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 09-23-2014, 07:45 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,934,738 times
Reputation: 2150

Advertisements

I find this argument that "it is better to reduce accidents entirely" very unpersuasive, to the point where I don't think the people making it have really thought through the implications. Most accidents don't result in injury. They result in damage to cars. Of those that do result in injuries, many of those injuries are minor and don't require hospitalization. Others are more serious like whiplash, but still not nearly as bad as they could be. It's a subset of a subset of accidents--the most severe accidents--that lead to the worst injuries and deaths.
Those are the accidents we should worry about if we prioritize human life and reducing human misery over avoiding automobile damage. I would gladly accept 10 minor accidents if it meant getting rid of one severe accident.

I don't think the one study is enough to reach broad conclusions that on-street parking saves lives versus off-street parking. Yes, I agree more replications should be done, and I'd love to see more research on the topic. From what I've found, academics tend to consider it an under-researched issue. But with the data I've seen so far, there seems like at least a good chance that street parking might save lives in certain areas. That's enough for me to say we shouldn't go in with the presumption that on-street parking is worse and we certainly shouldn't say it should be banned, which was the argument from another poster that kicked off this whole discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2014, 09:38 AM
 
9,682 posts, read 4,566,593 times
Reputation: 12592
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
I think the second study could be true as well, but it doesn't make a good case for getting rid of street parking. The first study suggests that on-street parking makes crashes less SEVERE, which makes senses considering it tends to reduce traffic speed. The second study indicates that on-street parking makes crashes more LIKELY, which I might be able to believe..
I think there are much more reasonable and practical ways of lowering speeds than cluttering the sides of the road with parked cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2014, 09:41 AM
 
9,682 posts, read 4,566,593 times
Reputation: 12592
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
I certainly would never say that we should have on-street parking everywhere. But I don't think the people who advocate for on-street parking NOWHERE have really thought through the risks that would entail.
Let me clarify. I don't have a problem with on-street parking if the road has been designed for it and is wide enough to accomodate street parking AND allow adequate clearance for simultaneous two-way traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2014, 09:43 AM
 
9,682 posts, read 4,566,593 times
Reputation: 12592
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
You can have two streets with the same speed limit but one has on-street parking and the other doesn't. The one with on-street parking is likely to have lower traffic speed because of the presence of the cars.
You could put a bunch of potholes in the road or just make the road gravel and get the same results. Does that make it desirable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2014, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,292,026 times
Reputation: 3827
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
You could put a bunch of potholes in the road or just make the road gravel and get the same results. Does that make it desirable?
Sometimes it does. I know of back roads in Massachusetts and New Hampshire where the residents prefer that the municipality let the road deteriorate to the point that through traffic avoids it.

My residential street is slightly wider (by about 3-4 feet) than parallel residential streets so it tends to have significantly more and faster traffic than those other streets. (All streets around here have parallel parking). I would love to have speed bumps, a road diet, or cameras to slow down traffic so my kids are less at risk from being hit by 40 mph cars (25 mph speed limits).

Sometimes maximizing the rate and flow of traffic is not the ultimate goal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2014, 09:55 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,934,738 times
Reputation: 2150
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
I think there are much more reasonable and practical ways of lowering speeds than cluttering the sides of the road with parked cars.
Such as? Street parking also has the added benefit of giving more places to park so you have to factor that in as well.

Potholes and gravel roads obviously lead to other problems with car maintenance that street parking doesn't, so they're not analogous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2014, 10:01 AM
 
9,682 posts, read 4,566,593 times
Reputation: 12592
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
This is a similar example to what I was describing



when two cars approach, there's little space, so cars have to sow down and get to the side as much as possible .
In your pic, that is a street that is designed for on street parking. The spaces are clearly marked and there is a full lane width on the side on which they are parked. What I oppose is the case where both sides would be like the right side in your pic, with cars parked on both sides, leaving too little room for cars to safely travel in each direction at the same time and resulting in cars riding in the center straddling the double yellow line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2014, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,436 posts, read 11,937,287 times
Reputation: 10542
Quote:
Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer View Post
The point was that Houston didn't plan for their growth properly so that's why the traffic is so bad. No matter how many roads you build, car traffic just doesn't scale. Good luck having 10 million cars going to work at the same time...
The point needs to be made that while Houston is often called a "city without zoning" it actually only lacks zoning which separates uses (apartments, single-family housing, industry, retail, etc). It still has some of the most damaging parts of zoning if you care about dense urban development - parking minimums and minimum setbacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 46H View Post
The parking problem underscores a bigger problem in NJ. Besides places for people to live, the towns also try to add commercial RE to add to the property tax collections (like medical buildings). In most cases it is impossible to commute from one town to a town 10 miles away by mass transit. Since each town has bedrooms and each town has commercial, people are random point to point commuters. This makes it very difficult to carpool. Even is a case where a carpool might be feasible, a household with 2 working parents with children makes carpool scheduling even more difficult. If you could use a train to get from your town to a work destination or Dr appt (other than end point commuting into NYC, Hoboken, or Jersey City) the office destination could be as far as 5 miles away from the station.
You know, some of this may be because of New Jersey's (especially Northern NJ'S) high level of municipal fragmentation. If 7-8 boroughs were still amalgamated into the one original township, there wouldn't be tax incentives to decentralize office/industrial parks so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Having to relocate a business is not a trivial issue. The business might just fold.
This is true. However, a new business in a better-located place would take their former market share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
A college-oriented apt building could actually yield more cars than a singles/couples oriented one. Each student might have their own car.
Maybe things are quite different out west, but this wasn't my college experience at all.

I went to school in a college town in Western Massachusetts near where Nei lived from 1997-2001. Most students knew how to drive, but many seldom did. Undergraduates typically were relegated to "Yellow" lots for their first two years of school, which were often a 15-minute walk from dorms. As a result few people used their cars at all except for weekend trips, and quite a lot left their cars at their parents houses. I stayed in the dorms all the way through my senior year, and even then I'd say around half of people appeared not to drive with any regularity. Although most off-campus people did own cars, if the local situation were such that cars were as much of a hassle as on campus (e.g., if it was an urban area, not a town) I'd guess many would have made the same calculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
#3I don't understand why an avowed socialist would eschew the need for government intervention. And I can tell you, as a semi-libertarian who lives in an area that has seen a lot of growth, if you give developers and inch, they'll take a mile. Their goal is to put up as many units as possible. They do not generally live in the areas they develop, so they could care how the development looks. They could not care at all if the streets are packed with cars from the development, leaving no parking for shoppers in these vaunted mixed-use areas, no parking for guests, deliveries, the police (which seem to be a constant presence in my daughter's neighborhood), etc.
This is a bit off topic, but my problem with capitalism isn't the market, it's the capitalists. Markets are actually a much more efficient manner of meeting many needs than government fiat. My ideal economic system would be market socialism, which would combine the efficiency of the existing capitalist system with a more equitable distribution of capital.

More on the issue at hand, once again there is no evidence in the modern era that parking shortages are harmful to neighborhoods as a whole. Yes, they can be a pain, but a parking shortage has never destroyed a walkable neighborhood, while steps to address parking shortages (such as knocking down storefronts and putting in parking garages) often do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2014, 10:50 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,006,214 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46H View Post
There is no underpricing of parking.

The parking problem underscores a bigger problem in NJ. Besides places for people to live, the towns also try to add commercial RE to add to the property tax collections (like medical buildings). In most cases it is impossible to commute from one town to a town 10 miles away by mass transit. Since each town has bedrooms and each town has commercial, people are random point to point commuters. This makes it very difficult to carpool. Even is a case where a carpool might be feasible, a household with 2 working parents with children makes carpool scheduling even more difficult. If you could use a train to get from your town to a work destination or Dr appt (other than end point commuting into NYC, Hoboken, or Jersey City) the office destination could be as far as 5 miles away from the station.

Sadly, it is too late to fix this mixed use mess.

The other problem in NJ is water drainage control. When entire building lots are paved there are increased chances of local flooding. With out some zoning, entire lots would be paved and buildings would be 30 stories tall and there would be no place for the workers and visitors to park.

Kind of like Houston.
Thanks for elaborating. While I hold that, in general, the problem is underpricing of parking, I can't argue with a specific case wherein pricing may not matter at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2014, 10:56 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,006,214 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Such as? Street parking also has the added benefit of giving more places to park so you have to factor that in as well.

Potholes and gravel roads obviously lead to other problems with car maintenance that street parking doesn't, so they're not analogous.
I was going to ask the same question. It's silly to suggest there are alternatives, then fail to offer any. "Clutter"--on-street parking, bulb-outs, neck-downs, narrow lanes, roundabouts, etc.--creates an experience drivers have to be somewhat engaged to navigate, and are vital to safe streets.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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