Is parking too cheap?

Matthew said:
The on-street parking is a commons. It's completely ridiculous to force developers to throw away money, to force residents to throw away money, and to force the city to throw away money, just to ensure that there will be "free" parking on the street. That's not "free" at all. That is costing all of us a lot of lost housing and opportunity. And it fills up anyway because it's not resident-permit patrolled. I lost count of the out-of-state plates that were parked there when I stopped by last week.

Yes, college students live there. So do many young professionals. There are also plenty of families. About 50% of them do not have access to cars. That's the character of the neighborhood. Why do you keep on insisting that Allston needs a minimum parking requirement of 2 vehicles per unit when half the people don't even have a car, and most of the rest don't have more than 1?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with you about free parking-- but it's simply reality that it will never go away. Since it's not going to go away, there should be a parking requirement response that accepts that. I don't have an issue with market pricing on-street parking or banning it entirely.

Regardless of whether they have cars-- the lack of off-street parking will simply translate into streets that are always filled with parked cars (Beacon Hill, South Boston, North End) or almost always filled with cars (Allston, Brighton) because of the basically free resident parking. As density increases it only makes sense to behave rationally and accept that there is a need for mandated off-street parking.

This mapping tool is great for looking at median age-- in the specific area that I'm talking about around Comm ave the median age hovers in the mid-late 20s with some tracts having 30% students. It's also got fairly low median housing costs.
 
Kahta said:
I'm not arguing with you about free parking-- but it's simply reality that it will never go away. Since it's not going to go away, there should be a parking requirement response that accepts that. I don't have an issue with market pricing on-street parking or banning it entirely.

Regardless of whether they have cars-- the lack of off-street parking will simply translate into streets that are always filled with parked cars (Beacon Hill, South Boston, North End) or almost always filled with cars (Allston, Brighton) because of the basically free resident parking. As density increases it only makes sense to behave rationally and accept that there is a need for mandated off-street parking.

This mapping tool is great for looking at median age-- in the specific area that I'm talking about around Comm ave the median age hovers in the mid-late 20s with some tracts having 30% students. It's also got fairly low median housing costs.
Click to expand...

I just want to point out that mandated off-street parking has absolutely no correlation to people parking on the street, other than that both things involve parked cars - people park in different places for different reasons, and just because a developer is required to provide off-street parking isn't going to stop some jackass from parking on the street in front of his house if he thinks it's better than parking in the back.

I'd also like to point out that there are quite a few places in the city where the streets are perpetually full of parked cars already.
 
A few things don't make sense in your response. "Free parking is never going to go away" vs "I don't have an issue with market pricing on-street parking." Er? The latter won't happen if the former is true. But I agree that it would be better to market price street parking.

The other thing that doesn't compute is that somehow "streets filled with parked cars" somehow translates into a need for mandates on off-street parking. Why? There's no connection. Think about it a little bit more: if Allston's streets are filled with parked cars with 50% car-ownership rates, and the North End's streets are filled with parked cars at 30% car-ownership rates, then why can't Allston become more like the North End? All you have to do is have more people move to Allston without bringing more cars with them. And that isn't too hard, they're already showing up and looking to live here.

The fact is that once you reach urban-levels of density the streets will always be filled with parked cars where permitted. Because street parking is one of the most inefficient ways to store cars, and there's way more people than cars at any reasonable urban level. Street parking only works without contention at low levels of density. You could force everyone to build off-street parking to try and make up the difference but that constitutes a de facto tax on development of approximately 20-30%, which is passed onto everyone else through higher prices and lowered opportunity.

P.S. I took another stroll down Brainerd Rd this morning to compare to last weekend. Even though it was past 10 a.m. most every parking spot was taken up. About half the cars had clearly been cleaned of snow recently. The street does not have permit parking and there is a high rate of out-of-state license plates. I suspect that the street is being used by many other folks than the immediate residents.
 
My friend just moved up here from the south shore. She got an apartment right on Linden St, heart of Allston. She knew about the parking issues and therefore asked me if she could leave her car in my driveway (North Brighton, 1.3 miles away). The only time she has come to get it in the six months since has been to go skiing, home, or to ikea.


After reading this thread I happened to see her tonight and asked what she would have done if she couldn't keep her car here.

She would have left it home, and just dealt with not having a car.

Then I asked her what she would have done if a parking space came with her apartment.

She said she would have kept it there, of course.

Then I asked her if she had it there if she would be more likely to use it instead of walking.

"Absolutely"


...

So, by not having the option to park, a previously auto-dependent person willingly gave up her car for all but very far away trips.

I should also mention she didn't move here because she had to, she had commuted by car for years. She moved here because she wanted to live in a vibrant, fun area, and not have to drive and sit in traffic all the time.


The most important part of our conversation was disproving the entire illogical basis for mandated parking. She wanted to move here, that was a fact. She accepted that a consequence of living in a healthy urban environment necessitated not having free access to her car at all times, or even not at all.

However, if given the option to store her car on site, not only would she have, but she also would drive it for short trips, thereby contributing to the traffic, pollution, and all other negative extremities of urban auto ownership.

If anything, parking minimums are contributing to overall traffic and parking shortages. They are encouraging people to drive even though they dont need to, because they can.
 
Will Ed Glaeser please identify himself to the forum?

EDWARD L. GLAESER
Boston’s plague of cheap parking

IF FRIDAY brings the fierce snowstorm that meteorologists have been predicting, Boston will declare an emergency, leading to a citywide scramble for parking alternatives off snow arteries. The drivers who have to move their cars will be annoyed — especially if they have to pay for pricey space in private garages. But on-street parking shouldn’t be a cheap alternative to off-street parking. Street-level space is far more valuable than concrete-covered spots 200 feet up, and parkers should pay more, not less, for the privilege of being on the ground.

Drivers view off-street and on-street parking in radically different ways, because they emerge from opposite spheres — private and public — that carry different expectations. Parking garages are built at great cost by an entrepreneur. And as the quotation from “The Godfather” goes, “Certainly, he can present a bill for such services. After all, we are not Communists.”

On-street public parking, in contrast, is created in communal spaces and maintained by tax dollars. The instinct that common property should be accessible for free is deep-seeded; a 1937 legal challenge objected to parking meters as “a fee for the free use of the streets, which is a right of all citizens.” But that instinct is wrong. Just because something is publicly provided doesn’t mean that it should be free, or only $1.25 per hour. If a commodity is as scarce as land in Boston, we need a fair way of allocating it.

When public policy underprices things, as the Soviet Union once underpriced groceries, the result is long lines and shortages. People pay with their time, instead of their money. In Boston, the real price of seemingly cheap streetside parking also includes all the minutes drivers spend cruising around looking for it — and the congestion they create for everyone else.


UCLA transportation expert Donald Shoup has long urged that on-street parking rates be high enough to create an 85 percent occupancy rate — enough turnover to leave a spot empty almost on every block. Achieving this goal would require different meter rates in different neighborhoods, but new technologies will make it easy to set rates that change over time.

On-street parking shouldn’t be a cheap alternative to off-street parking.


Boston should also charge more for overnight parking in neighborhoods where there are more cars than spaces. This can be done with electronic in-vehicle parking meters that sell space on a nightly or monthly basis.

Eventually, fees for on-street parking should be similar to fees for off-street parking. If it costs $30,000 or more to build a parking spot, then that is the true cost of providing parking in Boston. On-street parking carries a huge opportunity cost. Boston could get far more than $30,000 for a permanent parking spot on Newbury Street, which could be used by a food truck or even a mobile boutique. It could also be used for other valuable purposes, such as bike lanes or extra pedestrian space.

Drivers like me shouldn’t be bribed with more taxpayer-funded highways or underpriced on-street parking; we should be should be charged for the congestion we impose and the pollution we create. If drivers are unwilling to cover the cost of what the city gives up by maintaining valuable space as on-street parking, then the space should be used for something else.

The obvious retort is that some drivers have more time to spare than money, and can’t afford to pay more. If the city wants to limit the hardship that could be caused by higher rates, it could provide lower-income residents with fixed-value meter cards to be used in their own neighborhood or simply resold. This would mitigate short-term suffering and still let prices work.

Higher meter rates would mean more revenue, and a chance for the city to do something great for everyone. Snazzier buses, better bike lanes, and investments that brighten city streets are all possibilities if the city charges the right amount for on-street parking. Higher rates also mean that, when snow starts coming down, people who move their cars will have less trouble finding places to put them.
Click to expand...

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/02/07/boston-plague-cheap-parking/XxeQ6jvF6D0yuEX0HIquaK/story.html
 
Will Ed Glaeser please identify himself to the forum?
Click to expand...

Haha! Choo, I think the same thing about once a month when reading Glaeser in the Globe. I was able to speak with him a few times when I was at the Kennedy School - real smart guy.
Glaeser's "Triumph of the City" is a great book - though it will strike some on this board as a bit obvious. Give it to your friends who still think their front lawn is "green" because it's green.
 
Last edited:
Ha! If he is a secret lurker, Archboston AMA with Prof Glaeser??!?!?
 
Eventually, fees for on-street parking should be similar to fees for off-street parking. If it costs $30,000 or more to build a parking spot, then that is the true cost of providing parking in Boston. On-street parking carries a huge opportunity cost. Boston could get far more than $30,000 for a permanent parking spot on Newbury Street, which could be used by a food truck or even a mobile boutique. It could also be used for other valuable purposes, such as bike lanes or extra pedestrian space.
Click to expand...

He took the words right out of my mouth, although I don't think 'similar' is going far enough - if it costs you the same to park on-street as it does off-street, then there's no incentive to choose one over the other.

Because it's a lot easier to 'hide' garage parking than it is to hide a row of parked cars on the street, and because it's better to have people driving to a transit station and parking there than it is parking at their final destination, it should always be cheaper to park at a garage than it is to park on the street. (This should NOT apply to surface lots, as that might accidentally incentivize turning those into garages instead of developing on them.)
 
http://bostonglobe.com/business/201...has-critics/Nrm2of6bXlSmBqsJz5cScK/story.html

The Allston neighbors’ skepticism is validated by, of all places, Portland, Ore. — considered one of the leading cities for promoting environmentally friendly urban development that looks past the country’s traditional car culture. There, city officials found that many new projects built without spaces on-site — as Mariscal first proposed — threatened to make parking on nearby streets worse. A city survey found residents of buildings without parking were no less likely to own a car than those in buildings with on-site spaces, and most ended up parking on nearby streets.

Next week, Portland will consider new zoning that would require property owners in certain areas to provide a minimum number of spaces on-site, depending on the size of the building.
Click to expand...
 
Apples and oranges, Kahta The developer was talking about putting language in tenants' leases that says they promise not to own a car (i.e., they'll be evicted if they buy a car). The Portland example appears to refer to buildings that just don't supply parking.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Apples and oranges, Kahta The developer was talking about putting language in tenants' leases that says they promise not to own a car (i.e., they'll be evicted if they buy a car). The Portland example appears to refer to buildings that just don't supply parking.
Click to expand...

And how is the promising not to own a car going to be checked up on? Plenty of people already never re-register their car when they move to MA or they leave it in someone else's name, like their parents, after college.
 
Kahta said:
And how is the promising not to own a car going to be checked up on? Plenty of people already never re-register their car when they move to MA or they leave it in someone else's name, like their parents, after college.
Click to expand...

Same way smokers get outed in non-smoking buildings. Management or other tenants smell the smoke (or in this case see the car).
I agree, it's not fool proof, but it's also not the same as having no rule against car ownership (as in Portland).
Too bad ... would have been an interesting experiment ...
 
Keep in mind even the minimums that Portland is considering are 0.25 per unit and can be reduced through benefits such as car-sharing. They also only apply to large projects of 40+ units.

That's a far cry from 2 per unit for every single building.

I still think it's dumb to impose minimums. Parking is a commodity, it should be managed on the market like any other piece of floor space. Trying to guarantee "free parking" for everyone is a disaster in a city. If that's all that matters to you, then city living is not going to work out for you.

Meanwhile Washington DC is considering removing its minimums and Los Angeles is experimenting too.
 
Parking is a commodity, it should be managed on the market like any other piece of floor space.
Click to expand...

Matthew I agree with 99% of what you say, but when you shout "free markets" from the rooftops it doesn't jive with your feelings about parking lots or parking garages.
(Devil's Advocate): Why should zoning impose limits on building parking (garages or surface lots) but not impose limits on building without parking?
It's about more than free markets, right? It's about externalities and urban planning and sprawl ...
 
Is it free market when subsidized roads and subsidized gasoline cause an extremely high demand for parking garages that overwhelms normal city use?

I'm not objecting to all parking garages. I'm not objecting even to all zoning codes -- public safety is an important goal.

Parking garages are just another use, like many others, that can mix into the city fabric. That's how they were originally envisioned, in fact. If you look at early 20th century cities, it was generally expected that people with cars would purchase or lease a space in a garage. New York even banned overnight street parking at one point. The garages fit into neighborhoods; some of the buildings were even beautiful.

But like with any other use, it can overwhelm a neighborhood. Jacobs called this the self-destruction of diversity. It doesn't matter whether it's shoe stores dominating over the place, banks, coffee shops, or parking garages -- it's bad news. And parking garages were the beneficiary of having customers literally driven to them by urban renewal highway building. So that's a pretty good leg up.

I don't like the idea of a parking maximum, such as the one in downtown Boston based on the Clean Air Act, but I also don't see a better way of avoiding a downward spiral after we spent many billions of dollars making highway access so easy there.
 
I'm surprised that a neighborhood like Allston has a two car minimum zoning rule. That is higher than the recent re-zoning established for Roslindale, where people are far more likely to own and use cars. Is it a question of number of adults per unit or something? Or is it a question of higher population density in Allston making available street parking less likely? I can't say whether two is the right number, but I am curious about the thinking that sets it there for Allston but at 1.5 in Roslindale (and variances for less seem easy to obtain, CFE sub-station project).
 
Even the North End has a 2 car:unit ratio. The zoning is just completely out of whack.
 
New parking minimums (or at least recommended minimums, I'm not sure if its official) in Central Square is 0 space/unit for studios and 1 bedroom and 0.5 space/unit for 2+ bedroom. A welcome change leading into what I expect to be a 10 year building boom in the area.
 
So I take it the NIMBYs in Central have been conquered?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top