I think we should start removing those regulations that require large parking lots for new construction. It's a little forward-thinking, but if the next shopping center/strip mall/whatever was built only with pickup/dropoff spots and not park-while-you-shop spots, that would both encourage people to ride share today and also build for the future.
And then nearby residents sue the city and the developer for encouraging customers to park on their residential streets.
So, in Dallas, the parking requirements for restaurants depend on the amount of seating the restaurant has. A few restaurants got around that by building giant patios with several times the seating as inside, because the regulation doesn't consider outside seating as seating.
Residents complained about people parking on their streets and blocking their driveways, and they threatened massive lawsuits. The city council caved and passed a new regulation counting outdoor seating as seating, with no grandfather clause. Now these restaurants have to either build massive parking garages or close their doors.
Then when grandma comes to visit, she gets a parking ticket because she didn't get the right permit?
No, the better option is for shopping centers to have enough parking for the customers they anticipate having. Maybe giant parking lots suck, but a business shouldn't be able to destroy a residential neighborhood like that.
I've lived in plenty of places where the stores were above the parking garages, and no one from the street could tell there was any parking at all. That's always an option.
Many neighborhoods that enforce parking permits have a card you can give your guests. Alternately, there may be paid parking nearby.
> business shouldn't be able to destroy a residential neighborhood like that.
Indeed, but I'd rather our laws and enforcement target the harm (non-residents taking your parking spot) and allow the nearby business to decide whether to offer parking or not. I've lived in and visited many large cities. All my favorite neighborhoods have solved this problem and for the most part the businesses chose to have very little parking, if any.
We have a system like this and for us it means borrowing a car is a PITA: You only get a permit for a vehicle registered in your name. So when we borrow a car, we are not allowed to park it outside our own house.
What about the businesses themselves in these malls/centers...would they survive the transition? In can't be just the design of the mall that is considered, but the entire area around the mall....everything should work together.
Absolutely the entire area should be thought about. Removing the regulation to require a parking lot doesn't seem harmful today. I'm not advocating a restriction or a tax on parking lots here, just removing the requirement that every new construction have a certain number of parking spots.
It would most likely result in people simply avoiding the next shopping center/strip mall/whatever because it's such a hassle to go there. Just as I rarely go to downtown areas today where parking is a hassle.
Las Vegas casinos have started charging for parking after decades of being known for not doing so. This occurred after the newest large projects were built without large/any parking to accommodate drivers visiting those projects. I cannot speak for the impacts on locals visiting the Strip as this is still a new thing, but I do know that:
- The casinos are making an additional $7+/day from every vehicle parking on their properties (those who haven't found a way to get free parking, including being on a higher than lowest gaming tier).
- MGM Resorts started the trend, and within months Wynn and Caesars followed suit. The increased revenue in MGM's case was to fund an additional paid parking garage.
- All future projects will probably follow suit and limit the amount of spaces.
Throughout all of this, the only big improvement in public transit discussed has been some kind of rail option going down the Strip in the future. Otherwise, it seems to be that locals will pay more by either paying to park or using ride hailing/taxis. In other words, not necessarily moving us forward in transit efficiency and additional revenue to the benefit of a few companies.
This caught me by surprise the last time I was in Vegas for an event although, as it turned out, my rate included parking. I don't know enough about Las Vegas dynamics to know all the rationale behind this. I do know that gaming has dropped percentage-wise as a revenue source.
I imagine the impact on visitors isn't that great. I know I won't rent a car unless I'm going outside of the city and it's just cheaper/easier to keep it while I'm staying on the strip. For locals, I imagine it will make some pay more and some switch to off-strip casinos but the higher gaming tiers still get comped anyway.
ADDED: I've been told that one of the issues was increased freeloading by people going away on trips and parking at strip hotels, especially Mandalay Bay but I'm not sure how much to credit that given other solutions that don't involve charging everyone for parking.
Ah yes, this of course is why urban cores nationwide are so cheap and empty!
Honestly though, this is your experience and nearly decade of car-hostile planning has paid dividends in cities across the country, even if it doesn't work for all use cases. The suburbs and car-centered world only work in a single use case.
