U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-01-2019, 08:25 AM
 
30,280 posts, read 27,865,037 times
Reputation: 18828

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Parking minimums are not to "prop up" cars. They are requested by residents who don't want to be overrun by businesses that don't properly arrange for their customers and force the costs onto the city and the residents.
Here's a great article I found on the subject. A relevant excerpt:
Parking minimums were originally adopted because the planning community did not trust developers to provide an adequate amount of parking. But the landscape has changed. Most developers want to right-size parking because it’s a requirement for a successful development. No developer wants a failed project because they built too many or too few parking spaces.

And while developers devote a significant portion of their capital costs to satisfy parking requirements, they are increasing the amenities that reduce the need to own a vehicle. Redirecting parking funds to providing non-parking access to sites via car sharing, transit passes, and bike parking is seen as more efficient, less costly, and aligned with today’s diverse transportation demands.

Where it is needed, there will be parking—and other forms of access. The question is how much and how it will be provided.

The good news is that there are reliable tools and parking planning strategies that can help assure that communities (and developers within those communities) are building the right amount of parking so commerce can thrive, while, at the same time, manage the existing parking supply efficiently and effectively. Not only is this approach more cost-effective, but it also assures that valuable land can be used for more appropriate uses; parking is often not the desired “highest and best use,” particularly in a dense urban or even suburban location.
Parking minimums were established during a time when the American urban landscape was a lot different than it is today and were often implemented locally according to a "one size fits all" model. It's great that cities all across the country are relaxing or even eliminating parking minimums altogether, at least in certain parts of their cities, and are taking a more market-based approach to the issue with the aid of modern technology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-01-2019, 08:27 AM
bu2
 
10,278 posts, read 6,603,637 times
Reputation: 4339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulch View Post
Because you're not entitled to it (and I'm sure people said the same thing about people like you when you move to the northern suburbs from ITP).
I'm reminded of the outcry when someone wanted to develop a vacant lot on Dekalb Avenue a number of years back. They neighbors acted like they owned the property. They were upset it wouldn't remain vacant. They used it like a park. But didn't want to pay for it.

Its a similar thing with parking minimums. Some businesses want to not have to pay for the costs of their business, such as parking (note: Some of these ordinances allow valet as an alternative to slots on site). And from the opposite point of view, some homeowners think they own the street in front of their house. But there are, of course, other costs than having parking in front of your home occupied.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 08:42 AM
bu2
 
10,278 posts, read 6,603,637 times
Reputation: 4339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
Here's a great article I found on the subject. A relevant excerpt:
Parking minimums were originally adopted because the planning community did not trust developers to provide an adequate amount of parking. But the landscape has changed. Most developers want to right-size parking because it’s a requirement for a successful development. No developer wants a failed project because they built too many or too few parking spaces.

And while developers devote a significant portion of their capital costs to satisfy parking requirements, they are increasing the amenities that reduce the need to own a vehicle. Redirecting parking funds to providing non-parking access to sites via car sharing, transit passes, and bike parking is seen as more efficient, less costly, and aligned with today’s diverse transportation demands.

Where it is needed, there will be parking—and other forms of access. The question is how much and how it will be provided.

The good news is that there are reliable tools and parking planning strategies that can help assure that communities (and developers within those communities) are building the right amount of parking so commerce can thrive, while, at the same time, manage the existing parking supply efficiently and effectively. Not only is this approach more cost-effective, but it also assures that valuable land can be used for more appropriate uses; parking is often not the desired “highest and best use,” particularly in a dense urban or even suburban location.
Parking minimums were established during a time when the American urban landscape was a lot different than it is today and were often implemented locally according to a "one size fits all" model. It's great that cities all across the country are relaxing or even eliminating parking minimums altogether, at least in certain parts of their cities, and are taking a more market-based approach to the issue with the aid of modern technology.
I remember them being implemented in no zoning Houston in the 80s. Businesses were coming in and using parking from other existing businesses, making it difficult for them. Customers were also parking in nearby neighborhoods, making it difficult for residents to find parking or even get in their driveway, while leaving lots of trash and creating lots of noise when it was a bar. There were real problems when it was implemented. Its nice to talk about the theory of parking minimums and how surface parking is not that great a use of land, but real businesses and real people had real problems from the lack of minimums.

Now Houston removed minimums in downtown and recently expanded south and east of downtown in "urban" neighborhoods. In all those places, there are alternatives and so it makes sense (like Atlanta, downtown has plenty of parking garages that will open if there is demand). There are places where eliminating minimums makes sense. And current technology probably makes it possible to get better data on how many spots are needed. Allowing valet in lieu of spaces also makes sense. But there are still places where elimination of parking minimums could degrade the quality of life and make it difficult for existing businesses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 09:34 AM
 
472 posts, read 170,724 times
Reputation: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
I remember them being implemented in no zoning Houston in the 80s. Businesses were coming in and using parking from other existing businesses, making it difficult for them. Customers were also parking in nearby neighborhoods, making it difficult for residents to find parking or even get in their driveway, while leaving lots of trash and creating lots of noise when it was a bar. There were real problems when it was implemented. Its nice to talk about the theory of parking minimums and how surface parking is not that great a use of land, but real businesses and real people had real problems from the lack of minimums.
It's odd that you suggest the negative aspects of parking minimums are not tangible. Like the problem is not real enough?

The costs are very much real and are born on society (consumers, homeowners, taxpayers, etc.) regardless of whether they own a car or how often they drive. The environmental impacts are downright awful. Stormwater runoff, heat island effect, destruction of natural habitat, incentivizing driving (a huge polluter), etc.

In the grand scheme of things, we need to protect the environment for future generations. If a business can't make a profit because the government isn't providing subsidized space for storage of private property (i.e. on-street property), then maybe they shouldn't be in business.

Also, parking management districts more than solve the issue of overfill parking in residential areas or ensuring high enough turnover for businesses. Our current management of this resource is very poor and inefficient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 11:08 AM
bu2
 
10,278 posts, read 6,603,637 times
Reputation: 4339
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego View Post
It's odd that you suggest the negative aspects of parking minimums are not tangible. Like the problem is not real enough?

The costs are very much real and are born on society (consumers, homeowners, taxpayers, etc.) regardless of whether they own a car or how often they drive. The environmental impacts are downright awful. Stormwater runoff, heat island effect, destruction of natural habitat, incentivizing driving (a huge polluter), etc.

In the grand scheme of things, we need to protect the environment for future generations. If a business can't make a profit because the government isn't providing subsidized space for storage of private property (i.e. on-street property), then maybe they shouldn't be in business.

Also, parking management districts more than solve the issue of overfill parking in residential areas or ensuring high enough turnover for businesses. Our current management of this resource is very poor and inefficient.
Parking management districts are an inefficient government bureaucracy that has real costs on society.
Now as I said, that doesn't mean you shouldn't use technology/rate changes, etc. to make more efficient use of space.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 12:32 PM
 
5,290 posts, read 3,401,340 times
Reputation: 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego View Post
Seriously. Think about it. Parking capacities are often designed for the peak of the peak use (e.g. the holidays for retail). Over a 24-hour period, a minimum 2/3 of parking is sitting idol just based on the average person's daily activity.
I will agree that many places, such as shopping malls, often have far too much parking. But, be real...how much of transit's rail or bus lanes are fully utilized. With a rail line having a train every 10 minutes and taking 10 seconds to pass, that's 1.7% actual usage of the infrastructure if it ran 24 hours a day. A bus lane that sees a bus every half hour...less than half a percent actual usage. These numbers games can be played all day.

Quote:
The true cost of parking (not including the opportunity cost of a better use) is thousands of dollars, all of which you have no choice but to pay- indirectly of course.
I don't think I have any choice to not pay MARTA tax, either, without moving out of the area and never sexting foot back in. Also remember the true cost of transit, which riders don't come close to paying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
Change is an inevitable part of life.

If you want everything to stay the same, maybe a zero/negative growth region (or even the middle of nowhere) is a better fit for you.
You know, you're right. Let's get started on that interstate 485 extension from 400 south to downtown and the outer loop!

Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego View Post
The environmental impacts are downright awful. Stormwater runoff, heat island effect, destruction of natural habitat
Can you explain how this is different from a highly dense concrete wasteland like NYC and other large dense areas?

Quote:
In the grand scheme of things, we need to protect the environment for future generations. If a business can't make a profit because the government isn't providing subsidized space for storage of private property (i.e. on-street property), then maybe they shouldn't be in business.
Wait, wait, wait...first you're talking about parking minimums, where a business is required to provide their own parking, and now you're talking about businesses getting subsidized parking from the government. You're all over the place. Parking minimums take care of exactly what you're now arguing against: they shift the cost of parking onto the business rather than the government and neighborhood. But, you're against them? This is all so weird.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 01:28 PM
 
3,818 posts, read 1,330,010 times
Reputation: 2632
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
You know, you're right. Let's get started on that interstate 485 extension from 400 south to downtown and the outer loop!.
Huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 02:33 PM
 
2,431 posts, read 948,021 times
Reputation: 1898
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
Huh?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_485_(Georgia)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 03:55 PM
 
30,280 posts, read 27,865,037 times
Reputation: 18828
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas1 View Post
I will agree that many places, such as shopping malls, often have far too much parking. But, be real...how much of transit's rail or bus lanes are fully utilized. With a rail line having a train every 10 minutes and taking 10 seconds to pass, that's 1.7% actual usage of the infrastructure if it ran 24 hours a day. A bus lane that sees a bus every half hour...less than half a percent actual usage. These numbers games can be played all day.
Only folks who are being disingenuous would play such games. Transit can be fully utilized along existing lines without taking up more land, and transit takes people from point A to point B. Parking lots/structures temporarily store cars and are located everywhere that might be considered a destination--thus they take up a ton more land than transit lines.

Quote:
I don't think I have any choice to not pay MARTA tax, either, without moving out of the area and never sexting foot back in. Also remember the true cost of transit, which riders don't come close to paying.
Just don't shop in Fulton, DeKalb, or Clayton counties to avoid paying the 1% sales tax that funds MARTA in those counties.

Of course riders don't come close to paying the true cost of MARTA; it's a public good and that's how it is supposed to work. Non-public parking lots/facilities are not.

Quote:
Can you explain how this is different from a highly dense concrete wasteland like NYC and other large dense areas?
This can't be a serious question.

Quote:
Parking minimums take care of exactly what you're now arguing against: they shift the cost of parking onto the business rather than the government and neighborhood.
And businesses always shift these costs to consumers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2019, 04:59 PM
 
5,290 posts, read 3,401,340 times
Reputation: 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
Only folks who are being disingenuous would play such games.
Oh, I can agree with that. I can think of one particular initialed user here...

Quote:
Transit can be fully utilized along existing lines without taking up more land, and transit takes people from point A to point B. Parking lots/structures temporarily store cars and are located everywhere that might be considered a destination--thus they take up a ton more land than transit lines.
The point was that they're only partially utilized and not 100% full all the time ever. No transit line is, either. It's a weird comparison to make.

Quote:
Just don't shop in Fulton, DeKalb, or Clayton counties to avoid paying the 1% sales tax that funds MARTA in those counties.
That's what I had said. I live in Fulton, just a few miles outside of midtown. So I have no real choice but to fund a system I don't use. I'm okay with that. But, for some reason, non drivers throw a fit at the thought of having some of their money fund parking.

Quote:
Of course riders don't come close to paying the true cost of MARTA; it's a public good and that's how it is supposed to work. Non-public parking lots/facilities are not.
And they're not paid for by the public. They're paid for by users or businesses. What's the point? I assume you feel the same way about roads and public parking?

Quote:
This can't be a serious question.
Sure it is. The argument is that having parking hurts stormwater runoff and creates heat islands. How is this different from a concrete city?

Quote:
And businesses always shift these costs to consumers.
Uhhh...okay? And? That should be exactly what you want. Businesses who provide parking for their consumers to pass the costs on to consumers, not to the general public. I mean, hey, I'd love for some urbanists to fork out extra money to pay for parking lots at private businesses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top