Live data from Hacker News

LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

la.curbed.com

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#141
post #29
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tra…

Construction of parking preceding the worsening of traffic is not the same as parking construction causing traffic congestion. Adding more servers behind a load balancer will also precede congestion on your network. Because you've increased your capacity to service additional throughput, but did not increase your network link to handle that higher throughput. So at some point, it'll start thrashing.

Same with parking. You build parking in areas where you anticipate increased demand or already have unmet demand. By building parking, you increase your capacity to meet that demand.

If you have unmet demand (i.e. not enough spaces for the volume of vehicles that wish to park in an area), you're limiting the economic throughput of that area. Yes, you're reducing traffic congestion in the process, but at a very real economic cost for those whom were being patronized by that now-gone traffic.

Same with anticipating new demand. If you're building in an area, you want to be sure the area has enough parking capacity to absorb the intended volume of people traffic your building will have. If you're building a new skyscraper or mall or big box store, that's likely not true. So you incorporate parking into your project. Once your building (and parking) come online, you'll start attracting a higher volume of individuals to an area. Which, except for the most underutilized or mature transportation networks, will have a corresponding impact on congestion due to the greater throughput of individuals to the area.

If you have mature public transportation, then your transportation network likely has the bandwidth to absorb this throughput increase with a lesser impact on congestion than if you're in an area with immature public transportation options. But mature public transportation tends to be very expensive to build and maintain. Which is only likely to happen after growing to the point of having heavy enough congestion to make such expensive and regionally disruptive changes both politically palatable and economically feasible.

I do not envy urban and transportation planners.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#142
post #138
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy because it doesn't work. All of those factors rely upon the use of common, municipal resources, and those municipal resources, especially streets, often can't be expanded.

How do we know it doesn’t work? If I was a builder, my incentives are closely aligned with the city - build something that appeals to buyers. If I build a fancy apartment building where everyone owns cars but I provide no parking, well those aren’t going to be very desirable.

Why are your incentives (as a builder) always closely aligned with the city?

Consider Japan, which has building restrictions to avoid eternal shadows. Building height is a function of the setback from the street.

A buyer may well want a taller building, and a builder might well be happy to provide it, when the city is dead set against it.

What is the mechanism by which "the market" balances out the desire by the megarich to live in tall towers in NYC, with the desire by those who use Central Park to not be in shadows more?

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am guessing that you are aligned political to the ideological view of the smallest possible government and regulations. Unfortunately, developers and property owners will care nothing for the wider community. Firstly, at what point would you end regulations? Perhaps zoning and planning permission frameworks are too much? Let the market decide. Electrical, again that really is too much regulation, and we should let…

Houston doesn’t have zoning and it seems to work just fine.

Houston doesn't have official zoning. Instead it has land use regulations, like off-street parking mandates, which act like de facto zoning.

https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#144
post #73

Gov'ts can do 3 things - encourage something, do nothing, or discourage something. Parking minimums encourage people to drive cars. This is LA taking a small step towards picking winners (cars...) just little bit less.

You have it backwards. Less than sufficient parking discourages travel to that area. If you want the area to proper and not simply feel pain, you can't just discourage cars without an alternative. If you want people to use public transit, encourage public transit.

The point is to tone down the encouragement to get people to use cars, which is what the old policy did.

You cannot both encourage people to use cars and encourage people to not use cars - it's a waste of money.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#145
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it backwards. Less than sufficient parking discourages travel to that area. If you want the area to proper and not simply feel pain, you can't just discourage cars without an alternative. If you want people to use public transit, encourage public transit.

The point is to tone down the encouragement to get people to use cars, which is what the old policy did. You cannot both encourage people to use cars and encourage people to not use cars - it's a waste of money.

[deleted]

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#146

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.

> This is to reduce congestion and encourage more environmentally friendly methods of transportation.

A similar policy operates here in the UK, except that the parking allowance is significantly less generous.

I find it utterly asinine because it is not paired with the necessary corollary: you can't "encourage" more environmentally friendly methods of transportation, you have to actually - you know - take action and build the infrastructure.

Example: I live about 10 miles from the office and would cheerfully cycle into work come rain or shine because it would be great exercise, but there is no safe cycle route, so I'm forced to use some form of motorised transport (I have a car but usually ride a motorcycle). Buses are available but they're once an hour, take too long, are often tardy, and don't run late enough into the evening.

Depending on where you live there are better options available (guided busway paired with a cycleway, or the train) but there's no joined up thinking when it comes to more sustainable transportation. The result is that vast swathes of the area around Cambridge (UK) are either inadequately served, or not served at all.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#147
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> basically all the new construction in that area comes in at the top of the market. There's a reason for this. As a result of the fact that new construction is required to have 1-2 parking spots, developers need to put in a lot of parking. And because they need to put in a lot of parking, they need to be expensive. And because they need to be expensive, they might as well be luxury apartments. As a result of all thi…

I don't know much about the US housing dynamics but it seems very unlikely that prices will get lower due to less parking being required. It's more likely the builders will profit more. We went through a similar situation with airplane tickets where I live. The govt agency in charge of aviation and the airlines all wanted the free luggage requirement gone citing cost reductions. They got it, the fares didn't get any…

> I don't know much about the US housing dynamics

Then why are you commenting?

The parent of your post was correct in saying "required", as in legally required for that zoning.

After you subtract the required parking spots, setbacks, sidewalks, driveways then what you're left with is a few super-expensive townhouses in most of LA or the project gets cancelled.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#148
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> basically all the new construction in that area comes in at the top of the market. There's a reason for this. As a result of the fact that new construction is required to have 1-2 parking spots, developers need to put in a lot of parking. And because they need to put in a lot of parking, they need to be expensive. And because they need to be expensive, they might as well be luxury apartments. As a result of all thi…

I don't know much about the US housing dynamics but it seems very unlikely that prices will get lower due to less parking being required. It's more likely the builders will profit more. We went through a similar situation with airplane tickets where I live. The govt agency in charge of aviation and the airlines all wanted the free luggage requirement gone citing cost reductions. They got it, the fares didn't get any…

Very strange post. You start with the disclaimer you know nothing about the topic in hand, then go on explaining your treatise to the ptoblem.

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#149

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.

Or bullying employees aka the little people

Re: LA getting serious about lifting parking requirements in downtown

#150

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.

Or bullying employees aka the little people

What? "little people" are those who benefit most from a less car-centric city planning.
Post reply on HN