly
these laws aren't new...when Yahoo's "new" campus was built in 1999, only 8 parking spots per 10 employees were allowed to "encourage mass transit use" (lol)...so people just wasted hours driving around aimlessly
Yes, saw the same when my employers new campus in Santa Clara was built around the same timeframe. Parking was impossible, so people would drive around for a long time wasting fuel to find someone leaving. I settled on working from home the mornings and timing my arrival at lunchtime when spots were available. This of course left people coming back from lunch driving around for a long time. A huge waste.
[deleted]
> remove or charge for parking and people park on the street...
Parking in the street is still parking. The first parking to charge for (and the one to charge most for) is street parking.
Parking in the street is still parking. The first parking to charge for (and the one to charge most for) is street parking.
Lol. A bit melodramatic, but sure. Charge for it, yes, but give motorists a civilized experience when possible.
Some of the emotion and impatience and anxiety can be reduced. IME, parking anxiety can come from 1) finding the expensive parking, 2) navigating in/out of it, 3) paying for it, and 4) worrying about it expiring. Technology can lighten some of that chore and people can get on with their business and pleasure. Self-navigating/parking cars might soon be helping with 1 & 2. Background: I cofounded PayByPhone with a goal of providing a civilized solution to 3 & 4.