4 ms·
> What we should be doing is eliminating all off-street parking requirements […] and then simply charging for convenient on-street parking Where does all this
by dpark 5y ago
> What we should be doing is eliminating all off-street parking requirements […] and then simply charging for convenient on-street parking
Where does all this on-street parking come from? It does not compute that it’s impossible to build sufficient parking on the lot, but there is an abundance on the street. To the extent there is an abundance of street parking, this almost certainly means that previous development created sufficient off street parking for their residents.
Nor does it makes sense to encourage developers to dump the cost of building those spaces onto the city. Allowing developers to build without spaces means the rest of the neighborhood pays the cost for the parking congestion. As do the residents who now don’t have a legal parking space.
- tptacek 5y agoOn-street parking comes from the streets, obviously.
- dpark 5y agoThat’s a glib non-answer. How many housing units can squeeze onto a city block is zoned for multi family units? Now how many cars can park on the street in front of those apartments? I expect my house’s lot could hold a 6 unit building. I have exactly 2 parking spots in front of my house. It would be 3 if I had no driveway. So at best residents could get 50% of their parking needs met with street parking if my house were converted to a multi family dwelling. This holds for many of the apartments and townhomes around me. Lots of my neighbors have 1 or even 0 spots for cars in front of their houses. Looking at a map of Chicago, I would roughly guesstimate that streets are maybe 15% of the land area in gridded areas. Assume that half of that is “parkable” space. I don’t buy that this is sufficient space for all the cars to park. And if I’m wrong, I fail to see why developers are unable to set aside similar amounts of space off-street for their residents to park.
- tptacek 5y agoI don't think you can reasonably say I'm being glib about this, given that I've posted actual data about the specific parking usage in the area I'm talking about, and you're just spitballing based on "a map of Chicago".
- dpark 5y agoYou posted data about parking tickets. This is not evidence that street parking provides sufficient capacity.
- tptacek 5y agoIf you have actual data about parking usage in this area, I'm all ears. I'm much less interested in your axiomatic derivation of how parking here works. At any rate: I answered your question about "where all this on-street parking comes from". You can do the math on the carrying capacity of an Oak Park street for parking; you've got the maps, after all.
- dpark 5y agoI think my back of the envelope math is more compelling than your assertion that parking tickets implies sufficient parking capacity. If there’s enough street parking, then why the proposal to charge so much for street parking to moderate demand?
- tptacek 5y agoYou don't understand my argument, which has nothing to do with whether we should charge for street parking (we should). There's not much point in us continuing here.
- dpark 5y agoI absolutely do not understand your argument. That’s why I’ve asked you to clarify it several times. This is what I responded to: > What we should be doing is eliminating all off-street parking requirements […] and then simply charging for convenient on-street parking I don’t understand how this solves for any parking issues. It seems like it will create a significant parking issue. There is insufficient street parking for this to work. Yes, you can hypothetically charge to death until most people stop parking on the street but that just means they’ll vote out the board who instituted the parking fees that make it “convenient”, and the poor will be screwed over either way.