3 ms·

> I am assuming they are talking about taxes no? They're claiming any parking is a "subsidy". They want minimum parking requirements eliminated. This is a dis

> I am assuming they are talking about taxes no? They're claiming any parking is a "subsidy". They want minimum parking requirements eliminated. This is a disingenuous comparison though. Minimum parking isn't there to encourage car driving, it's there to discourage negative externalities. When minimum parking isn't required, many people still drive everywhere, and just park wherever the hell they feel like. (Random people's private property, the center of a road lane, on top of sidewalks and bike lanes, etc). It happens to such an extent that it was hard to solve (Yes, cops should "just enforce the law", but it's hard to enforce a rule when 99% of the population is breaking it). This is why minimum parking became a rule in the first place. Saying "we should remove parking minimums to encourage cheaper housing" is pretty heavy spin, like a coal company saying "we should eliminate pollution controls to encourage cheaper electricity". These are both technically true statements, but both miss the major negative effects this has on third parties nearby. Fundamentally, people will drive until there is great public transit available. Arguing for anything else is pointless until great public transit is already built and running.

pc86 10y ago
> When minimum parking isn't required, many people still drive everywhere, and just park wherever the hell they feel like. Take a look at any area experience an unusually high level of traffic/parking and you'll see this. People will stop in the road with their hazards on, double-park or park on the side, I've even seen people leave their car in the turn lane with their hazards on and go into a store. We could still eliminate or drastically reduce minimum parking requirements if it was coupled with: a) The general populace not thinking they have some inalienable right to leave their vehicle where ever they want just because they put their hazards on b) Strict and swift citing of people breaking traffic/parking laws
bogomipz 10y ago
>"They're claiming any parking is a "subsidy". They want minimum parking requirements eliminated." Sorry I am not understanding what you mean by "minimum parking requirements". I just went an looked at the article again, they mention increasing prices on parking but I'm understanding what "minimum parking requirements" mean here. Parking is interesting though because although the price of spaces might be held artificially low by subsidies, the "game of parking" in cities is also a tremendous cash cow in the form of parking tickets. Parking tickets are one of those things that are not there to disincentivize people from bad behavior but rather as a revenue generator for the city. So while I am all in favor of eliminating parking spaces and widening side walks but I think that cities have come to rely on parking tickets: http://www.parkingtoday.com/blog/2013/12/washington-d-c-tops-the-charts-with-159-of-parking-ticket-revenue-per-citizen/ http://www.parkingtoday.com/blog/2013/12/washington-d-c-tops... Sadly I think this is the real reason you won't see any appreciable change in the existing subsidized parking model. The lure of cheap parking is also the great enabler of "parking enforcement as revenue generator" for cities.

pc86 10y ago

> When minimum parking isn't required, many people still drive everywhere, and just park wherever the hell they feel like. Take a look at any area experience an unusually high level of traffic/parking and you'll see this. People will stop in the road with their hazards on, double-park or park on the side, I've even seen people leave their car in the turn lane with their hazards on and go into a store. We could still eliminate or drastically reduce minimum parking requirements if it was coupled with: a) The general populace not thinking they have some inalienable right to leave their vehicle where ever they want just because they put their hazards on b) Strict and swift citing of people breaking traffic/parking laws

bogomipz 10y ago

>"They're claiming any parking is a "subsidy". They want minimum parking requirements eliminated." Sorry I am not understanding what you mean by "minimum parking requirements". I just went an looked at the article again, they mention increasing prices on parking but I'm understanding what "minimum parking requirements" mean here. Parking is interesting though because although the price of spaces might be held artificially low by subsidies, the "game of parking" in cities is also a tremendous cash cow in the form of parking tickets. Parking tickets are one of those things that are not there to disincentivize people from bad behavior but rather as a revenue generator for the city. So while I am all in favor of eliminating parking spaces and widening side walks but I think that cities have come to rely on parking tickets: http://www.parkingtoday.com/blog/2013/12/washington-d-c-tops-the-charts-with-159-of-parking-ticket-revenue-per-citizen/ http://www.parkingtoday.com/blog/2013/12/washington-d-c-tops... Sadly I think this is the real reason you won't see any appreciable change in the existing subsidized parking model. The lure of cheap parking is also the great enabler of "parking enforcement as revenue generator" for cities.