
Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars - edward
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/17/when-parking-spaces-shouldnt-be-wasted-on-cars/
======
geebee
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...](http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2008-06-01/eye-street)

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 lot of time dodging cars on the sidewalk. I didn't notice
as much this until I had kids, because while you can dodge the cars coming and
going across the sidewalk as an adult (or the cars just parked on the
sidewalk, which is common here but nearly impossible without curb cuts), for a
kid, it actually is dangerous.

It's a shame that SF allows curb cuts to render even the sidewalks a hazardous
place for people (esp kids) to walk, cause let's face it, SF likes to tout
itself as a more urban city with a vibrant pedestrian life.

The irony is that curb cuts - the bit of concrete cut out of a curb so a car
can get out of the driveway and onto the street, doesn't even increase parking
much, since it divides the street up into tiny bits of actual curb too small
to fit a car! What it does is take a spot from the public and turns it into a
private "reserved" street space. In fact, one study estimated that 50% of
garages in the mission are unusable for parking (used instead for storage or
other purposes), so really, this is just a reserved parking spot on the
street.

~~~
sliverstorm
Has SF ever been considered or even wanted to be considered a kid/family-
friendly place? Watching from the sidelines, it's never seemed like a
priority.

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

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

~~~
Kalium
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.

~~~
toomuchtodo
"Peninsula Lords"

------
rafavega
Kind of related. This week in Medellín, people got fed up of car dealerships
parking in sidewalks and made fun interventions like practicing yoga and
setting up beach furniture (article in spanish).

[http://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/en-medellin-se-
cansaro...](http://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/en-medellin-se-cansaron-de-
que-los-concesionarios-invadieran-el-anden/421201-3)

~~~
softbuilder
That reminds me of this in Mexico:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMPBlZMQhgo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMPBlZMQhgo)

------
avelis
One of the cities this is popular in is San Francisco. And the data the
article suggests is correct. If you don't have to worry about taking a car to
park, you are more likely to spend more time in a local area with businesses
available to spend your disposable income.

The second benefit is creating a sense of place. The place to see or the place
to hangout in. This personal behavior of a local population can transform a
regional neighborhood into a vibrant culture and/or community.

Great post!

------
hoprocker
It's nice that this is getting some press, but my sense is that it's no longer
news that pedestrianism has been on the rise in dense urban areas for a
tick[0].

Thanks to edward for posting this, though!

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism)

------
antr
Two talks worth watching regarding this very issue:

Enrique Peñalosa, former Mayor of Bogota: "In no constitution, parking is a
constitutional right."
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3YjeARuilI&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3YjeARuilI&feature=youtu.be&t=6m50s)

Bruno Moser, Head of Urban Design at Foster + Partners: The amount of space a
car requires isa problem yet to be solved:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUH63c1n0c&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rUH63c1n0c&feature=youtu.be&t=2m20s)

------
moron4hire
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.

So if you're going to be an urbanite in Philadelphia, you have to live your
entire life in Philadelphia, in your neighborhood. Which is probably why so
many of the people I knew there hadn't even been out of the state, say nothing
about to other countries.

For some people, that's all they want, a provincial life. It's not for me. I
grew up surrounded by people with that very same attitude, in a rural
environment, that attitude of "why would you ever even _want_ to go somewhere
else?" I really don't see the difference of it in an urban setting and I
really just don't like being around it.

But I'm getting sick and tired of being treated like I'm a complete waste of a
person for that reason. Seriously, the title is "Why parking spaces shouldn't
always be wasted on cars", meaning the other times it's still wasted on cars,
but it's somehow ok. It's just a smug sort of attitude.

~~~
angdis
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 Amtrak (more expensive). It is not perfect,
but I have trouble understanding why you're complaining, where do you want the
public transit to go that it doesn't already ??? BTW, the lax attitude about
parking is true: I own a car and park it on the sidewalk in the alley behind
my house.

~~~
mccolin
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.

------
goblin89
In Chiang Mai near Chang Phueak Gate a sizeable paved area in front of a few
mini-stores and a Ford dealership every day after 6 PM turns from parking
space into busy street food market. Struck me as efficient use of space.

~~~
eli
I think it's pretty common to use downtown parking lots for events on
weekends. I know DC also has "rush hour lanes" \-- parking spots that turn
into a lane of traffic during rush hour.

~~~
moron4hire
It also doesn't help that Philadelphia's property taxes are based on decades-
old property value assessments, and instead of reassessing buildings, they
just jack up the property tax rate. If you build a new building today, you'll
get murdered in taxes. That's assuming you don't get murdered on the union
labor, or murdered by the unions if you try to avoid using union labor.

So in DC, there isn't as much residential property in the city proper. It's a
lot of grandiose buildings meant more for showing off the might of the empire
than for fitting in lots of people. Also, the housing tends to be newer, more
vertically scaled, with their own parking garages. In Philadelphia, people
hold rallies to block construction of parking garages.

~~~
eli
Not sure what "city proper" means in this context, but something like 600,000
people live in the District, which is not a terribly large city. Very few of
them live in grandiose buildings like you might see around the Mall. In fact,
there are pretty strict height restrictions, which means there aren't any
highrise apartments and vertical development is limited.

~~~
moron4hire
That's the point I was trying to make. The ratio between the available street
space for parking and the people who need to park in the District is much
higher than the in Philadelphia.

------
jrells
> 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.

~~~
joedrew
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.

~~~
sbov
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 shop.

~~~
jaynos
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...](http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/tricky-practice-pricing-
parking)

~~~
malyk
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...](http://freakonomics.com/2013/03/13/parking-is-hell-a-new-freakonomics-
radio-podcast/) [2] -
[http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf](http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf)

------
aluhut
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.

~~~
wmil
The problem with parking spots is that with single occupancy vehicles you're
allocating 170 sq feet per customer for a few dollars. That's a terrible deal
given real estate prices downtown.

Also very few people are going to drive a significant distance for tacos or
ice cream.

These shops only cater to foot traffic.

~~~
aluhut
Yes few people are going to drive significant distances for tacos or ice cream
but people drive distances to shop and buy then tacos and ice cream. Those are
also cars with a whole family in it. Try to park your van with 3 kids in it in
that gentrificated area for some ice cream. But hell...you don't want those
loud suckers in your fancy eco-cafe.

Upper class gentrification people don't need to drive to shop. They eat in
restaurants or order online. Because they can afford it.

You are causing a separation of classes here again. The whole argument runs on
it and the arrogant way this class handles that by writing such 1st world
problem articles is disgusting.

~~~
aluhut
Downvoting without comments. Great.

------
digikata
It makes for interesting speculation for when automated cars come along and
you don't need to park. Of course you don't need automation of you're willing
to forgo parking via other services. Which leads to the many cities with
adequate public transit/taxi service which already have areas configured with
less parking. e.g. many European cities & New York city I would guess...

------
ngoel36
I wish valet parking was more prevalent. Does the additional real estate space
from efficient parking lots/structures justify the labor cost of providing
free valet to customers?

Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage altogether
(e.g. Uber)

~~~
BrainInAJar
> Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage
> altogether (e.g. Uber)

eg bicycles and walking

~~~
TeMPOraL
Or buses, trams and trains.

~~~
blhack
Or a combination of all of these things!

There are definitely times when it would be inappropriate to take a bike over
an uber, and times when it would be extremely inconvenient to walk.

For instance: tonight. St. Patrick's day will be my girlfriend and I going to
a brewery about 10 miles from our house to try a beer they are brewing
especially for today.

It would be irresponsible of us to bike home after drinking, and inconvenient
to walk that far. We will almost certainly be taking an uber.

------
scottmcdot
That parklet-sidewalk interface looks like an obvious trip hazard.

------
chc
It seems like roughly the same goal could have been achieved by condemning a
comic book store and turning the space into a park. Is there anything to this
article that isn't just the observation "People like to go where parks are"
repurposed into anti-car propaganda?

~~~
metaphorm
why are you so eager to defend cars and car-culture?

cars are the single most dangerous thing in the daily lives of most Americans.
they are rolling manslaughter engines. they are destroying the environment,
leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural
resource exhaustion. they have been undermining good public transportation
infrastructure investment for decades. they are destructive of communities,
encouraging sprawl and long distance commuting.

~~~
brc
How about the freedom to set your own travel plans, efficiencies in travel
with all the attendant economic benefits and vital tool in improving real
estate quality?

The road-and-traffic free utopia you seek cannot exist.

>leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural
resource exhaustion You forgot creating runny noses and ingrown toenails.
Rhetoric is a tad overblown.

~~~
metaphorm
clearly we need the ability to travel. allowing every person on the planet
(with sufficient money anyway) to ride around in their very own 3 ton machine,
moving at 80 mph is not the right way to do it. a better world would have
different vehicles than cars.

global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities. this
is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of fossilized
plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the crust of the
Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of the planet
cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other fossil fuels
as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum burned by cars, but
petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here.

seriously, you shouldn't be dismissive of these problems. there is a basic
need to provide transportation to people. we have done a terrible job of
finding a good solution to that needs. what we do now with cars is one of the
most destructive and unsustainable ways possible to solve the problem.

~~~
chc
> _global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities.
> this is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of
> fossilized plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the
> crust of the Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of
> the planet cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other
> fossil fuels as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum
> burned by cars, but petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here._

These are not problems with cars, though. These are problems with internal
combustion engines. Over the next half a decade, electric cars are going to
take off in a big way, as EVs with low prices, long ranges and good
performance characteristics become common (so far we know about the Model 3
and the Chevy Bolt, both coming in two years, and a significant range bump on
the Leaf is likely by then too).

~~~
metaphorm
electric motors are more efficient than gasoline powered motors, so there is
some real gain to using cars of that type. however, the electric energy still
has to be generated by something, and frequently that something is a coal,
gas, or oil burning power plant. its still better than burning the gasoline in
the car engine directly but not a fundamental solution.

the fundamental solution is to drive less, to carpool more, and to reorganize
our communities to make effective public transportation a focus instead of an
afterthought. we have to find ways to meet the transportation needs of people
without using so much energy to do so.

------
wahsd
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. Whether it is clogging up the city of
Austin for the monkey shit show that SXSW has turned into, or taking over
public parking spaces for private enterprise profit it's corrupt
misappropriation and misuse of public resources and funds. It's simply corrupt
and the government, on all levels, should not be engaged in commercial revenue
generation precisely because it invites corruption.

~~~
icebraining
_In a capitalist predatory economy and society like ours public resources and
assets should almost never be used for private purposes_

So, in non-capitalist economies, they should? :)

I find your rant misguided. Parking spaces _are_ public resources being used
for private benefits, i.e., for car owners. As a member of the "inferior"
class of transit and foot travelers, I see no reason why _your_ private use
trumps any other.

