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.
"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."
Ok then another reason is the measurable effect on speeds - creating congestion. I'm sure the study could say the same thing about rush hour stop and go traffic on freeways but does that make intolerable traffic congestion a positive thing?
Ok then another reason is the measurable effect on speeds - creating congestion. I'm sure the study could say the same thing about rush hour stop and go traffic on freeways but does that make intolerable traffic congestion a positive thing?
Street parking is usually found on residential streets or commercial street that aren't meant to be arterials. In both cases, especially the first, fast traffic speeds are undesireable and congestion not that relevant.
"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."
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.
What would you define as "without enough parking spaces?"
If you mean not offering off-street parking for every unit and presuming people will park on the street, I don't see the problem at all. If you mean they want to build apartments in places where on-street parking is so scarce that it will mean residents will have to park many blocks away from their house...I think that would be a really big disincentive for people looking to live there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
The developer would build no parking and have the residents rely on street parking, which is ample in most suburbs. Fancier developments in suburbia would get off street parking as the additional cost for more parking is often small (land isn't that scarce) and it's still a positive selling point.
I think it all depends upon the type of suburb. In some suburban areas, no off-street parking is allowed. In others, most streets besides the main feeders are in semi-private HOAs, meaning outsiders couldn't park there regardless. Elsewhere the sparse pattern of few road connections would mean there just wouldn't be enough streetside space for a few hundred cars within a mile walk. In all of these cases, the market would basically require everyone who had a car to have a space within the complex.
The only time a developer can skate by without it is in more "classic" suburbs which have fairly high levels of density and high levels of road connectivity (e.g., a grid or something else with tons of interconnections). And even in these areas, virtually all homeowners will have access to off-street parking already. I fail to see what the big deal is going from 15% of the street being occupied by on-street parking to 35%.
Real shortages of on-street parking basically only happen in urban areas, college towns, or tourist traps. And in two of those locations you're going to get a lot of people who don't regularly use a car, or at least have less cars per capita than the average American household.
Street parking is a hazard. How many times have you seen a street perfectly wide enough for cars to pass in both directions but because of parked cars there is only one lane? Then you get to play chicken and go for it, hoping someone doesn't come from the other end or will wait. And you never know when a person is going to step out from between parked cars or open a car door. You can't see cars backing out of driveways.
I live in a neighborhood where this happens all the time. However, I feel it's safer than the alternative. On narrow streets with lots of obstacles people tend to travel slow, and provided you're going under 15 miles per hour, you're unlikely to damage your car very much, and really unlikely to kill anyone you accidentally hit. It's the whole idea behind the woonerf concept.
Also, seeing your other complaint, note that a woonerf has actually been found to increase traffic speed. The reason being that while overall speed drops, stop signs and traffic signals are also eliminated, and without the start-and-stop element, you actually get from place to place faster.
I think it all depends upon the type of suburb. In some suburban areas, no off-street parking is allowed. In others, most streets besides the main feeders are in semi-private HOAs, meaning outsiders couldn't park there regardless. Elsewhere the sparse pattern of few road connections would mean there just wouldn't be enough streetside space for a few hundred cars within a mile walk. In all of these cases, the market would basically require everyone who had a car to have a space within the complex.
The only time a developer can skate by without it is in more "classic" suburbs which have fairly high levels of density and high levels of road connectivity (e.g., a grid or something else with tons of interconnections). And even in these areas, virtually all homeowners will have access to off-street parking already. I fail to see what the big deal is going from 15% of the street being occupied by on-street parking to 35%.
Real shortages of on-street parking basically only happen in urban areas, college towns, or tourist traps. And in two of those locations you're going to get a lot of people who don't regularly use a car, or at least have less cars per capita than the average American household.
The bolded aren't too common in the Northeast, I think. A neighborhood like this has no rules on off street parking:
What would you define as "without enough parking spaces?"
If you mean not offering off-street parking for every unit and presuming people will park on the street, I don't see the problem at all. If you mean they want to build apartments in places where on-street parking is so scarce that it will mean residents will have to park many blocks away from their house...I think that would be a really big disincentive for people looking to live there.
My job includes visiting commercial buildings with medical offices. 90% of the time these offices have zero spots available during normal work hours. In each of these cases the local zoning board has underestimated the parking needs and /or bought the developers reasoning for having what turns out to be too few parking spots on the property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
I think it all depends upon the type of suburb. In some suburban areas, no off-street parking is allowed. In others, most streets besides the main feeders are in semi-private HOAs, meaning outsiders couldn't park there regardless. Elsewhere the sparse pattern of few road connections would mean there just wouldn't be enough streetside space for a few hundred cars within a mile walk. In all of these cases, the market would basically require everyone who had a car to have a space within the complex.
The only time a developer can skate by without it is in more "classic" suburbs which have fairly high levels of density and high levels of road connectivity (e.g., a grid or something else with tons of interconnections). And even in these areas, virtually all homeowners will have access to off-street parking already. I fail to see what the big deal is going from 15% of the street being occupied by on-street parking to 35%.
Real shortages of on-street parking basically only happen in urban areas, college towns, or tourist traps. And in two of those locations you're going to get a lot of people who don't regularly use a car, or at least have less cars per capita than the average American household.
There are lots of train towns in NJ that have huge parking problems which do not meet your 3 descriptions. These are not high density areas with most buildings 2 stories or less. There are parking lots for commuters, but they usually require a permit (sometimes at great expense, sometimes with 5 year waiting periods) for daily use and are usually jammed. The street parking is metered and also jammed due to the draw of these towns. Developers do have demand to build within the downtowns as many people ( like empty nesters) want to enjoy the restaurants and shops and be able to walk to the train. The problem is the developer would rather use the land for units. Any extra parking will take away from the number of units. In these towns, a car is needed. If they assume 2 cars per unit (these will be very expensive) they will still have problems with visitors, cars for children who might return home, home aids, etc. Where are these people going to park? The commuter lots are full and the streets have metered parking and are full.
Parking is a problem around here and these are not urban areas, college towns, or tourist traps.
My job includes visiting commercial buildings with medical offices. 90% of the time these offices have zero spots available during normal work hours. In each of these cases the local zoning board has underestimated the parking needs and /or bought the developers reasoning for having what turns out to be too few parking spots on the property.
There are lots of train towns in NJ that have huge parking problems which do not meet your 3 descriptions. These are not high density areas with most buildings 2 stories or less. There are parking lots for commuters, but they usually require a permit (sometimes at great expense, sometimes with 5 year waiting periods) for daily use and are usually jammed. The street parking is metered and also jammed due to the draw of these towns. Developers do have demand to build within the downtowns as many people ( like empty nesters) want to enjoy the restaurants and shops and be able to walk to the train. The problem is the developer would rather use the land for units. Any extra parking will take away from the number of units. In these towns, a car is needed. If they assume 2 cars per unit (these will be very expensive) they will still have problems with visitors, cars for children who might return home, home aids, etc. Where are these people going to park? The commuter lots are full and the streets have metered parking and are full.
Parking is a problem around here and these are not urban areas, college towns, or tourist traps.
If the parking is as big of a problem as you say, sounds like there is a great economic opportunity to be made for a commercial garage owner in this town. I would ask what kind of barriers are in place that might be stopping somebody from offering paid parking to meet the excess demand.
If the parking is as big of a problem as you say, sounds like there is a great economic opportunity to be made for a commercial garage owner in this town. I would ask what kind of barriers are in place that might be stopping somebody from offering paid parking to meet the excess demand.
Paid parking probably generates less income than an building. The land could be an building or it could be an parking lot, given what people pay per month for rent vs. how little people charge for parking the building has the potential to generate more revenue.
The developer, in turn, passes the cost to tenants in the form of jacked up rent. D'OH!
e.g. apartments that could rent for $1000 without any parking now rent $1100 because the required parking reduces the number of apartments that can be built. It is possible to allocate the entire set of costs (including the opportunity costs represented by foregone apartments and their rents) to the tenants with cars (e.g. charge those with cars $1200 while keeping the car-free at $1000) but that's unlikely to happen.
Parking spots don't cost $200/month most places. The majority of the apartments I've lived in haven't had free parking. One (suburban Sacramento) charged $35/mo (wait list). They didn't charge enough and we never got parking there, which was why we left. I don't really think it's the governments job to run a business for people, but clearly that place didn't have enough parking. And yes, that was new (2000ish construction) with minimum parking requirements. The minimum parking requirement wasn't adequate and the apartment complex didn't charge enough for parking either.
Next apartment also charged $35 for parking but, had insufficient parking, but had one assigned spot per apartment. If you didn't want it, great, they'd rent it to someone else. FYI $35/mo is a great return for a parking space. The fine zealots at Streetblog figure a surface spot costs $2,200 in land/construction costs. Shoup to O’Toole: The Market for Parking Is Anything But Free | Streetsblog New York City
Next apartment had parking... for $275/mo. That was in Belltown in Seattle, a neighborhood with parking maximums. Majority of people there did not have cars.
Last apartment I've lived in here in the United States was built in the 1800s and didn't have any parking at all.
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.
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.
