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.
One needs to know what words to put in a search engine. Could you guide me to the information since you said it?
Most businesses have very similar peak hours. Only restaurants and entertainment venues have peak hours in the evening. No business has peak hours late at night, not even bars.
In the neighborhood I mentioned above, the train station parking lot serves as overflow. So does the library parking. During the commute, parking is full. But on the weekends and evening with shoppers and eaters, the train parking lot is perfect, and pretty empty.
The thing is it's still pretty expensive. I know Uber sometimes does $5 UberPool specials (carpooling, basically). So that means the regular price is probably something like $8-10, and maybe $15-20 for a regular ride of comparable distance. Meanwhile, transit fares are usually around $2-3.
Uber doesn't have the taxpayer paying most of the cost though, so it's really pointless to compare the "fare" price to what a taxi or Uber would cost. Transit agencies are all over the place in terms of efficiency as it's not something that scales down well. None actually cover their operating costs for the most part though, with limited exceptions like the Monorail in Seattle which actually operates at a profit... but that's more of a tourist attraction. Fares aren't the appropriate measure anyway as most people aren't paying fares as they're on monthly passes. Only infrequent users pay fares, if they bother to pay them. Fare evasion typically accounts for 5-10% of boardings. Many transit agencies, however, report cost and revenue per boarding. That's the more appropriate thing to look at. Again, all over the place. SF Muni is by far the most efficient transit agency in my greater area, no surprise there. The net cost per boarding is $2.19. Every time someone gets on bus or train it costs the taxpayer $2.19. AC Transit (Alameda county, Oakland et cetera is $4.81), VTA (Santa Clara county is $6.55). SamTrans (San Mateo county) is $6.61. BART is much more efficient, $.89, but then it's not trying to provide comprehensive service.
If the quality of the transit is good, it's a reasonable alternative. For example, in Rockland County, the population density back in 2010 was 1,796 people per square mile. The autoless household rate is around 15%, and the bus service runs past midnight on the major routes (which connect the population centers where most of those households reside, like Haverstraw and Spring Valley).
Quote:
I had a similar discussion on another forum. I generally agree, and I know you're oversimplifying it to make your point, but one thing to consider is that if the growth is done efficiently, the amount of infrastructure required doesn't increase linearly with the number of residents in the area. For example, if you built a grid system of roads rather than cul-de-sacs, you have a much easier time handling overflow traffic by spreading it out through the grid, rather than forcing it onto the major roads and so it takes much longer for the road system to reach its full capacity.
Again, how many trips do you take? Absolute minimum is maybe 10 a week. Even at San Francisco cost to the taxpayer that's $1,138 per year. Chances are you do more than just make one boarding to go to and from work every day. Normal people have lives outside of work and/or they may have to transfer. Meanwhile my MTC figures it would take an extra 50 cents to $1/gallon to fully cover all road costs and and catch up on all the deferred maintenance. Say you really like your Suburban which gets 15 mpg. You're good for somewhere in the realm of 15,000-30,000 miles a year of driving depending on that extra 50 cents or $1.
Cul-de-sac-ey isn't all that expensive. It's actually cheap. If you compared that to the go to work and back and never take any other trips in a 15 mpg suburban and the high end of an extra $1/gallon in gas taxes, you'd be talking about someone with a 144-mile one-way commute. Yikes.
Don't get me wrong transit most definitely has its merits, but cost isn't really one of them. Past a certain population heavy reliance on the automobile just doesn't work so well. That's a very real concern in basically of the Near Bay. The traffic is horrendous. There's not really any orchards left to grow houses on and the demand for real estate is insanely high. Auto-centric design just cannot accommodate the demand very well. That's demonstrated lesson across the country. It's not that auto-centric is all that costly as it isn't at all. It's that in many cases it was shortsighted. Now you have the problem of adding in transit where much of the development especially in the Peninsula and South Bay weren't built with it in mind. That's not so easily done so transit is expensive to provide and not very effective so most people won't use it anyway.
It's not been entirely lost on planners but it could have been learned faster and better. The anti-car contingent just won't be happy but there's feasible things that are being done that could be done better when doing greenfield development. Elk Grove, for example, is actually laid out with transit in mind. It looks and functions, for most purposes, much like any other post-war autoburb. It's small changes. The shopping centers tend to be a little smaller and not set so far back from street. Contrast that with Natomas where it's a pretty serious hike from the street to the power center stores. Design is compact. While not a grid, permeability is fairly high with most houses being within walking distance of a bus stop. Of course, Elk Grove hasn't really hit that population point where traffic is all that bad. The exception is the freeway to Sacramento, especially 99. A thousand or so people do commute by bus to downtown Sacramento every day but beyond that there's not that much transit. There could be, but there just very little demand for it yet. In 2050? Maybe there will be. Now that light rail is finally getting extended, there's an interesting conundrum. Overwhelmingly people don't want it. Light rail passes through some of Sacramento's nastier neighborhoods and the better-heeled Elk Grovians don't want the to mix with the dirty masses or the hassle of transferring from bus to train. Some of that I'd chalk up to people not liking change but I also see the point. I used to take light rail from downtown to Sac City junior college twice a week. It's not always pleasant. Meadowview where it's really ghetto, I'd pass to. While the bus is stuck in traffic, it's not really any slower because it's not making stops in the ghetto.
Most businesses have very similar peak hours. Only restaurants and entertainment venues have peak hours in the evening. No business has peak hours late at night, not even bars.
Let's take a hypothetical "main street" that's been allowed to change with the times. So, on the same street, you have tech workers, shops, restaurants, some bars, and a Trader Joe's. The first peak would come during the day from the office workers, followed by the grocery shoppers, the store shoppers and restaurant-goers, then the bar-hoppers. There would be overlap and competition, but parking use would be efficient. Certainly, it would be more efficient than having every Wells Fargo, CVS, Safeway, Carl's Jr., and supercuts supply its own parking, thereby fragmenting and constraining the supply.
Let's take a hypothetical "main street" that's been allowed to change with the times. So, on the same street, you have tech workers, shops, restaurants, some bars, and a Trader Joe's. The first peak would come during the day from the office workers, followed by the grocery shoppers, the store shoppers and restaurant-goers, then the bar-hoppers. There would be overlap and competition, but parking use would be efficient. Certainly, it would be more efficient than having every Wells Fargo, CVS, Safeway, Carl's Jr., and supercuts supply its own parking, thereby fragmenting and constraining the supply.
Maybe, maybe not.
TJ's in Berkeley. Parking? Please. It was a contentious project but ultimately the developer won and as predicted it's even worse trying to find parking, not that parking was by any stretch of the imagination sufficient before either. Realistically you really need city supplied parking in those cases, which is not present in Berkeley but is in other places. And yes, it works. Instead of having parking, development is assessed a fee in lieu of providing the parking which pays for. That's done in quiet a few Main Street-ish areas in the Bay Area. It does work, but really only when the city is taking that more active role. I can't really think of an example of it working all that well where the city isn't the one taking responsibility for providing the parking and collecting the offset fee-in-lieu of parking.
Let's take a hypothetical "main street" that's been allowed to change with the times. So, on the same street, you have tech workers, shops, restaurants, some bars, and a Trader Joe's. The first peak would come during the day from the office workers, followed by the grocery shoppers, the store shoppers and restaurant-goers, then the bar-hoppers. There would be overlap and competition, but parking use would be efficient. Certainly, it would be more efficient than having every Wells Fargo, CVS, Safeway, Carl's Jr., and supercuts supply its own parking, thereby fragmenting and constraining the supply.
As you well know, there are few grocery stores in downtown business districts, probably because few people live there, and the grocers in particular like to go where the customers are. This "no grocery store downtown" is an issue on many city forums, and gets brought up here occasionally.
The scenario you describe is common in many strip malls. There will be a few spots for "Joe Blow's customers only" right near the door of Joe Blow's, and the center of the lot is for anyone. Businesses in central business districts that have parking generally do not want patrons of other businesses parking there, and will ticket people who do so.
As you well know, there are few grocery stores in downtown business districts, probably because few people live there, and the grocers in particular like to go where the customers are. This "no grocery store downtown" is an issue on many city forums, and gets brought up here occasionally.
The scenario you describe is common in many strip malls. There will be a few spots for "Joe Blow's customers only" right near the door of Joe Blow's, and the center of the lot is for anyone. Businesses in central business districts that have parking generally do not want patrons of other businesses parking there, and will ticket people who do so.
I don't think he's talking about CBDs in major cities but smaller "Main Street" deals. San Francisco does have one (Safeway). Then Whole Foods I'd say is in the CBD although you could argue that one. TJ's is just outside the CBD in the Tenderloin/Lower Pac Heights border. It has... a parking lot. Good lucking find parking in it but it does have a parking lot. It's really the only thing in the area that does, so it's not so much about everyone having parking. The area would be very different if everything had parking lots and there wouldn't be such a problem parking there. It's right by St Francis hospital and parking is always awful.
I don't think he's talking about CBDs in major cities but smaller "Main Street" deals. San Francisco does have one (Safeway). Then Whole Foods I'd say is in the CBD although you could argue that one. TJ's is just outside the CBD in the Tenderloin/Lower Pac Heights border. It has... a parking lot. Good lucking find parking in it but it does have a parking lot. It's really the only thing in the area that does, so it's not so much about everyone having parking. The area would be very different if everything had parking lots and there wouldn't be such a problem parking there. It's right by St Francis hospital and parking is always awful.
Yea, I remember a Safeway just SW of downtown San Francisco (dunno neighborhood name but it's by 16th street and Market and one of the MUNI lines transititioning to above ground) had parking, few if any other businesses nearby did. I was puzzled where they managed to clear the space for parking. If you're living in downtown, often there are supermarket in the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown so many downtown residents may be in walking distance to downtown.
The Safeway by the Marina District has a larger parking lot and again is one of the few businesses in the area with parking but the parking lot does seem as out of place since the neighborhood isn't as close to downtown.
I've seen a lot of towns with a supermarket not on Main Street but a short walk away, including the best suburban downtown near where I grew up.
I don't think he's talking about CBDs in major cities but smaller "Main Street" deals. San Francisco does have one (Safeway). Then Whole Foods I'd say is in the CBD although you could argue that one. TJ's is just outside the CBD in the Tenderloin/Lower Pac Heights border. It has... a parking lot. Good lucking find parking in it but it does have a parking lot. It's really the only thing in the area that does, so it's not so much about everyone having parking. The area would be very different if everything had parking lots and there wouldn't be such a problem parking there. It's right by St Francis hospital and parking is always awful.
Possibly, but still, there are few grocery stores even in little "Main Street" places, such as my hometown, a mill town near Pittsburgh. Even in the days when steel was booming and the downtown was the major shopping area, there was one small grocery on the main st. but the supermarkets were in more residential areas. Ditto the burb where I live now, which does have a "Main Street" actually called Main Street. No groceries, though a few specialty food stores. When we first moved here, there was one grocery in the general business area, but off the main drag a block or so.
There are a few grocery stores on the edges of downtown Denver.
Possibly, but still, there are few grocery stores even in little "Main Street" places, such as my hometown, a mill town near Pittsburgh. Even in the days when steel was booming and the downtown was the major shopping area, there was one small grocery on the main st. but the supermarkets were in more residential areas. Ditto the burb where I live now, which does have a "Main Street" actually called Main Street. No groceries, though a few specialty food stores. When we first moved here, there was one grocery in the general business area, but off the main drag a block or so.
That's not my experience, well I've seen a mix, I don't feel like listing example at the moment. In my experience, often the outside of "main street" supermarkets are in large big box store shopping centers with few residents nearby, while the main street areas has many residents nearby; so to me "less residential" would make more sense.
I did refer to entertainment venues. And yeah, a coffee shop may open at 5 AM and close at 2 PM, but its hours of operation will overlap with those of the grocery store, department stores, day care centers (which also open early but tend to close later), doctor's offices, office buildings, and the like. Peak parking use in a business area is during the daytime hours. Most people actually live in residential areas, even the hipsters. Businesses there are limited to a few main streets, the rest are homes. At least that's how it is in Denver, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Omaha and other cities with which I am familiar.
My point is that the greater the mix of uses within walking distance of a particular spot, the more efficiently used the parking will be because total parking demand in a city will be pretty even.
A typical post-war auto-oriented suburb will be one of the worst case scenarios. Office dominated downtowns might have large swings in parking demand, but at least they can have relative low car mode share. Neighbourhoods in lower density cities like Minneapolis wouldn't use parking perfectly efficiently, but they're probably still going to be more efficient than auto-oriented suburbs since there will still be on-street parking on residential streets near the main streets (even though other residential streets are too far).
And then in higher density non-CBD neighbourhoods in places like Brooklyn, Queens, Montreal, San Francisco, you might still have a pattern where certain streets are more residential and others have more retail... but the various commercial streets are close enough together that all the residential streets will still be within 1-2 blocks of a commercial street. In those kinds of places, I don't think parking is ever truly under-utilized no matter what time of day it is.
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.
