Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#51

Post by chc » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 6:38 PM UTC

avn2109 wrote: post #46

jrells wrote: post #4

> Other research suggests that cyclists may actually spend more than drivers at some kinds of businesses because it's easier for them to pop in often and unplanned. This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots.

>> "This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots." Yes, that's the point. This is called modal shift and it is how you incentivize people to stop driving.

Wouldn't providing superior alternatives be a better way to incentivize people to stop driving? This seems like encouraging people to eat healthy by hitting them with a baseball bat every time they look at McDonalds.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#52

Post by jaynos » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 6:51 PM UTC

sbov wrote: post #44

joedrew wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to have 'enough' parking spots. Induced demand shows that cars, like goldfish, always grow to fill the space they're given. It's politically difficult process, but just refusing to try to solve this problem (which leads to more New Urbanism-friendly locations) is often the right solution.

I've heard this theory applied to traffic, but not parking. Because no, it isn't impossible. I've never had a problem finding parking when there's a parking garage nearby. E.g. 5th and mission. Just go to the top open floor, and there's always several spaces waiting for you. It's just street parking that is difficult. Which makes sense because if you think about it, streets don't provide much parking. Maybe 1 car per…

Street parking is difficult to find because it cost less to park on the street, so people cruise around for spots instead of heading to a parking deck.

I just heard a Marketplace segment on this [1] where they talk about on-demand adjustable pricing. Very interesting.

[1] http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/tricky-practice-pr...

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#53

Post by Kalium » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 6:57 PM UTC

bronson wrote: post #50

Kalium wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being friendly to incumbents has always seemed to be the highest priority.

Which incumbents do you mean? The millionaires or the people being displaced?

Neither, because policy has largely been written to favor those who already live on or own a given patch of dirt. Most of SF is neither millionaires nor being displaced.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#54

Post by jschwartzi » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 7:03 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #51

avn2109 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots." Yes, that's the point. This is called modal shift and it is how you incentivize people to stop driving.

Wouldn't providing superior alternatives be a better way to incentivize people to stop driving? This seems like encouraging people to eat healthy by hitting them with a baseball bat every time they look at McDonalds.

Actually it's more like encouraging people to eat healthy by making it take 5x as long to buy anything at McDonald's.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#55

Post by malyk » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 7:19 PM UTC

jaynos wrote: post #52

sbov wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this theory applied to traffic, but not parking. Because no, it isn't impossible. I've never had a problem finding parking when there's a parking garage nearby. E.g. 5th and mission. Just go to the top open floor, and there's always several spaces waiting for you. It's just street parking that is difficult. Which makes sense because if you think about it, streets don't provide much parking. Maybe 1 car per…

Street parking is difficult to find because it cost less to park on the street, so people cruise around for spots instead of heading to a parking deck. I just heard a Marketplace segment on this [1] where they talk about on-demand adjustable pricing. Very interesting. [1] http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/tricky-practice-pr...

The Parking Is Hell Freakonomics episode is pretty good. In it they estimate that there are something like 800 million parking spaces in the country and recounted a study by Donald Shoup that estimates that up to 30% of traffic in cities are people cruising looking for street parking.

Basically, we don't have a real market for parking in most cities, so people will keep their car parked on the street forever instead of using market forces to induce turnover which is better for the city(revenue) and the nearby businesses(more customers).

[1] - http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/13/parking-is-hell-a-new-fre... [2] - http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#56

Post by tigrella » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 7:45 PM UTC

wahsd wrote: post #25

Here we go with privatizing public resources and assets again. It galls me to hear moronic, self-serving corrupt things like "...the growing economic case for deploying our streets differently, for use by more than cars." In a capitalist predatory economy and society like ours public resources and assets should almost never be used for private purposes, especially not for private profit, gain, or benefit of any kind.…

It's called creative placemaking and it brings communities together. http://www.artplaceamerica.org/articles/principles-of-creati...

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#57

Post by prawn » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 7:45 PM UTC

dpeck wrote: post #43

geebee wrote: post #9

On a closely related note, I read a very interesting piece about "curb cuts" in San Francisco. http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2008-06-01/eye-stre... The image showing the difference between Park Slope (without curb cuts) and a stretch of Dolores street in San Francisco (with curb cuts) is really eye-opening. It's a bummer, because a lot of SF really is small and walkable, but you know, we really do spend a…

Not SF, but I feel exactly the same cars. After having my kid and him getting to the toddler stage I started to actually understand just how hazardous cars can be. There is nothing I appreciate more these days than a open area with fencing or whatever else to keep cars at bay and let kids run around and be kids without parents having to constantly stay on guard that one of them might make a run for the street.

Street parking is really dangerous for kids. No visibility for drivers when a kid is crossing from a footpath and is shorter than many of the parked cars.

Driving an empty street, you can see children leaving their homes, crossing the verge, etc. In a street full of parked cars, you might only have a split second as they leave a gap between two parked cars to cross a street.

As a motorist and a parent of a toddler, I really don't like that from either side.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#58

Post by aluhut » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 8:02 PM UTC

Wouldn't that just cause the clients that came by car (because of distance, health, whatever) to go somewhere else because there is no parking space? It looks to me like just another gentrification result. The new hip clients never needed those parking spots.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#59

Post by cylinder » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 8:17 PM UTC

geebee wrote: post #9

On a closely related note, I read a very interesting piece about "curb cuts" in San Francisco. http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2008-06-01/eye-stre... The image showing the difference between Park Slope (without curb cuts) and a stretch of Dolores street in San Francisco (with curb cuts) is really eye-opening. It's a bummer, because a lot of SF really is small and walkable, but you know, we really do spend a…

Brings me to the broader question: why are Californians so bad at urban planning? LA is a disaster, SF has endless issues and pitfalls, the Bay Area is a sprawling mess.

For a people who seem to pride themselves on being progressive, "enlightened" etc they sure are bad at livability, almost as bad as Texas.

Re: Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars

#60

Post by mccolin » Tue, Mar 17, 2015, 8:21 PM UTC

angdis wrote: post #48

moron4hire wrote: post #13

Philadelphia does not have a very good public transit system. It's fine if all you want to do is get to the center of the city, but to actually travel around the city it sucks. And parts of Philadelphia have a severe parking problem. I'm convinced that the only reason South Philadelphia works is because 1/4 to 1/2 of its population isn't at home at any one point in time. It's like sailors hot-bedding on a submarine.…

South Philly resident here. Philadelphia has "pretty good" public transport compared to many other large cities. It is particularly easy to get around by bicycle and by foot. It is no problem to get to any part of the city proper by subway, bus, taxi, uber, bicycle or foot. There are connections to NJ via bus and PATCO. Much of the outer suburbs are connected via SEPTA. You can get to NYC via NJtransit (cheaply!) or…

I live in Bella Vista, a tiny neighborhood between Center City and South Philly and echo @angdis' sentiment. The Philadelphia subway system leaves a bit to be desired, but considering the trolleys, buses, and "regional" rail options, as well as the ease of making connections between most of these systems, Philly has a more than adequate public transportation system altogether.

Also -- Philly is one of the most walkable cities in the country. It's not difficult for someone to walk river-to-river or throughout University City to get where they're going.

I know plenty of folks that live and work within their neighborhood and rarely go elsewhere, but I know more people that explore all over the city and towns outside.