3 ms·

Parking minimums seems insane. Let the free market decide how many parking spaces to build, it shouldn't be mandated by the city.

nostrademons 7y ago
I think the logic behind it (which is somewhat born out by experience) is that without parking minimums, residents just use street parking. There's an externality there: street parking is provided as a public good so that people can visit commercial establishments, friends, community centers, etc, but if a developer can rely on the public good so that they can fit 50% more units into an area and reduce construction costs, they will. Then the public good is consumed by this private externality, residents take up all the street parking spots that were intended for visitors, and nobody's better off except the developers. Much of San Francisco (where I've heard 50% of cars in the city at any given time are looking for parking) is an example of this problem. So are many immigrant neighborhoods where people double- or triple-up in units: street parking is virtually impossible to find in my neighborhood after about 6:00 PM. The logic behind "abolish parking minimums" is that then people will live a car-free lifestyle and depend upon public transit, but in my experience that isn't true. Even folks who primarily use public transit and like to walk often own a car, if only for grocery runs and the occasional weekend getaway. Services like ZipCar help in that regard, but we're pretty far away from abolishing private car ownership.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  Street parking itself seems pretty dumb to me. The bandwidth on streets should not be used up by idle vehicles. Even a single car parked on a block uses up what could potentially be another lane. Is there any less efficient use of space? Hopefully self driving cars will allow us to repurpose that real estate since they can drop off passengers and go hide in a garage somewhere (or carry other passengers around).
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    I have mixed feelings about it. It can be fine but it needs to be handled a lot more strictly. It causes a safety problem around here when all the parked cars block the view around corners.
- timerol 7y ago
  Street parking should be priced such that approximately 15% of it remains empty. If the street is getting full of residents, then the price should go up. Until the point where it makes financial sense to build more parking or have less cars. If street parking cost even just $0.50/hour, it would make more sense to rent a car for the occasional weekend trip instead of keeping it on public land. I would highly recommend The High Cost of Free Parking, which talks about this extensively.
blincoln 7y ago
The problem with this argument is that most companies will build no parking, because it costs them less. Then the people who buy/rent their houses/apartments park on the street, which puts a burden on the city, and makes things a nightmare for everyone since it becomes impossible to visit that area. i.e. by letting the free market decide in the small picture, you punish everyone else in the big picture. See also: Wal-Mart historically not paying for employee health insurance, which placed the burden on government programs instead. IMO, the entire "let's build less parking" movement has good intentions, but doing so creates a bubble that's difficult or impossible to visit, because no one from outside the area can park anywhere near it due to residents consuming all the available street parking. i.e. it's a physical-world version of Internet echo-chambers. We need to encourage people to mingle more with people from outside their area, not silo themselves up. It's also bad for local businesses, IMO, because they'll only have customers from the immediate area.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Companies will not build no parking. Not having parking also costs companies: customers who don't have a place to park will go elsewhere. Employees will either demand a raise to pay for their parking elsewhere, or the company will give free parking as a benefit. Apartment renters will demand parking with their unit. OR (in addition to the above) companies will demand better transit systems so they don't have to provide all that expensive parking. Eliminating parking works in two ways: companies will get rid of excess parking if they have too much. These excess spaces will be converted to something else. Even one new building downtown makes a big difference in density. That new building also means more people to take transit, which means the transit company needs to add more routes which makes transit more useful eventually leading to more unused parking spaces turned into a building. None of this is possible if the city demands some amount of parking spaces though.

nostrademons 7y ago

I think the logic behind it (which is somewhat born out by experience) is that without parking minimums, residents just use street parking. There's an externality there: street parking is provided as a public good so that people can visit commercial establishments, friends, community centers, etc, but if a developer can rely on the public good so that they can fit 50% more units into an area and reduce construction costs, they will. Then the public good is consumed by this private externality, residents take up all the street parking spots that were intended for visitors, and nobody's better off except the developers. Much of San Francisco (where I've heard 50% of cars in the city at any given time are looking for parking) is an example of this problem. So are many immigrant neighborhoods where people double- or triple-up in units: street parking is virtually impossible to find in my neighborhood after about 6:00 PM. The logic behind "abolish parking minimums" is that then people will live a car-free lifestyle and depend upon public transit, but in my experience that isn't true. Even folks who primarily use public transit and like to walk often own a car, if only for grocery runs and the occasional weekend getaway. Services like ZipCar help in that regard, but we're pretty far away from abolishing private car ownership.

bagacrap 7y ago
Street parking itself seems pretty dumb to me. The bandwidth on streets should not be used up by idle vehicles. Even a single car parked on a block uses up what could potentially be another lane. Is there any less efficient use of space? Hopefully self driving cars will allow us to repurpose that real estate since they can drop off passengers and go hide in a garage somewhere (or carry other passengers around).
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  I have mixed feelings about it. It can be fine but it needs to be handled a lot more strictly. It causes a safety problem around here when all the parked cars block the view around corners.
timerol 7y ago
Street parking should be priced such that approximately 15% of it remains empty. If the street is getting full of residents, then the price should go up. Until the point where it makes financial sense to build more parking or have less cars. If street parking cost even just $0.50/hour, it would make more sense to rent a car for the occasional weekend trip instead of keeping it on public land. I would highly recommend The High Cost of Free Parking, which talks about this extensively.

blincoln 7y ago

The problem with this argument is that most companies will build no parking, because it costs them less. Then the people who buy/rent their houses/apartments park on the street, which puts a burden on the city, and makes things a nightmare for everyone since it becomes impossible to visit that area. i.e. by letting the free market decide in the small picture, you punish everyone else in the big picture. See also: Wal-Mart historically not paying for employee health insurance, which placed the burden on government programs instead. IMO, the entire "let's build less parking" movement has good intentions, but doing so creates a bubble that's difficult or impossible to visit, because no one from outside the area can park anywhere near it due to residents consuming all the available street parking. i.e. it's a physical-world version of Internet echo-chambers. We need to encourage people to mingle more with people from outside their area, not silo themselves up. It's also bad for local businesses, IMO, because they'll only have customers from the immediate area.

bluGill 7y ago
Companies will not build no parking. Not having parking also costs companies: customers who don't have a place to park will go elsewhere. Employees will either demand a raise to pay for their parking elsewhere, or the company will give free parking as a benefit. Apartment renters will demand parking with their unit. OR (in addition to the above) companies will demand better transit systems so they don't have to provide all that expensive parking. Eliminating parking works in two ways: companies will get rid of excess parking if they have too much. These excess spaces will be converted to something else. Even one new building downtown makes a big difference in density. That new building also means more people to take transit, which means the transit company needs to add more routes which makes transit more useful eventually leading to more unused parking spaces turned into a building. None of this is possible if the city demands some amount of parking spaces though.