This is a solved problem: Charge for parking and the shortage goes away. Meter technology is decades old and well understood. https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193...
In the meantime, what sane city council member is going to tell residents they need to pay for parking in front of their own townhouses?
There's a similar mechanism to what you proposed, resident-only parking permits. This pits the business owners against the residents. It also means that a resident can't have their friends come to visit without risking a ticket.
The knee-jerk HN-ism of quick fixes doesn't work here.
The only actual solution is the long-term dual-pronged approach: parking structures in the interim, while improving public transit coverage overall.
Washington State also makes some zoning decisions and targets some growth targets at the state level (see http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a..., although I can't find a better piece off the top of my head), which helps matters.
The actual solution is people paying for what they use, i.e. markets: If people want parking structures, they'll pay for them. I'd really suggest that you look at the link in the comment I posted above.
Your Japan link is not applicable to this conversation (though I love that article, it comes up whenever NIMBY stuff is discussed on HN). I consider that arguing in bad faith.
Zoning isn't going to magically help residents get parking, nor is it going to provide a place for paying customers to put their cars while eating and drinking.
> They'll pay for them
Who? The customers would all love to pay for parking, but there wasn't a structure. You're arguing against some point you think I'm making but I'm not.
People who live there can park for free, anyone else has to pay a meter.
This solves the issues.
And that’s how my city got $1/min parking spots.
In urban planning, one has to be careful to solve the correct problem. The problem is not too many cars parked on a residential street. The problem is getting customers to businesses with minimal bad side effects.
Any "parking solution" that kills the businesses to fix the parking is not actually a solution.
The problem is getting people to different places, without them using too much space within the city. This means as little car usage as possible.
The example I mentioned – combined with cheap public transit – is very effective.
Parking meters are just one way to get people to use it, and not a very good one: by the time people find out there are meters (when trying to park), it's too late to take the transit!
The money it cost to install meters would have been better spent on a marketing campaign to raise awareness of the transit option, or subsidizing the transit prices.
Veeery cheap compared to actual meters.
And no, no marketing campaign or subsidy can be as effective as the parking costs. As long as parking isn't at least twice or thrice as expensive as transit no one will use transit. Its a serious issue IRL here. For a while they even did free transit, ads on every single billboard, bus and train, and still people rather parked for 10$ a 30min in the cuty, or even parked illegally.
And this enables apps where you basically press [start parking] and [stop parking] and you won't even need to walk.
Second, if urban planning is done properly, residential streets don't experience parking problems. That's the whole point of this thread.
And if urban planning is not done well, then it doesn't matter where businesses move--they'll still run into problems.
Oh, and if they all leave, then the neighbors will have a nice blighted block with empty buildings next door. Problem solved?
Parking meters do not magically create more parking spots. They create an incentive to use an alternative, but first there needs to be a good alternative.
If urban planning is done properly, there are no residential streets. Every street mixes residential, offices, and commercial properties.