U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
 
Old 07-18-2014, 03:40 PM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,933,575 times
Reputation: 2150

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Chicago and Philly are older cities or cities that experienced their booms when the street car was dominate. The street car imposes certain requirements just as much as anything else and yes, Chicago does have min. parking requirements. We just have an lot of older building that are built without it(of course some of these older building are also without modern conveniences like washing machines, dishwashers, built in A/C or individual temperature control for their units).

Any one of those requirements was walk ability because the street car or bus can't take you door to door so you need to be able to walk long distances. Bike riding went with paving the roads. The bad part is attempting to build for the late 19th Century in the late 20th.

Lack of parking is an issue because parking is always going to be limited so requiring some space be devoted to parking is an good thing. The automobile genie is out the bottle and people will not go back to living like they once did and so that means that modern development is going to have to support parking.
Again, if the consumer is demanding parking so much, why does the government need to mandate it? Why not let the market provide it?

Why does it matter if the buildings in Chicago without minimum parking have it because they were grandfathered in? The point is they don't have parking requirements but life goes on just fine. I know people who live in dense areas of Chicago with little parking. I myself live in a DC neighborhood with mostly street parking. We somehow have survived without the government ensuring we each have a parking space. Other forms of transportation like walking and biking are more feasible because less space is devoted to parking and those that want to have their own parking spot pay for the privilege.

Why do you think the government owes you a parking space?

 
Old 07-18-2014, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,247,479 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I think the question is a little different. Have we enabled car infrastructure to take up a disproportionate amount of funding due to other decisions (land use, zoning, financial policies). Is it really a free market decision or a socially engineered one. Have we really developed our infrastructure around giving people choice, or creating a single choice?
The question is whether roads soak up a disproportionate share of funding. We can't worry about the type of built environment that's already been created. It's here and there's nothing we can do about it short of tearing it all down. So the issue is how much money should be devoted to transit versus roads.
 
Old 07-18-2014, 05:05 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,859,930 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Again, if the consumer is demanding parking so much, why does the government need to mandate it? Why not let the market provide it?

Why does it matter if the buildings in Chicago without minimum parking have it because they were grandfathered in? The point is they don't have parking requirements but life goes on just fine. I know people who live in dense areas of Chicago with little parking. I myself live in a DC neighborhood with mostly street parking. We somehow have survived without the government ensuring we each have a parking space. Other forms of transportation like walking and biking are more feasible because less space is devoted to parking and those that want to have their own parking spot pay for the privilege.

Why do you think the government owes you a parking space?
It matters because lack of parking is very limiting and annoying to neighbors and yes there is also private parking where there is extra demand for it. The street can only support so many cars. If the building lacks parking it greatly limits who would buy or rent it. It causes all sorts of issues and problems. I live in an house with an garage and I wouldn't have it any other way. Now not every person needs an space but if there were no parking, only a limited number of people would or could put up with it and would move elsewhere. And the government does support street parking by towing away abandoned vehicles(or ticketing them).
 
Old 07-18-2014, 05:05 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,008 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Again, if the consumer is demanding parking so much, why does the government need to mandate it? Why not let the market provide it?

Why does it matter if the buildings in Chicago without minimum parking have it because they were grandfathered in? The point is they don't have parking requirements but life goes on just fine. I know people who live in dense areas of Chicago with little parking. I myself live in a DC neighborhood with mostly street parking. We somehow have survived without the government ensuring we each have a parking space. Other forms of transportation like walking and biking are more feasible because less space is devoted to parking and those that want to have their own parking spot pay for the privilege.

Why do you think the government owes you a parking space?
Because, as with many things, "letting the market decide" does not always end up with the best solution to the problem. Developers are, justifiably from their POV, interested in making the most money possible. If they don't have to provide parking, they can build more units. How do you know life goes on "just fine" w/o parking requirements? Just fine for whom? Why should the city (or other municipality) be the provider of parking space for the residents?
 
Old 07-18-2014, 05:11 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,859,930 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Because, as with many things, "letting the market decide" does not always end up with the best solution to the problem. Developers are, justifiably from their POV, interested in making the most money possible. If they don't have to provide parking, they can build more units. How do you know life goes on "just fine" w/o parking requirements? Just fine for whom? Why should the city (or other municipality) be the provider of parking space for the residents?
Well it goes just fine for everyone not effected(a real minority). Heck the lack of parking is causing problems in Chicago for the Jeffery Jump. It is supposed to be an BRT route, but with the lack of legal parking the bus is often blocked by cars that shouldn't be there.
 
Old 07-18-2014, 06:54 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,675,235 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
And by "quickly," we're talking about months and years, not days and weeks. You don't see road crews out steampaving I-20 in Atlanta every day. In contrast, public transit would be immediately crippled without public subsidy. So the notion that transit would still run (this was your assertion, after all) absent funding is a joke.

And what investors are going to pick up the tab for MARTA (or any transit system for that matter)? You have got to be kidding me. If that's the case, then we really are better off pulling the plug on transit. Is that the policy you're recommending?
What makes you think that mass transit systems would instantaneously collapse while roads would last 12 months? I know roads wouldn't go that fast (it would certainly take a month or two at the least), but I doubt mass transit would collapse instantaneously too. Buses would depend on the roads, and would go as soon as the cars do, but rail transit would last longer. In fact, I'd wager that rail-based transport would remain feasible with no funding long after roads-after all, steel rails don't get potholes in the winter. Public transit would not be "immediately crippled." It would have to make some cutbacks, quite possibly some big ones, but in the long run those would e temporary. Roads, on the other hand, would die a slow death (because, as I have said before, they have no direct income).

And if the roads are down and people still need a way to get into town, then yes, investors would pick up the mass transit systems-at least once roads would become entirely impossible to use. Said investors would do this because they would have people who still need to get into town, and would have a monopoly on their transportation by investing in mass transit. Basically they'd control the quickest way in and out of town, and through this be able to make serious money. Not ideal, but it's what would happen.

And no, like I said earlier, I do not recommend this system at all. Rearranging our infrastructure in this matter would cripple our national economy. It would be a highly destructive experiment and I hope no one is ever stupid enough to try it.
 
Old 07-18-2014, 07:09 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,859,930 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
What makes you think that mass transit systems would instantaneously collapse while roads would last 12 months? I know roads wouldn't go that fast (it would certainly take a month or two at the least), but I doubt mass transit would collapse instantaneously too. Buses would depend on the roads, and would go as soon as the cars do, but rail transit would last longer. In fact, I'd wager that rail-based transport would remain feasible with no funding long after roads-after all, steel rails don't get potholes in the winter. Public transit would not be "immediately crippled." It would have to make some cutbacks, quite possibly some big ones, but in the long run those would e temporary. Roads, on the other hand, would die a slow death (because, as I have said before, they have no direct income).

And if the roads are down and people still need a way to get into town, then yes, investors would pick up the mass transit systems-at least once roads would become entirely impossible to use. Said investors would do this because they would have people who still need to get into town, and would have a monopoly on their transportation by investing in mass transit. Basically they'd control the quickest way in and out of town, and through this be able to make serious money. Not ideal, but it's what would happen.

And no, like I said earlier, I do not recommend this system at all. Rearranging our infrastructure in this matter would cripple our national economy. It would be a highly destructive experiment and I hope no one is ever stupid enough to try it.
err not quite. You are forgetting the fact that the bus or train needs an driver, needs dispatch, needs people to maintain and fix it.This is what drives the cost of transit higher than the cost of just an road.

With driving the government just needs to provide the road and maybe take care of the signals and some towing. With transit the government has to continue doing all those above as well as buy the bus, maintain the bus, pay the driver, pay the dispatcher, provide security as well as clean the bus. There are good reasons for transit but it is never cheaper than driving when you count the subsidies.
 
Old 07-18-2014, 08:29 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,834,426 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Oh jeez, the driver entitlement syndrome!

Drivers pay about 50% of road maintenance costs at the pump or toll booths, but complain about every other mode of transportation.
Except the article belies itself.
Quote:
Nationwide in 2011, highway user fees and user taxes made up just 50.4 percent of state and local expenses on roads. State and local governments spent $153.0 billion on highway, road, and street expenses but raised only $77.1 billion in user fees and user taxes ($12.7 billion in tolls and user fees, $41.2 billion in fuel taxes, and $23.2 billion in vehicle license taxes).[3] The rest was funded by $30 billion in general state and local revenues and $46 billion in federal aid (approximately $28 billion derived from the federal gasoline tax and $18 billion from general federal revenues or deficit financed)
That's 70% from user fees, not 50%. Yes, Federal gas tax counts.
 
Old 07-18-2014, 08:40 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,085,690 times
Reputation: 12646
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
What makes you think that mass transit systems would instantaneously collapse while roads would last 12 months? I know roads wouldn't go that fast (it would certainly take a month or two at the least), but I doubt mass transit would collapse instantaneously too. Buses would depend on the roads, and would go as soon as the cars do, but rail transit would last longer. In fact, I'd wager that rail-based transport would remain feasible with no funding long after roads-after all, steel rails don't get potholes in the winter. Public transit would not be "immediately crippled." It would have to make some cutbacks, quite possibly some big ones, but in the long run those would e temporary. Roads, on the other hand, would die a slow death (because, as I have said before, they have no direct income).

And if the roads are down and people still need a way to get into town, then yes, investors would pick up the mass transit systems-at least once roads would become entirely impossible to use. Said investors would do this because they would have people who still need to get into town, and would have a monopoly on their transportation by investing in mass transit. Basically they'd control the quickest way in and out of town, and through this be able to make serious money. Not ideal, but it's what would happen.

And no, like I said earlier, I do not recommend this system at all. Rearranging our infrastructure in this matter would cripple our national economy. It would be a highly destructive experiment and I hope no one is ever stupid enough to try it.
If you took away funding, transit would stop over night. Not really possible since it's budget usually annually and you can't just take away the funding that has already been allocated so it would continue for the fiscal year in practice, but hypothetically if you could just turn off the funding it would collapse instantaneously.
 
Old 07-18-2014, 10:12 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,675,235 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
If you took away funding, transit would stop over night. Not really possible since it's budget usually annually and you can't just take away the funding that has already been allocated so it would continue for the fiscal year in practice, but hypothetically if you could just turn off the funding it would collapse instantaneously.
Ok. How would it collapse "instantaneously"?
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.


Closed Thread

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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
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