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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-22-2014, 05:51 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,868,982 times
Reputation: 1439

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Well, s/he was specifically referencing offices, namely medical offices. I was assuming "normal" daytime hours. Your point is totally true, though.
Ah while it is possible to go to the doctor via public transit, that is one thing that needs parking. Sick people, elderly people, and people with kids should not be forced to use transit for lack of parking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2014, 06:36 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,010,353 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Ah while it is possible to go to the doctor via public transit, that is one thing that needs parking. Sick people, elderly people, and people with kids should not be forced to use transit for lack of parking.
True.

My rebuttal to that is twofold: parking should have a cost, though that can be validated for patients by the practice, because employees can be big users of parking and under-pricing leads to overuse; two, the government shouldn't define minimum parking, or define it as strictly, as local governments have a terrible track record at estimating parking needs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,073 posts, read 102,800,958 times
Reputation: 33137
Wow, so much to comment on. I'll split up my quotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In general, I don't think parking minimums are needed in new development. A developer will, when constructing a new building of reasonable size, undertake a market study. This should estimate how many renters will have zero, one, or two cars, and how many spaces would be reasonably needed to attract renters at the desired rent level. Undoubtedly there will be some people who wouldn't want to pay the premium, and would try and make do with off-street spaces, but apartment buildings are frequently located in metered areas, rather than permit or free ares, meaning there are relatively few who would bother.

The only time it may be an issue is in situations where you have a reasonably large apartment building under consideration in a smaller-scale neighborhood. In most cities zoning precludes this for other reasons, for better or worse, as the new apartments are focused in the areas already high density (although I understand Portland is an exception here). In this case people might see that there is free (or almost free, if you buy a permit) parking in the neighborhood. Developers, particularly smaller-scale ones, may try to get away without having parking available, and certainly the on-street parking supply in the neighborhood will worsen.

Still, speaking as someone who has parked on-street in a neighborhood with tight parking for years, this is fine. I don't have a right to park in front of my house - it's a public right of way available to everyone. And in the longer run (although I'm leaving the neighborhood) I'm hoping the tight parking will change the neighborhood for the better, with more people locating here who want to live a car-free lifestyle, until some equilibrium is reached. Certainly I don't think that the City should try and freeze the neighborhood in its tracks just to please long-term residents. One of the great things about cities is how they are forever changing.
Just how could a developer ascertain that? You can use averages, which is what I believe cities do when they come up with figures for minimum parking requirements. But that doesn't mean your building is not going to be full of outliers who raise or lower the number of cars. In an apartment building that is constantly changing residents, the numbers could change constantly.

I think on-street parking is a bad idea. My daughter and her boyfriend have both been victims of hit and run accidents in their neighborhood since they moved to a place that requires you to park in the street. No one was injured, they weren't even in their cars, but the cars were damaged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude View Post
The difference is that there is generally no government regulation that mandates that builders must include a pool or valet. Presumably, the builder has made a decision that including these amenities makes sense because there is demand for it. If they guess wrong, they bear the financial consequences of that decision. With laws regulating parking minimums, even if they believe there is less parking demand than mandated, they still must build the legally mandated number of parking spaces.
But there usually is a government regulation requiring heat in cold climates, running water, sinks, toilets and the like. It's not like there are no regulations for building housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,073 posts, read 102,800,958 times
Reputation: 33137
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46H View Post
Around here, developers are always trying build properties without enough parking places. It is SOP.
Even with parking negotiated to try and accommodate demand there are many residential and commercial buildings with bad parking situations during normal high usage times.
In my area, developers try to get away with whatever they can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Actually far from being a hazard, on-street parking tends to reduce crashes:

Reassessing On-Street Parking - Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board - Volume 2046, Volume 2046 / 2008 Performance Measurement, Demand Management, and Issues of Major U.S. Cities - Transportation Research Board

"Low-speed streets with on-street parking also had the lowest fatal and severe crash rates of any road category in the study of 250 Connecticut roadway segments. Part of the reason is that the presence of parking had a measurable effect on vehicle speeds."
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
"On-street parking is associated with elevated crash risk. It is not known how drivers' mental workload and behaviour in the presence of on-street parking contributes to, or fails to reduce, this increased crash risk."

The effects of on-street parking and road en... [Accid Anal Prev. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
I'm more inclined to believe the second study. One of the first things kids are taught when walking places is don't step out between parked cars. It's dangerous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,073 posts, read 102,800,958 times
Reputation: 33137
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Well, s/he was specifically referencing offices, namely medical offices. I was assuming "normal" daytime hours. Your point is totally true, though.
You clearly don't have much idea what goes on at medical offices. They're open early; they're open late. Our office is seeing patients until 7:30 tonight. Some of them are still there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Ah while it is possible to go to the doctor via public transit, that is one thing that needs parking. Sick people, elderly people, and people with kids should not be forced to use transit for lack of parking.
Exactly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 06:51 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,110,497 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I'm more inclined to believe the second study. One of the first things kids are taught when walking places is don't step out between parked cars. It's dangerous.
The two studies aren't quite saying the same thing. The first says fatal and severe crashes are reduced, the second crashes in general. Note: I haven't read the links, just the quotes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 06:56 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,110,497 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Just how could a developer ascertain that? You can use averages, which is what I believe cities do when they come up with figures for minimum parking requirements. But that doesn't mean your building is not going to be full of outliers who raise or lower the number of cars. In an apartment building that is constantly changing residents, the numbers could change constantly.
An apartment building that doesn't have off street parking will attract less car owners, or at least those that don't care about convenient parking. Unless every adult owns a car.

Quote:
I think on-street parking is a bad idea. My daughter and her boyfriend have both been victims of hit and run accidents in their neighborhood since they moved to a place that requires you to park in the street. No one was injured, they weren't even in their cars, but the cars were damaged.
Ancedotal. I've parked in the street (back and forth) for years , never had issues. Haven't heard of damaged car problems for others who street park.

Quote:
But there usually is a government regulation requiring heat in cold climates, running water, sinks, toilets and the like. It's not like there are no regulations for building housing.
The debate [usually] is whether off street parking is an additional convenience (like a dishwasher or even pool) or a necessity (heat, proper plumbing). It's obviously somewhere in between, depending on the situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 07:01 PM
 
1,999 posts, read 2,941,063 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
In my area, developers try to get away with whatever they can.



I'm more inclined to believe the second study. One of the first things kids are taught when walking places is don't step out between parked cars. It's dangerous.
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.

The thing is, I am much more concerned with the severity of accidents than the number of them. I would rather have 10 accidents that result only in injuries than 1 that results in a death.

Obviously, we allow high traffic speeds on highways because we accept that some level of risk of severe accidents is needed for transportation to function. But the difference is that you don't have pedestrians on highways (usually), where you do in commercial and residential areas that have street parking (usually). I think that in at least some commercial and residential areas, on-street parking is appropriate because it makes life less hazardous for drivers and pedestrians. 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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,600,501 times
Reputation: 7830
I lived for years in an apartment next to downtown Portland that didn't have parking. I paid a fee for a yearly street parking pass. It usually wasn't a big deal except when too many people from the nearby college tried to score free parking. I can definitely say the lack of a parking spot didn't factor into my apartment because the proximity to everything I needed was amazing from there. I would walk to classes, and walk and bike to work that was downtown. I barely put any miles on my car during those years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2014, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,073 posts, read 102,800,958 times
Reputation: 33137
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.

The thing is, I am much more concerned with the severity of accidents than the number of them. I would rather have 10 accidents that result only in injuries than 1 that results in a death.

Obviously, we allow high traffic speeds on highways because we accept that some level of risk of severe accidents is needed for transportation to function. But the difference is that you don't have pedestrians on highways (usually), where you do in commercial and residential areas that have street parking (usually). I think that in at least some commercial and residential areas, on-street parking is appropriate because it makes life less hazardous for drivers and pedestrians. 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.
In most cities that I am familiar with, including Denver, the speed limit is 25-30 mph on all but a few streets. I'm not opposed to on-street parking, just to the idea that somehow that makes the streets safer.
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