29 ms·

Maybe surface parking lots aren't the answer, but I do know that if there are places that I can't easily park at, I just don't go there unless absolutely necess

by qq66 8mo ago

Maybe surface parking lots aren't the answer, but I do know that if there are places that I can't easily park at, I just don't go there unless absolutely necessary. Nice to think, "the people will take trains!" but sometimes it doesn't work that way.

CalRobert 8mo ago
You might not go there, but the people who live in the homes you build where the parking garage used to be will go there.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- qq66 8mo ago
  Sure, removing parking essentially requires the neighborhood to become more self-sustaining. This works in really dense cities like New York and San Francisco but it requires enough desirability to fill the housing with people who have enough disposable income to replace the far bigger "catchment area" that the parking used to serve. Which in turn affects the kind of economies that the new development can support. A car dealership? Needs parking and a large catchment area. Burrito shop? Probably not getting much destination traffic and can support itself on locals.
- bluGill 8mo ago
  Those people may not be enough to support them. Cars take up space, but houses take up even more space. It is really easy for a Downtown to go into a downward spiral if you take away the ability of people to get there. It need not happen, but all too often simple answers are wrong.
  - CalRobert 8mo ago
    Sure, but this is why it makes sense to do it gradually. Things get built slowly and if the new buildings are taller they may actually take up less space (per person) than a car does, when considering ingress, egress, the road itself, etc.
  - silisili 8mo ago
    Good point. And 'yard', if any. You can even see this at large events that are in urban centers. Churchill Downs for example is surrounded by residential properties. At Derby time a lot of those enterprising people would let you park in their yard for $5 or $10 (maybe more now, it's been many years). These are not large properties - typical older shotgun houses. I seem to remember them getting 10 or more cars and that's not even counting the space the house itself is taking up.
  - mlsu 8mo ago
    Has there ever been a situation where taking away parking has lead to traffic dropping? I've heard this, but I've never seen an example in practice. It seems like making things more walkable and bikeable, at the expense of cars, always increases foot-traffic, with no exception.
    - bluGill 8mo ago
      Yes, though I can't recall enough details that I could help you search. Basically anytime it is tried in the suburbs where nobody is walking now nothing changes. When a lot of people are already walking you can increase traffic by getting rid of cars. Details matter, most of the places people take aware cars are already dense areas and they tell you about it. However in a few cases someone who hasn't understood the context tried to apply a lesson it doesn't apply and it fails.
    - CalRobert 8mo ago
      I think what you’re referring to is traffic evaporation. But that’s sometimes referring to road capacity more than parking
  - jjav 8mo ago
    > It is really easy for a Downtown to go into a downward spiral if you take away the ability of people to get there. I've seen this sad downward spiral multiple times, it is not a good outcome. I used to live not too far from a town with a mellow but nice downtown center. Not a huge draw but many small nice restaurants and shops and there was steady business. Sensing a profit machine, the city filled all streets with parking meters. Turns out that while it was a nice area, it wasn't so irreplaceable, so nobody goes anymore. Business collapsed. I drove by last summer and everything is closed, the parking meters sit empty. Same is happening now to the downtown one town over. It used to very vibrant awesome downtown, although small. Bars, restaurants, music venues, fun shops. I was there every night for something or other. Loved it. Easy free parking around. Some of the parking lots have office buildings now and the city lots have become very expensive. Much less activity there now, about a third of the venues are closed and the remaining ones are saying they can't last very long with fewer people going. While in its heyday this downtown was far more active than my first example, turns out it wasn't irreplaceable either. People just don't go anymore. Point is that this tactic works only when the downtown is so established and so dense that people are going to go anyway even if parking is hard, like Manhattan.
    - bluGill 8mo ago
      > ome of the parking lots have office buildings now and the city lots have become very expensive. Much less activity there now, about a third of the venues are closed and the remaining ones are saying they can't last very long with fewer people going. Sounds to me like that found a valueable use for their land and got rid of the low value things you really enjoyed... Of course to you this is bad, and the city lost the night life, but that might or might not be worse overall. They seem to be a denser area despite it, for whatever that means.
      - bsder 8mo ago
        > Sounds to me like that found a valueable use for their land and got rid of the low value things you really enjoyed... That would be the case if the storefronts didn't just wind up remaining empty. Empty commercial real estate is rife in the US right now. Your "No Parking" area always has competition from the suburbs in the US. If you make parking too problematic, things can invert. Then, people will save up tasks for their trip to the burbs and be completely inert locally--they will do next to nothing with local businesses, do everything inside their house (way cheaper, you know, since I bought the stuff at Costco) and the car remains parked and unmoving until their next trip to the burbs. Once that inversion happens, your "walkable business area" spirals into more and more empty storefronts and the decline becomes ridiculously difficult to arrest.
aqme28 8mo ago
You're right in the short term, but over time it does work that way. Look at Amsterdam.
r00f 8mo ago
I double that. When I choose where to go, I look if I'll be able to park there, and if not - I will always be able to find another place. Parking availability is number one priority, not star rating or $$$ Am I the only person on Earth who would stop going to downtown restaurants if parking became inaccessible? I don't think so, but your guess is as good as mine
danny_codes 8mo ago
IMO places need to be transitioned thoughtfully. Eliminate some parking here, build dense infill, then some more parking. Over time you can manage modal share so car volumes become insignificant relative to transit, walking, and biking. Basically if you’re going to remove 100 parking spaces, you should add n housing units, and so on.

by qq66 8mo ago

CalRobert 8mo ago

You might not go there, but the people who live in the homes you build where the parking garage used to be will go there.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
qq66 8mo ago
Sure, removing parking essentially requires the neighborhood to become more self-sustaining. This works in really dense cities like New York and San Francisco but it requires enough desirability to fill the housing with people who have enough disposable income to replace the far bigger "catchment area" that the parking used to serve. Which in turn affects the kind of economies that the new development can support. A car dealership? Needs parking and a large catchment area. Burrito shop? Probably not getting much destination traffic and can support itself on locals.
bluGill 8mo ago
Those people may not be enough to support them. Cars take up space, but houses take up even more space. It is really easy for a Downtown to go into a downward spiral if you take away the ability of people to get there. It need not happen, but all too often simple answers are wrong.
- CalRobert 8mo ago
  Sure, but this is why it makes sense to do it gradually. Things get built slowly and if the new buildings are taller they may actually take up less space (per person) than a car does, when considering ingress, egress, the road itself, etc.
- silisili 8mo ago
  Good point. And 'yard', if any. You can even see this at large events that are in urban centers. Churchill Downs for example is surrounded by residential properties. At Derby time a lot of those enterprising people would let you park in their yard for $5 or $10 (maybe more now, it's been many years). These are not large properties - typical older shotgun houses. I seem to remember them getting 10 or more cars and that's not even counting the space the house itself is taking up.
- mlsu 8mo ago
  Has there ever been a situation where taking away parking has lead to traffic dropping? I've heard this, but I've never seen an example in practice. It seems like making things more walkable and bikeable, at the expense of cars, always increases foot-traffic, with no exception.
  - bluGill 8mo ago
    Yes, though I can't recall enough details that I could help you search. Basically anytime it is tried in the suburbs where nobody is walking now nothing changes. When a lot of people are already walking you can increase traffic by getting rid of cars. Details matter, most of the places people take aware cars are already dense areas and they tell you about it. However in a few cases someone who hasn't understood the context tried to apply a lesson it doesn't apply and it fails.
  - CalRobert 8mo ago
    I think what you’re referring to is traffic evaporation. But that’s sometimes referring to road capacity more than parking
- jjav 8mo ago
  > It is really easy for a Downtown to go into a downward spiral if you take away the ability of people to get there. I've seen this sad downward spiral multiple times, it is not a good outcome. I used to live not too far from a town with a mellow but nice downtown center. Not a huge draw but many small nice restaurants and shops and there was steady business. Sensing a profit machine, the city filled all streets with parking meters. Turns out that while it was a nice area, it wasn't so irreplaceable, so nobody goes anymore. Business collapsed. I drove by last summer and everything is closed, the parking meters sit empty. Same is happening now to the downtown one town over. It used to very vibrant awesome downtown, although small. Bars, restaurants, music venues, fun shops. I was there every night for something or other. Loved it. Easy free parking around. Some of the parking lots have office buildings now and the city lots have become very expensive. Much less activity there now, about a third of the venues are closed and the remaining ones are saying they can't last very long with fewer people going. While in its heyday this downtown was far more active than my first example, turns out it wasn't irreplaceable either. People just don't go anymore. Point is that this tactic works only when the downtown is so established and so dense that people are going to go anyway even if parking is hard, like Manhattan.
  - bluGill 8mo ago
    > ome of the parking lots have office buildings now and the city lots have become very expensive. Much less activity there now, about a third of the venues are closed and the remaining ones are saying they can't last very long with fewer people going. Sounds to me like that found a valueable use for their land and got rid of the low value things you really enjoyed... Of course to you this is bad, and the city lost the night life, but that might or might not be worse overall. They seem to be a denser area despite it, for whatever that means.
    - bsder 8mo ago
      > Sounds to me like that found a valueable use for their land and got rid of the low value things you really enjoyed... That would be the case if the storefronts didn't just wind up remaining empty. Empty commercial real estate is rife in the US right now. Your "No Parking" area always has competition from the suburbs in the US. If you make parking too problematic, things can invert. Then, people will save up tasks for their trip to the burbs and be completely inert locally--they will do next to nothing with local businesses, do everything inside their house (way cheaper, you know, since I bought the stuff at Costco) and the car remains parked and unmoving until their next trip to the burbs. Once that inversion happens, your "walkable business area" spirals into more and more empty storefronts and the decline becomes ridiculously difficult to arrest.

aqme28 8mo ago

You're right in the short term, but over time it does work that way. Look at Amsterdam.

r00f 8mo ago

I double that. When I choose where to go, I look if I'll be able to park there, and if not - I will always be able to find another place. Parking availability is number one priority, not star rating or $$$ Am I the only person on Earth who would stop going to downtown restaurants if parking became inaccessible? I don't think so, but your guess is as good as mine

danny_codes 8mo ago

IMO places need to be transitioned thoughtfully. Eliminate some parking here, build dense infill, then some more parking. Over time you can manage modal share so car volumes become insignificant relative to transit, walking, and biking. Basically if you’re going to remove 100 parking spaces, you should add n housing units, and so on.