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.
Not so much traffic flow but people double parking, slowing down traffic trying to squeeze into spaces too small to actually park in, people circling around blocks looking for parking, etc.
The OP had not posted here since Jan. 2013, according to my search.
You frequently use Manhattan as an example. You did in the post I responded to by saying the whole country doesn't operate like Manhattan.
I just added that piece about developers.
Or people block you in. I have occasionally had to find the owner of an Car/Bike to ask him to move it out the way because you have pinned me in due to insufficient on the street parking or insufficient room in the parking lot.
Of course requiring a certain amount of off-street parking is a subsidy. Yes you are right that towing and ticketing is a subsidy for street parking, but I never said I supported towing and ticketing. I want the situation to be as close to a free market as possible.
As for the cities where 90% plus of households have a car, more people would be able to go without a car if the cities were allowed to be built in more dense and walkable patterns. Minimum parking rules prevent that from happening.
"Reduce the cost of towing" is a very weak argument for minimum parking regulations. Where is the evidence that the money savings from less towing outweighs the costs of less walkable neighborhoods and more space wasted by unused parking?
Ah they City might require a certain amount of off the street parking but it does not pay to build it. The developer does. Where as the City does pay to maintain on the street parking and pays this cost daily. As for supporting ticking and towing, well this is one of those places where the free market might not be able to provide an solution. If a car breaks down and is unable to move it costs the owner money to tow it for repair or for scrap and so it is something that SOMEONE has to do. It can not be allowed to sit there taking up space forever and thus their are laws regarding abandoned vehicles. If you check that list only 28% of households in my transit heavy town do not have cars which means that the vast majority of people do have cars. Even New York at the top of the list can only manage 55% or so.
There are 1,061,928 households in Chicago according to Demographics of Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If about 72% of them own at least one car(and some more than that), that is an lot of cars and on street parking would not be sufficient for everyone. By having some off the street parking it takes the pressure off. In addition an Garage adds to the value of an house. It is just for renters that the Garage might be questionable because very often when you rent an house you can't park in the garage.
When it comes to on the street parking the city tows. When it comes to parking on private property the building owner usually hires an tow company to come through and remove cars that shouldn't be there. Towing is an essential service that allows an city to function and can not be provided for by the free market. i.e. Somebody has gota pay. If my car breaks down in my Garage it is just my problem. If it breaks down on the street it is an public one.
Ah they City might require a certain amount of off the street parking but it does not pay to build it. The developer does. Where as the City does pay to maintain on the street parking and pays this cost daily. As for supporting ticking and towing, well this is one of those places where the free market might not be able to provide an solution. If a car breaks down and is unable to move it costs the owner money to tow it for repair or for scrap and so it is something that SOMEONE has to do. It can not be allowed to sit there taking up space forever and thus their are laws regarding abandoned vehicles. If you check that list only 28% of households in my transit heavy town do not have cars which means that the vast majority of people do have cars. Even New York at the top of the list can only manage 55% or so.
There are 1,061,928 households in Chicago according to Demographics of Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If about 72% of them own at least one car(and some more than that), that is an lot of cars and on street parking would not be sufficient for everyone. By having some off the street parking it takes the pressure off. In addition an Garage adds to the value of an house. It is just for renters that the Garage might be questionable because very often when you rent an house you can't park in the garage.
When it comes to on the street parking the city tows. When it comes to parking on private property the building owner usually hires an tow company to come through and remove cars that shouldn't be there. Towing is an essential service that allows an city to function and can not be provided for by the free market. i.e. Somebody has gota pay. If my car breaks down in my Garage it is just my problem. If it breaks down on the street it is an public one.
Now you are just engaging in semantic sophistry. So it's not technically a subsidy because it's not the government literally spending its own coffers on parking, it's just requiring by law somebody else to spend money on parking? The exact mechanism isn't as important as the effect: the government is forcing more parking than the market would bear. Say that it shouldn't be labeled a subsidy if you prefer, but the effect is certainly similar to if the government was just outright building parking itself. I'm not interested in labels, I'm interested in the reality of the situation.
I suppose it's a bit subjective but in my opinion 28% not having a car is nothing to sniff at. You seem to assume that 72% is some magic number that has to be met. I see no reason to assume that more people couldn't give up their cars in a world where more density is allowed, or that even if nobody does give up their car in a world without parking restrictions, the demand couldn't be met through the construction of additional parking structures. The difference is that the market is much more likely to guess based on consumer demand what the efficient amount of parking is, whereas the government just guesses and then mandates.
Still waiting for that evidence that street parking creates safety problems. I think I'll be waiting awhile because it doesn't exist.
Now you are just engaging in semantic sophistry. So it's not technically a subsidy because it's not the government literally spending its own coffers on parking, it's just requiring by law somebody else to spend money on parking? The exact mechanism isn't as important as the effect: the government is forcing more parking than the market would bear. Say that it shouldn't be labeled a subsidy if you prefer, but the effect is certainly similar to if the government was just outright building parking itself. I'm not interested in labels, I'm interested in the reality of the situation.
The reality is the city of Chicago forces the developer to build legal parking and the city has less towing to do as well as better traffic flow. The effect isn't the same as Chicago building the parking itself(Chicago once did own some downtown parking garages but privatized them.). The urban burb of Oak Park does own it's own parking lot structure that it maintains and staffs. Chicago does not maintain nor staff my garage. If Chicago did decide to build a parking structure the city would be responsible for maintenance and security as well as clearing the snow out of it. These are on-going expenses. It is much cheaper for the city to push the need for parking back on to the developer or the owner of the property.
As for more parking than the market will bear, please. Retail stores often go beyond the parking minimum so that sales are not limited by the number of cars. The only places where people tend to skimp on parking is for development of residential housing....sometimes and even then an house with an garage esp. an two car one is worth more than one without. Maybe for some office buildings you might just build the min. but many times the parking lot is bigger than the min.
Quote:
I suppose it's a bit subjective but in my opinion 28% not having a car is nothing to sniff at. You seem to assume that 72% is some magic number that has to be met. I see no reason to assume that more people couldn't give up their cars in a world where more density is allowed, or that even if nobody does give up their car in a world without parking restrictions, the demand couldn't be met through the construction of additional parking structures. The difference is that the market is much more likely to guess based on consumer demand what the efficient amount of parking is, whereas the government just guesses and then mandates.
Still waiting for that evidence that street parking creates safety problems. I think I'll be waiting awhile because it doesn't exist.
You make the assumption that the car is an burden and that people are trapped with them. I am so grateful I have an car, everyday. I know people who live without them and it ain't fun. Sure if you have an certain situation like work in the loop, and live in an area without parking the car could be more trouble than it is worth but the people who put up with this tend to be young white collar singles or couples. People with families or less into parting tend to have cars. Anyway the reason why people don't like to give their cars up is the power of individual transport that isn't limited by how far you can petal and provides an direct non-stop route. The direct non-stop route is one heck of an time saver. Not to mention not being tied to transit schedules and ability to easily carry cargo.
You frequently use Manhattan as an example. You did in the post I responded to by saying the whole country doesn't operate like Manhattan.
Just because I bring up Manhattan doesn't mean it's meant to be reflective of anything other than describing Manhattan. Neither is the forum US-specific, so why would there be an expectation it's to meant to be connected to all of the country and nothing more? I also mentioned London in that post, obviously it's not meant to say anything about the entire US.
A city like Boston or San Francisco (and yes, Chicago especially the North Side) would be intermediate between New York City and more "typical" American cities.
Just because I bring up Manhattan doesn't mean it's meant to be reflective of anything other than describing Manhattan. Neither is the forum US-specific, so why would there be an expectation it's to meant to be connected to all of the country and nothing more? I also mentioned London in that post, obviously it's not meant to say anything about the entire US.
A city like Boston or San Francisco (and yes, Chicago especially the North Side) would be intermediate between New York City and more "typical" American cities.
Nevertheless, we weren't talking about Manhattan, I was specifically talking about Boulder.
Nevertheless, we weren't talking about Manhattan, I was specifically talking about Boulder.
Ok, but that doesn't mean my bringing up Manhattan was to suggest it was it's similar to most of the country. In any case, uou brought up Boulder as an example of a place that lacks off street parking doesn't lower car ownership (in Boulder). I brought up Manhattan because it was a counter-example of place where it does lower car ownership. I thought it was a bit relevant, and interesting that it could be shown that there that lack of parking has such a strong effect.
As for the OP, he hasn't posted in a while, but he posted 210 times in this forum, so I'd consider him a regular.
Ah they City might require a certain amount of off the street parking but it does not pay to build it. The developer does. Where as the City does pay to maintain on the street parking and pays this cost daily. As for supporting ticking and towing, well this is one of those places where the free market might not be able to provide an solution. If a car breaks down and is unable to move it costs the owner money to tow it for repair or for scrap and so it is something that SOMEONE has to do. It can not be allowed to sit there taking up space forever and thus their are laws regarding abandoned vehicles. If you check that list only 28% of households in my transit heavy town do not have cars which means that the vast majority of people do have cars. Even New York at the top of the list can only manage 55% or so.
For many cities, ticketing and towing illegally parked cars isn't a cost but a revenue source. Not always the best thing (1 foot too close to the fire hydrant and you'll get a ticket and will get towed! but it does prevent public safety issues). Speaking of NYC, one solution tried was: no title is required to junk old cars.
Older cars presented a different problem: abandonment. To make it easier to clear the streets of unwanted cars, the state no longer required someone seeking to junk a vehicle at least eight years old and worth less than $1,250 to have the title to the car
Predictable effect is an increase in thefts of very old cars. No, that number does not mean the vast majority of people have vehicles. It means the vast majority of households have cars, and the average household size is 2-3 people. While 45% of NYC households have cars, there are 230 cars per 1000 residents. And yes, bringing up atypical Manhattan, 78% of households have cars or 114 cars per 1000 residents. [Numbers exclude commercial vehicles]. For what it's worth the OP, who lives in NYC, finds relying on street parking tolerable.
If the developer has to pay for parking, much of the extra cost is passed on the consumer via higher housing costs. How much depends on the situation.
For many cities, ticketing and towing illegally parked cars isn't a cost but a revenue source. Not always the best thing (1 foot too close to the fire hydrant and you'll get a ticket and will get towed! but it does prevent public safety issues). Speaking of NYC, one solution tried was: no title is required to junk old cars.
Older cars presented a different problem: abandonment. To make it easier to clear the streets of unwanted cars, the state no longer required someone seeking to junk a vehicle at least eight years old and worth less than $1,250 to have the title to the car
Predictable effect is an increase in thefts of very old cars. No, that number does not mean the vast majority of people have vehicles. It means the vast majority of households have cars, and the average household size is 2-3 people. While 45% of NYC households have cars, there are 230 cars per 1000 residents. And yes, bringing up atypical Manhattan, 78% of households have cars or 114 cars per 1000 residents. [Numbers exclude commercial vehicles]. For what it's worth the OP, who lives in NYC, finds relying on street parking tolerable.
If the developer has to pay for parking, much of the extra cost is passed on the consumer via higher housing costs. How much depends on the situation.
It is an revenue source that requires the City to spend money first and hope to collect it latter from the owner. These are stolen cars not abandoned ones. You can have an brand new car running car towed away where I live. It does not matter the age of the car or if it truly runs. If the car has not moved in 7 days it can go bye, bye.
Higher housing costs, not really. Rent is driven by demand more than anything else. It isn't like get rid of the garage and the housing costs will drop. Will the builder pass the cost of building the garage on to the buyer yes. Will the buyer pass any savings on for not building off the street parking to an renter, nope he is going to get as much rent as he can. Will the buyer have to live with the consequences of limited parking at his building, probably not. IMHO parking min. are almost on the same ground as requiring an certain number of bathrooms per location or emergency exits or an min. room size for an purpose or limiting the number of people who can habitat an building. An public good.
It is an revenue source that requires the City to spend money first and hope to collect it latter from the owner. These are stolen cars not abandoned ones. You can have an brand new car running car towed away where I live. It does not matter the age of the car or if it truly runs. If the car has not moved in 7 days it can go bye, bye.
Higher housing costs, not really. Rent is driven by demand more than anything else. It isn't like get rid of the garage and the housing costs will drop. Will the builder pass the cost of building the garage on to the buyer yes. Will the buyer pass any savings on for not building off the street parking to an renter, nope he is going to get as much rent as he can. Will the buyer have to live with the consequences of limited parking at his building, probably not. IMHO parking min. are almost on the same ground as requiring an certain number of bathrooms per location or emergency exits or an min. room size for an purpose or limiting the number of people who can habitat an building. An public good.
Here are some rough costs to build a parking spot. I imagine in Chicago, new buildings require below grade parking at roughly $30-40k per space. And yes developers pass that cost on to residents. Parking also reduces profitability. Developers could build more units with the space reserved for parking.
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.
