Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

la.curbed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 174 posts

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#21

Post by dsfyu404ed »

chc wrote: post #17
StringyBob wrote: post #10

Where I live (not in the US) we have parking maximums, not minimums. A new office development will not get planning approval if it has more than 2 parking spaces per 3 employees (based on some obscure measurement of building capacity). This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.

I feel like this would be putting the cart before the horse in the US. Failing to put parking in a place with poor walkability and terrible public transportation doesn't seem like it would encourage much of anything.

>Failing to put parking in a place with poor walkability and terrible public transportation doesn't seem like it would encourage much of anything.

The glass half full answer is that it incentivizes economic activity to happen elsewhere.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#22

Post by bhupy »

chc wrote: post #17
StringyBob wrote: post #10

Where I live (not in the US) we have parking maximums, not minimums. A new office development will not get planning approval if it has more than 2 parking spaces per 3 employees (based on some obscure measurement of building capacity). This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.

I feel like this would be putting the cart before the horse in the US. Failing to put parking in a place with poor walkability and terrible public transportation doesn't seem like it would encourage much of anything.

If such a thing were to happen in the US, given the current state of infrastructure, optimistic scenario would be increased demand for UberPool / Lyft Line and carpooling in general. At least in the short term.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#23

Post by gowld »

mktmkr wrote: post #19
chc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this would be putting the cart before the horse in the US. Failing to put parking in a place with poor walkability and terrible public transportation doesn't seem like it would encourage much of anything.

The cars are the reason the buses are slow. 22% of LA workers travel to work without a car, which isn't great but it's not zero either. Metro LA added a dedicated bus lane on Flower and they are moving more than one bus per minute in that lane. As soon as you remove the cars everything else gets a lot better. https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/11538072082299576...

Removing parking spaces puts more cars on the road -- circling for spots and parking illegally in traffic lanes.

If you want faster buses, evict the cars from the bus travel lanes.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#24

Post by mktmkr »

DannyBee wrote: post #16
pkaye wrote: post #2

Is it the case that most people living in the downtown area don't have a car?

For the years i saw LA, everyone had a car, and used them religiously. Like, they would take their car to go around the corner. It's kind of ridiculous. Hopefully it's changing.

LA has and has long had fewer cars per household than the national average (1.6 vs. 1.8 in the latest census). 12% of households have no car.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#25

Post by rory096 »

Reelin wrote: post #15
rory096 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>does removing parking minimums actually lower rents by the 17% of rent that's estimated to go toward parking? No, because removing parking minimums is not the same as removing parking. >parking podiums eat up the most pedestrian-friendly ground floor square footage, but i can sympathize with people wanting parking in their building. In-building parking is a widely available amenity amply provided by the market. Regu…

> In-building parking is a widely available amenity amply provided by the market. This is an odd claim to make. Regulation has historically required that it be provided in most (American) markets, hence the ample supply. I'm not sure how we could possibly know what the market would do on its own over the long term. Requiring excessive parking will artificially and needlessly raises prices, true. But I would also be a…

>This is an odd claim to make. Regulation has historically required that it be provided in most (American) markets, hence the ample supply. I'm not sure how we could possibly know what the market would do on its own over the long term.

Sure we can. Those regulations are not always binding. Buildings are built with parking capacity in excess of minimums all the time.

>Requiring excessive parking will artificially and needlessly raises prices, true. But I would also be at least somewhat concerned that without sufficient regulation short term thinking on the part of builders might result in less parking than would be generally desirable.

Why? What's the market failure? For that matter, why is there a "general desire" for the quantity of at-home parking I individually consume?

>I'm not at all convinced that urban planning should be done by market forces alone.

That's a strawman — removing parking requirements is a far cry from "market forces alone" doing urban planning. (It is, however, a great example of how non-market forces can create worse, environmentally inefficient, undesirable outcomes by submitting what should be private choices to mob rule.)

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#26

Post by nostromo »

StringyBob wrote: post #10

Where I live (not in the US) we have parking maximums, not minimums. A new office development will not get planning approval if it has more than 2 parking spaces per 3 employees (based on some obscure measurement of building capacity). This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.

Here’s a crazy idea: let the property owner and developer decide the correct amount of parking to provide. And the size of the apartments. And the number of floors to build.

The regulations here should be based around things like structural integrity, egress, and safety. Not views, not density, not what size of apartment is “too big” or “too small.” All of those are things the market can sort out.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#27

Post by bahmboo »

Lost in this can be the specifics of "parking". Put in lots of 3-5 minute zones for ride hailing, add 10-15 minute spots for deliveries. Make sure there are enforced truck parking only for restaurant and business deliveries. Car share only parking. Scooter and bike parking. etc.

And yes, if I want full time parking for my car I will pay for it. It's not that expensive if that's my priority.

These are generally the kind of parking configs that most city people would benefit from.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#28

Post by mayneack »

chc wrote: post #17
StringyBob wrote: post #10

Where I live (not in the US) we have parking maximums, not minimums. A new office development will not get planning approval if it has more than 2 parking spaces per 3 employees (based on some obscure measurement of building capacity). This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.

I feel like this would be putting the cart before the horse in the US. Failing to put parking in a place with poor walkability and terrible public transportation doesn't seem like it would encourage much of anything.

Not in DTLA. There's plenty of public transit options that exist and more being built, so it seems like the right time to stop building new buildings with tons of parking. I live in Santa Monica and most people I know making a commute between Santa Monica and DTLA are already doing so carless.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#29

Post by mktmkr »

gowld wrote: post #23
mktmkr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cars are the reason the buses are slow. 22% of LA workers travel to work without a car, which isn't great but it's not zero either. Metro LA added a dedicated bus lane on Flower and they are moving more than one bus per minute in that lane. As soon as you remove the cars everything else gets a lot better. https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/11538072082299576...

Removing parking spaces puts more cars on the road -- circling for spots and parking illegally in traffic lanes. If you want faster buses, evict the cars from the bus travel lanes.

Yeah, except no. This is just one of those tropes that motorists use to force cities to subsidize them. Every study on this topic has conclusively shown that parking causes traffic. The construction of parking precedes the worsening of traffic, the amount of parking built is proportional to the amount of traffic observed, and the reverse process is also observed to correct the problem: removing parking alleviates traffic congestion. The case that parking causes traffic congestion is as strong as the case that smoking causes lung cancer.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#30

Post by jjcm »

It's a good thought, but until public transportation is a 1st party citizen in LA, this will just cause more problems in the long run. Busses are still seen as a method of transport for impoverished people, not for the masses. Trains and light rail simply aren't a priority for either the city nor the population. For comparison, Sydney is similar to LA in terms of density and affluence, but has 7.7 times as many people riding their rail transport[1]. LA should be focusing on creating a positive draw to public transport by increasing service, availability, and quality, rather than creating a negative pressure by decreasing parking availability.

[1] 359m annual ridership in Sydney with a 4.6m population, vs 108m annual ridership in LA with a 10.1m population.

Post reply on HN