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.
Personally, I'd like to see more standardization on how you're supposed to pay for parking. There are some meters that are coin only, some that are credit card based, etc. and the ones that take coins won't accept $1, $5, $10, or $20 bills.
This is absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop before you take away free parking!
One of the problems is that parking meters are expensive, about $2k for a single stand mechanical one up to mid to high 5 figures for a multi-space electronic one. Those then have to be hooked into power (there are some which are solar) and for those which recognize a phone app be internet capable, or whatever an app does.
Personally, I'd like to see more standardization on how you're supposed to pay for parking. There are some meters that are coin only, some that are credit card based, etc. and the ones that take coins won't accept $1, $5, $10, or $20 bills.
This is absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop before you take away free parking!
The next town from here put in parking meters recently and found that it drove away business.
"Free" parking lot costs aren't free. The landlord, lessee, or owner passes costs on them through rent or sales - which by the way are increased by having a mechanism like a parking lot for shoppers to access the property or goods and services. Where do the employees for those businesses park? Or are they expected to be limited to walking, biking, or using public transit to get to work - and is the business owner effectively limited to only drawing from people in walking, biking, or feasible public transit areas for employment?
Requirements that "all housing units provide parking" - how is this a "subsidy" and who is being subsidized? People don't need a "mandate" in order to implement a driveway and a garage. Housing also has to have utilities including water, electricity, etc. They have to have plumbing and wastewater connections. Is there a subsidy going on here because of a mandate? Plumbing transports water and gas. Wires transport electricity. Is there some objectionable subsidy occurring because houses are plumbed and wired?
Drive through windows are a subsidy? To who? By who? Seems like a smart approach by a business to get more business or target a specific customer.
Don't understand the hatred. Most of the products you buy or eat are rely on ground transportation. Last time I looked "public transit" such as buses use roads. Public transit does not directly benefit the vast majority of the population.
Taking away parking minimums doesn't necessarily mean businesses have *zero* parking. Just that savvy developers don't have to build a massive half empty parking lot, they can instead put in more businesses. Neighboring businesses might even--gasp--share parking instead of predatory towing people who park and walk off their lot. Meanwhile land owners with small lots don't have to build geometrically impossibly massive parking garages because there's street parking and in cities with decent mass transit some residents don't have a car (there may even be municipal garages in walking distance). Walking and transit alternatives naturally become more practical because stuff is closer together. There is really no reason to *force* things to be driving distance apart in urban environments (in rural environments, of course, it's only natural that things are further apart). Especially since the current trend is young talent wants to be where there are alternatives to driving (at very least, to and from work--the one trip that is the same route, same time, every day), and job creators go where the talent is. Even those who never step on to a bus or train benefit from having those jobs in Town. Not to mention property values and desirably along premium transit lines go up for all people, even those not using the transit system. So, yes, mass transit does benefit everybody, and nothing occurs in a vacuum!
Roads are obviously necessary for things like deliveries and emergency vehicles, but it's kind of ironic how little priory we actually give these vehicles. Just because we need to provide roads for emergency vehicles and delivery trucks doesn't mean *everybody* must get unfettered free use of these roads at all times of the day regardless of the realities of traffic congestion. It definitely doesn't mean that all these drivers get free parking right next to wherever they're going. In fact, dedicated bus lanes and busways are great for emergency vehicles, and many cities set aside curb space for dedicated loading zones--which are often violated by car drivers who have been trained to insist on their entitlement to have a parking spot. What we have in urbanized areas is essentially a tragedy of the commons--there is simply not enough space left to accommodate everyone, and ultimately the only solution is to prioritize access and charge for that limited space (per-mile congestion based tolling, parking rates, ect). Note that this all changes once you get outside of the city, where driving is really the only practical means of getting around and it will be this case for the foreseeable future.
Drive-through windows are not so much a subsidy as they are smart business people taking advantage of how their customers come to their businesses. Even though they take up space, it's just a few parking spots worth of space. IMHO, there is really no need to demonize them.
The problem for car-demonizers is that the car is just too good at its job. The alternatives are generally horrendous. Take that Summit-to-Manhattan commuter train. Sure, it's as good as you'll get. But that line was delayed every day last week. At least when you're sitting in your car in the parking lot outside the Lincoln Tunnel, you're not packed three to a seat with crying babies, annoying teenagers, and cell-phone yellers (and don't forget you have to get to the station; not a problem with a car which can take you right from your home).
Despite the fact that going through the Lincoln Tunnel is a nightmare and costs $12.50 minimum during peak hours plus whatever parking costs AND that there are public transportation alternatives, roughly 50,000 drivers take it into Manhattan every day. That's how good the car is compared to the alternatives.
Key words are "compared to the alternatives." What do you expect when you put all the money in to car travel and very little in to the alternatives? You exactly get what you pay for.
Taking BART is not cheap... especially if you have others with you.
And not fun. Standing for 45 minutes while they deal with the daily police activity at West Oakland isn't my favorite mode of transport.
One thing I've learned living in/near Boston, DC, and SF is that people take subways and transit because they have to, not because they want to. If you could get there in a car in the same time for a comparable parking price, you'd do it every time. This romantic notion of cute little light rails taking everyone across forward thinking (usually liberal) cities is a wonderful fairy tale, but the reality is greedy unions spiking pensions and raising fares, broken down trains, having half of the East Bay sharing a railcar with you, Metro randomly deciding that the train to Stadium/Armory is now just a train to Clarendon, the T getting lapped by walkers along Comm Ave, spending 45 minutes on the L getting from O'Hare to the Loop while listening to atrocious rap that's been turned up to 11.
Give me my car anyday. Make the engine cleaner, yes, use Uber/Lyft/Wingz to save on the wasted resources of parking, but this notion that trains will save cities is urban planning 1998.
Taking away parking minimums doesn't necessarily mean businesses have *zero* parking. Just that savvy developers don't have to build a massive half empty parking lot, they can instead put in more businesses. Neighboring businesses might even--gasp--share parking instead of predatory towing people who park and walk off their lot. Meanwhile land owners with small lots don't have to build geometrically impossibly massive parking garages because there's street parking and in cities with decent mass transit some residents don't have a car (there may even be municipal garages in walking distance). Walking and transit alternatives naturally become more practical because stuff is closer together. There is really no reason to *force* things to be driving distance apart in urban environments (in rural environments, of course, it's only natural that things are further apart). Especially since the current trend is young talent wants to be where there are alternatives to driving (at very least, to and from work--the one trip that is the same route, same time, every day), and job creators go where the talent is. Even those who never step on to a bus or train benefit from having those jobs in Town. Not to mention property values and desirably along premium transit lines go up for all people, even those not using the transit system. So, yes, mass transit does benefit everybody, and nothing occurs in a vacuum!
Roads are obviously necessary for things like deliveries and emergency vehicles, but it's kind of ironic how little priory we actually give these vehicles. Just because we need to provide roads for emergency vehicles and delivery trucks doesn't mean *everybody* must get unfettered free use of these roads at all times of the day regardless of the realities of traffic congestion. It definitely doesn't mean that all these drivers get free parking right next to wherever they're going. In fact, dedicated bus lanes and busways are great for emergency vehicles, and many cities set aside curb space for dedicated loading zones--which are often violated by car drivers who have been trained to insist on their entitlement to have a parking spot. What we have in urbanized areas is essentially a tragedy of the commons--there is simply not enough space left to accommodate everyone, and ultimately the only solution is to prioritize access and charge for that limited space (per-mile congestion based tolling, parking rates, ect). Note that this all changes once you get outside of the city, where driving is really the only practical means of getting around and it will be this case for the foreseeable future.
Drive-through windows are not so much a subsidy as they are smart business people taking advantage of how their customers come to their businesses. Even though they take up space, it's just a few parking spots worth of space. IMHO, there is really no need to demonize them.
The city does not have an obligation to provide street parking. I know of no place that says the off-street parking has to be done in a garage. Of course, since I said that, someone will come up with some area somewhere that requires that. So let's just say it's not the norm anywhere I have lived. I'm also not familiar with municipal garages that allow for residential parking.
Key words are "compared to the alternatives." What do you expect when you put all the money in to car travel and very little in to the alternatives? You exactly get what you pay for.
The SF Bay Area has spent countless Billions on Alternatives...
The city does not have an obligation to provide street parking. I know of no place that says the off-street parking has to be done in a garage. Of course, since I said that, someone will come up with some area somewhere that requires that. So let's just say it's not the norm anywhere I have lived.
Garages may be the only practical option in areas with limited space. While the city doesn't have an obligation to provide street parking, generally there's already space available while building new parking lots requires paving space over or land that could be used for housing or business.
Quote:
I'm also not familiar with municipal garages that allow for residential parking.
the downtown of the town I lived in did for a fee. It was meant for downtown shoppers, but at night there'd be space.
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.
