Is parking too cheap?

Matthew said:
So I take it the NIMBYs in Central have been conquered?
Click to expand...

Conquered? Never.

But they have been leaning heavily on the K2C2 recommendations, stalling everything until it was complete. Now it is complete and the recommendations are for significant residential developments. It also pushes non-profit and culturally-oriented office space too, which I think suits the area and will pacify NIMBYs to some extent.

The plan does not call for Kendallization, which I think was the NIMBY's biggest fear. The plan will continue to be their defense against laboratory buildings which might force them into embracing some elements they would otherwise reject like residential buildings up to 140 feet.

I'm cautiously optimistic.
 
K2C2 looks pretty impressive, from my quick overview.
 
Quick, secure, efficient.
Click to expand...
Pretty cool, but it seems like there's only 1 elevator. If it takes 3 or 4 minutes to get your car out, I imagine you might have to wait 40 minutes to get your car out during rush hour.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Pretty cool, but it seems like there's only 1 elevator. If it takes 3 or 4 minutes to get your car out, I imagine you might have to wait 40 minutes to get your car out during rush hour.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't think it would be appropriate at say the Boston Garden, but for a municipal lot, or a lot serving multiple apartment buildings in a neighborhood, where the flow is steady but doesn't have giant peaks, it would work.

Then on the days there are major crowd crushes (like the 4th) it would actually probably ease road traffic because it would be 1 car every couple minutes instead of 100 cars every minute. Plus, I have easily waited 25 minutes trying to get out of a parking garage at these times. This would shift more of the wait time to before you get your car.
 
I can't find the thread or any info really, but I remember something like that was proposed in Boston. I think it was along the greenway.
 
There's also the advantage that human behavior would naturally regulate the ease of use. If the line's too long, people will use it less. There's certainly an equilibrium in there that works. And I'm willing to bet that the engineers have calculated just where that equilibrium is.
 
Article 10 to reduce minimum parking quotas in Brookline:

http://www.brooklinema.gov/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=8583&Itemid=654

select quotes:

The Committee analyzed several datasets provided by the Town’s Assessor’s Office,
including automobile excise tax information that had originated with the Massachusetts
Registry of Motor Vehicles. The Committee used this historical data to try and assess
whether and to what extent changes to the Town’s minimum off-street parking Zoning
By-Law had on construction of residential developments. Generally speaking, the data
showed that a change in the minimum residential off-street parking requirements has
historically not had much of an impact. Market conditions, more than anything else,
influence the decision of how much parking to provide in new construction. At the end of
the day, however, the Committee felt that analyzing historical data raised more questions
than it answered, and that the data could be interpreted very differently to argue either for
or against maintaining the current off-street parking requirements.
Click to expand...

Given the limitations of the historical data sources, the Committee, with the assistance
of the Town Clerk and Town Assessor, developed a survey questionnaire that was
mailed out to all Town residents together with the 2012 Annual Town Census. The
survey identified 14 specific “parking neighborhoods” and asked respondents various
questions about their off-street parking situation. The Committee analyzed the survey
responses and was able to draw the following conclusions from them:

(1) Regardless of the size of the dwelling the average number of cars per household is
well below the current off-street parking requirements, although there are wide
variations around the averages

(2) The differential between the average cars per household and the spaces allotted is
greatest for studio and one bedroom apartments, and less so for 2- and 3+ bedroom
apartments in multi- unit buildings (as opposed to 2 and 3 family houses).

(3) A large majority of the Town – including respondents in high density areas such as
Coolidge Corner – believe that their off-street parking needs are adequate. The
highest levels of dissatisfaction with their off-street parking situation are in the
areas of Heath School/Eliot St., Brookline Hills/Brookline High School, Corey Hill,
and Washington Sq./Corey Farm. Moreover, among residents of multi-family units,
the larger the unit, the more the respondents were likely to believe that their parking
is inadequate.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I find it completely ridiculous that Brookline has minimum parking quotas at all. First of all, they are bad idea. Second, the usual justification is "fear of spillover parking" which is non-existent in Brookline because they wisely ban overnight on-street parking. Third, said quotas don't work at containing "spillover," anyway, even if there was on-street parking.

Their own research shows that the market will provide an appropriate number of parking spaces based on customer demand, and the minimums are way too high. Get rid of the requirements, Brookline!
 
Matthew said:
Article 10 to reduce minimum parking quotas in Brookline:

http://www.brooklinema.gov/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=8583&Itemid=654

select quotes:





Honestly, I find it completely ridiculous that Brookline has minimum parking quotas at all. First of all, they are bad idea. Second, the usual justification is "fear of spillover parking" which is non-existent in Brookline because they wisely ban overnight on-street parking. Third, said quotas don't work at containing "spillover," anyway, even if there was on-street parking.

Their own research shows that the market will provide an appropriate number of parking spaces based on customer demand, and the minimums are way too high. Get rid of the requirements, Brookline!
Click to expand...

This would be wonderful. I could convert my basement of my building into to 2-bedroom apartments.
 
Sadly it did not receive the necessary two-thirds super-majority, although it did receive majority support. Idiotic, pointless regulations continue their reign.
 
Meanwhile, several projects in Boston neighborhoods are being approved with fewer than one space per unit. So Boston seems to be getting better about this.
 
HenryAlan said:
Meanwhile, several projects in Boston neighborhoods are being approved with fewer than one space per unit. So Boston seems to be getting better about this.
Click to expand...

Henry -- have you ever lived in a building with 0 parking spots per unit and then tried to park during a snow emergency when one side of the street is closed to parking?

I did in East Cambridge

Unless cars are banned -- parking needs to be provided to people who occupy units that does not require parking on the city streets

Fewer than 1 parking space per unit -- may sound good to the "CLF" or the other granola suckers [a lot no longer have the teeth to chew on the crunchy stuff unless its soaked in Almond milk -- but I digress] -- but it just encourages those who can't park off-street -- to drive around wasting fuel looking for on-street parking
 
whighlander said:
Henry -- have you ever lived in a building with 0 parking spots per unit and then tried to park during a snow emergency when one side of the street is closed to parking?

I did in East Cambridge

Unless cars are banned -- parking needs to be provided to people who occupy units that does not require parking on the city streets

Fewer than 1 parking space per unit -- may sound good to the "CLF" or the other granola suckers [a lot no longer have the teeth to chew on the crunchy stuff unless its soaked in Almond milk -- but I digress] -- but it just encourages those who can't park off-street -- to drive around wasting fuel looking for on-street parking
Click to expand...

I did.

I never had a problem.

Why would I ever want to own a car?

I have a better use for $20 a day. Why on earth should I be forced to pay for a space I dont need or want?
 
whighlander said:
Henry -- have you ever lived in a building with 0 parking spots per unit and then tried to park during a snow emergency when one side of the street is closed to parking?

I did in East Cambridge

Unless cars are banned -- parking needs to be provided to people who occupy units that does not require parking on the city streets

Fewer than 1 parking space per unit -- may sound good to the "CLF" or the other granola suckers [a lot no longer have the teeth to chew on the crunchy stuff unless its soaked in Almond milk -- but I digress] -- but it just encourages those who can't park off-street -- to drive around wasting fuel looking for on-street parking
Click to expand...

The correct number of parking spaces per unit is not 1. It is whatever fraction of cars are owned by the target demographic for the building. In many cases now it is way below 1. It could also be over 1 in a luxury building.
 
And that decision can be made by developers seeking to attract a target market.

It is not a decision that has to be forced upon us by heavy-handed government regulation.

Where's the libertarians when you need them? They always disappear when push comes to shove.
 
Matthew said:
And that decision can be made by developers seeking to attract a target market.

It is not a decision that has to be forced upon us by heavy-handed government regulation.

Where's the libertarians when you need them? They always disappear when push comes to shove.
Click to expand...

Yup, let the market talk.

If people NEED parking spots, then no one will buy into the building that doesnt offer any.

And yet the thousands of pre 1930 homes in the area with no parking seem to be selling/renting just fine...
 
The CambridgeSide Galleria offers FREE parking to *permitted* Cambridge residents during snow bans, as does the First St. garage across the street. There's no excuse for not being able to park in E Cambridge when there is a ban.

http://www2.cambridgema.gov/Traffic/Snow.cfm

This is actually better than Boston because the Prudential Center only offers a discounted rate ($10) during a snow ban. It's not free.
 
Matthew said:
And that decision can be made by developers seeking to attract a target market.

It is not a decision that has to be forced upon us by heavy-handed government regulation.

Where's the libertarians when you need them? They always disappear when push comes to shove.
Click to expand...

At the same time, wouldn't you support something to fix the # of on-street car parking permits in Boston? Otherwise, more cars get dumped into free parking on the street.
 
Of course the on-street parking permit system needs to be fixed as well. But that's more for the benefit of on-street parkers. Frankly, I think Brookline is right to ban overnight on-street parking. It's an annexation of the public commons by private interests, e.g. "tragedy of the commons." The problem of cows grazing on the Boston Common was solved by ban, for instance.

But a ban is not the only solution. Another correct way to solve that problem is to introduce a market for on-street parking permits. The city is essentially the largest owner of parking spaces in the region, yet is giving them away for free. No wonder there's "shortages" and problems. That's what happens when you give away a limited resource for free. The Soviet Union learned that lesson the hard way, with bread and other essentials. Over here, we seem to understand that for most goods, there needs to be a market. For some reason, that understanding goes completely out the window when it comes to parking.

There's similarities to the "pollution problem" where a private interest cuts its costs by dumping pollution on other people's property. The libertarian answer to this problem is to ban that kind of selfish behavior, have the polluter pay for the clean-up, and pay for proper disposal in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top