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.
Because my company is moving to a location not served by public transport, I have to get a license and a car. That's a big enough hassle for a person who has never had either. But now the catch: parking. There are no parking spaces available for my building, so I have to rent a $75-$100 a month space to park my car -- and good luck finding that!
So the question is: why does Providence prohibit overnight on-street parking? It's madness! First of all, it makes living here more difficult, and second, it's really bad urban planning: space that could be used to build on is used instead for parking. Can anyone give me the history on this one?
I can't give you a history on this but I can give you a link: http://www.providenceri.com/overnight-parking Go to that site and see if your apartment is in one of the new overnight parking districts. If it is you'll be able to get your car registered for overnight parking at a relatively reasonable cost. If it's not, well then, welcome to parking hell. I dealt with that for a few years while living Downtown before they generously introduced overnight parking, it was a pain. You can try to rustle up a spot somebody sublets on Craigslist maybe or go into one of the parking garages. I ended up doing the latter. Also, do keep in mind that once you'll get your car, you'll be paying copious amounts of lucre for car excise tax. You're in Providence, car excise tax there is highest in the state. Go for the Toyota instead of the Aston Martin. Sorry for the bad news.
I do not know exactly why, until recently, overnight parking in Providence was banned. What I do know is that this subject ignites passions on both sides. To me, the irrational howls of anxiety towards lifting the overnight parking ban is very frustrating and an unfortunate example of status quo bias.
First of all, we're taking about only 3 hours (2 AM - 5AM) when cars are not allowed to park on the street. Why is the city not able to function with parked cars at these hours but yet manages to survive with cars parked on the street for the remaining 21 hours?
The pro-parking ban crowd lists a multitude of reasons why it should be maintained, despite the ability of every other major city to function well without it.
Criminals will hide behind parked cars - This is the most extreme of the irrational fears, as if there are a lack of other things on the streets of Providence for prospective muggers behind which to hide.
Fire trucks can't get through - How do they do it for the other 21 hours?
Easier for snow clearance - This has some merit, but there are manageable alternatives like banning parking on alternate sides of the street during snow storms.
The street will become a de-facto car storage space - Maybe it's just me, but I would rather have the on-street land utilized for parking so that the off-street land and be developed for a higher and better use, like housing units.
The amount of vehicles in a neighborhood will increase - Well, there are limits to how many permits a residence can have. And if those in favor of the ban want to focus their efforts on reducing the amount of cars in their neighborhood, maybe they should focus on more long-lasting solutions like improved mass transit or mixed use development that foster trips on foot.
I find the off-street storage of cars and its resulting landscape much uglier than on-street parking. As long as the city manages resident parking properly and the land previously used for parking develops properly, then I say let them park on the street.
Last edited by HopeStreet; 05-07-2013 at 08:04 AM..
I do not know exactly why, until recently, overnight parking in Providence was banned. What I do know is that this subject ignites passions on both sides. To me, the irrational howls of anxiety towards lifting the overnight parking ban is very frustrating and an unfortunate example of status quo bias.
...
It's a silly rule that seemingly serves no purpose.
I found a space five blocks from my house for $100 a month, with the owner demanding a full year's payment up front. I walked.
It could be worse:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
Spaces [in Manhattan] are in such demand that there are waiting lists of buyers. Eight people are hoping for the chance to buy one of five private parking spaces for $225,000 in the basement of 246 West 17th Street, a 34-unit condo development scheduled for completion next January. The developer, meanwhile, is seeking city approval to add four more spots.
space that could be used to build on is used instead for parking
Actually that's bad planning too. Most people don't develop their driveways, but paving over the driveway is paving over what little greenery exists in dense urban neighborhoods, like in Providence. As an outsider to this state, you can make jokes about paving over everything, but the urban runoff affects everyone, and I doubt any Manhattanite-escapee would think about moving to Providence as it was 20-30 years ago. The ONLY reason Providence has made a turnaround is because of respect for the river, which flows into our beautiful bay.
Actually that's bad planning too. Most people don't develop their driveways, but paving over the driveway is paving over what little greenery exists in dense urban neighborhoods, like in Providence. As an outsider to this state, you can make jokes about paving over everything, but the urban runoff affects everyone, and I doubt any Manhattanite-escapee would think about moving to Providence as it was 20-30 years ago. The ONLY reason Providence has made a turnaround is because of respect for the river, which flows into our beautiful bay.
They pave their driveways. Ego, runoff.
I'm confused. Parking spaces are paved with concrete or asphalt. Houses usually have a measure of lawn. So how is it better to have paved parking lots vs. housing with green space? Streets are already paved (runoff) and are already built to accommodate parking.
It's not better to have more pavement or anything else. The water goes into the ground like it's supposed to, which also filters pollutants before it re-enters the water table. Increased runoff also causes street flooding. Green space helps the city to stay cool, since pavement causes a urban heat effect.
I read that Providence's parking issue dates back to the 70's and a lot of abandoned vehicles on the streets. Other cities enacted parking bans too, but Providence is one of the few that still have it in place.
I read that Providence's parking issue dates back to the 70's and a lot of abandoned vehicles on the streets. Other cities enacted parking bans too, but Providence is one of the few that still have it in place.
Just to clarify, Providence's 2 AM - 5 AM on-street parking ban was enacted in 1929.
Drives me nuts too. Cranston also has an overnight parking ban, so it's not just Providence.
I live in a pretty residential neighborhood on the Prov/Cranston line. Mix of single family and multi-family, but much more single family. Everyone has driveways.
Still, there are times when not being able to park overnight is a real, real drag. We have a single wide driveway. My husband works varying shifts. If he comes in last, I either have to wake him up in the morning or move two cars, when there's no good reason why he couldn't just park in front of the house.
I don't see why I should have to pay for that - and as it turns out, I can't. My street isn't included in the new plan. The only reason I can imagine is that it's a main thoroughfare, but I don't see why that matters. It's certainly wide enough to accommodate the parking, and a restaurant down the street often has cars parking in front of my house earlier in the evening. What changes from 11 to 2 that it's suddenly illegal? Of course I'd be willing to park in the driveway for the streetsweepers or during parking bans.
It does get tiring, getting soaked for more money for every conceivable thing!
[quote=sandsonik;29482833]Drives me nuts too. Cranston also has an overnight parking ban, so it's not just Providence.
I live in a pretty residential neighborhood on the Prov/Cranston line. Mix of single family and multi-family, but much more single family. Everyone has driveways.
Still, there are times when not being able to park overnight is a real, real drag. We have a single wide driveway. My husband works varying shifts. If he comes in last, I either have to wake him up in the morning or move two cars, when there's no good reason why he couldn't just park in front of the house.
I don't see why I should have to pay for that - and as it turns out, I can't. My street isn't included in the new plan. The only reason I can imagine is that it's a main thoroughfare, but I don't see why that matters. It's certainly wide enough to accommodate the parking, and a restaurant down the street often has cars parking in front of my house earlier in the evening. What changes from 11 to 2 that it's suddenly illegal? Of course I'd be willing to park in the driveway for the streetsweepers or during parking bans.
It does get tiring, getting soaked for more money for every conceivable thing![/quote]
Yes, Sands, the proof of above statement below. Your tax dollars at work, :
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
Last edited by Yac; 05-21-2013 at 07:46 AM..
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.
