Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NewMobilityCafe] carsharing

Expand Messages
  • Richard Layman
    ... Residents will have one parking space per private house, private flats have an 85% parking ratio and affordable dwellings 0.6 spaces per dwelling. The
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      What you wrote about Northolt, really Grand Union Village, sounded very interesting.  However, reading this document: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/travelplans/rpt/makingresidentialtravelplans5775?page=29, it states that carsharing was promoted more in terms of limiting the ownership of second cars.  It states:
       
      -------
      Residents will have one parking space per private house, private flats have an 85% parking ratio and affordable dwellings 0.6 spaces per dwelling. The limit on car parking spaces and the inclusion of a car club and car sharing are intended to discourage households from owning more than one car.
      ------
       
      Factors influencing the willingness to carshare would depend on built environment density, availability and cost of parking, variety and proximity of amenities, transit efficiency and availability, and specific household issues.  
       
      There are carsharing households that don't own cars that do have children.  Probably willingness to carshare depends somewhat on age and household type.  A big factor is parking availability as you point out.  And cost of owning a car (and cost of rent or home ownership vis-a-vis income).  My girlfriend says she saves $600/mo. not owning a car.  She is a member of a carsharing service.  And she does have a transit pass paid by work (this is an additional saving).
       
      It happens where we live is two blocks from a busline that goes right to her office (although the efficiency of the line varies considerably, but takes no more than 45 minutes, and she is deposited a few feet from her office).  There are other buslines 4 blocks away.  Both sets of lines go to subway stops.  There is also a subway station and buslines going east, to a station about 1.5 miles away, but it is much less efficient in terms of where we usually go so we hardly use it.
       
      Arlington County, Virginia (www.commuterpage.com) has at least one research report on carsharing including survey and demographic information.
       
      I won't have a chance to dig through these documents for a few days, but they look worthwhile: Sustainability Checklist (SPG1), How to do an Urban Design Statement (SPG5), Transport Assessment Reports for Developments (SPG20) and Green Travel Plans (SPG21).
       
      Richard Layman

      Simon Norton <S.Norton@...> wrote:
      What is the availability of garaging in the Northolt development in London where
      carsharing was provided as a condition of development ?

      If householders were allowed free parking on the street, or even parking at the
      nominal rates characteristic of most residents' parking schemes, it isn't
      surprising that the scheme isn't a resounding success.

      Every unit of land devoted to car garaging in any new development means a unit
      of housing has to be diverted to greenfield sites, with their high levels of
      traffic generation. The cost which householders have to pay to keep cars should
      reflect this external cost as well as the full market value of the land occupied
      by their cars. I suspect that if householders who opted for carsharing (or, even
      better, full reliance on sustainable modes) instead of car ownership were given
      a fair rebate on the cost of their housing, carsharing might take off. And, very
      important, the key issue of affordability of housing would be relieved -- for
      those prepared to forswear car ownership.

      I am fed up with residential streets where every acre of streetspace is occupied
      by parked cars. This makes it difficult for essential services to get access,
      and slows down buses (in the case of those roads that are bus routes). It also
      obstructs pedestrian movements and visibility, especially for children who
      aren't tall enough to look over the cars. I'm sure that other people can add
      other problems.

      Simon Norton


    • Simon Norton
      Well in that case, maybe the people of Grand Union Village aren t participating in the carsharing scheme because they find 1 privately owned car per household
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Well in that case, maybe the people of Grand Union Village aren't participating
        in the carsharing scheme because they find 1 privately owned car per household
        sufficient. In which case it's good news for the planners, not bad news.

        As I said, though, I believe we need to reduce car ownership well below 1 per
        household to create a sustainable transport system. What proportion of
        households need their cars often enough for individual ownership to be
        appropriate ? Given good urban design I would guess perhaps 20%, but have any
        studies been carried out ?

        Simon Norton
      • Chris Bradshaw
        ... of housing has to be diverted to greenfield sites, with their high levels of traffic generation. The cost which householders have to pay to keep cars
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 6, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Simon Norton:

          > Every unit of land devoted to car garaging in any new development means a
          > unit
          of housing has to be diverted to greenfield sites, with their high levels of
          traffic generation. The cost which householders have to pay to keep cars
          should
          reflect this external cost as well as the full market value of the land
          occupied
          by their cars. I suspect that if householders who opted for carsharing (or,
          even
          better, full reliance on sustainable modes) instead of car ownership were
          given
          a fair rebate on the cost of their housing, carsharing might take off. And,
          very
          important, the key issue of affordability of housing would be relieved --
          for
          those prepared to forswear car ownership.

          Donald Shoup makes this connection in _The High Cost of Free Parking_ in
          pointing out how costly parking is, and how much land it occupies on a
          housing site, partly because it require ground access. This means that
          people who chose this option and want to save many $$s need to buy no-car
          housing, in which there is no off-street spots that are "owned" by each
          unit.

          > I am fed up with residential streets where every acre of streetspace is
          > occupied
          by parked cars. This makes it difficult for essential services to get
          access,
          and slows down buses (in the case of those roads that are bus routes). It
          also
          obstructs pedestrian movements and visibility, especially for children who
          aren't tall enough to look over the cars. I'm sure that other people can add
          other problems.

          I disagree to the extent that storing cars on the street is superior to
          storing them on adjacent properties, either on the front setback, beside the
          housing unit, or groups behind the building (the last requiring the most
          asphalt that "starves" the soil of water run-off.

          1. street parking requires about half the land area as off-street parking.
          Even with the latter being located in the front setback, a street spot has
          to be sacrificed to provide it with 24/7 access. Also parallel parking is
          also more efficient in its demand for access space.

          2. On-street parking doesn't require the driver to cross a pedestrian
          thoroughfare at an uncontrolled point (and usually causes the curb to be
          dipped).

          3. The non-driver occupants of cars (often elderly, disabled, very young, or
          package-burdened) are provided, via on-street parallel spots, with a
          pedestrian sanctuary on one side of vehicle. Such occupants are often
          victimized -- even in private laneways -- by drivers backing up without good
          visibility.

          4. The route from the street-parked car to the occupants' ultimate
          destination (or origin) will be all within the public corridor, rather than
          over private spaces separated from the 'eyes on the street' natural
          surveillance system.

          As to short pedestrians being at risk with on street parking, such is also
          the case in the massive parking lots off-street, where there are even fewer
          controls and fewer 'eyes.' Part of this problem is that highway-capable
          cars are brought into cities where they are too large, too tall, and driven
          too fast for the pedestrian environments they 'share.' A carshare regime
          for car-access for all in cities and towns would require such cars to be
          located on the fringes, replaced by a few shared city/neighbourhood cars,
          which would be much smaller (and softer) as they would no longer need the
          crash-protected or the climate-moderating shell thanks to slower speeds and
          shorter trip distances, and to the fact that they would have reduced
          capacity for occupants and cargo.

          In a carsharing regime, the ratio of cars for each adult will progressively
          drop, so that not only will there not any longer be a parking space deficit
          to accommodate off-street, but even the space on the street -- the best
          place to located shared vehicles -- will evenutally far exceed the demand,
          allowing for gradual conversion of this curb lanes for living spaces, a la
          David Engicht's "street reclaiming."

          BTW, the point raised by Layman, that the specific scheme in seems to be
          focused on eliminating _second_ cars, is wrong, since the ratios for two of
          the three housing types is less than 1.0 spaces each. In the 1.0 units,
          there will be still a need for a car-free buyer to off-set each buyer with a
          second car.

          Chris Bradshaw
          Ottawa
        • Simon Norton
          The benefits of carsharing to society depend on it taking cars out of use. Would it therefore be a good idea if car clubs bought their cars from their
          Message 4 of 13 , May 12 1:18 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            The benefits of carsharing to society depend on it taking cars out of use. Would
            it therefore be a good idea if car clubs bought their cars from their
            prospective members ? Compared with buying new cars this would avoid the
            downside of loading these cars onto the secondhand market, and it would also
            reduce the capital cost of setting the schemes up (though this would be
            compensated by the extra maintenance costs of used cars).

            If car clubs did seek to buy cars from their members, would one expect the
            number willing to sell would be more or less than the vehicle requirement of the
            club ? If the former, what types of car would the club look for to buy ? Would
            there be any merit in governments underwriting a scheme whereby they would buy
            any car (for selling on or scrapping if it couldn't be used) on condition that
            its owner didn't replace it ?

            Have any of these ideas been considered in existing carshare schemes ?

            Simon Norton
          • David Levinger
            Yes, Simon, In fact Katherine Freund has established an entire ride sharing platform on this very concept. They enable an alternative ride currency that
            Message 5 of 13 , May 13 4:11 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, Simon,

              In fact Katherine Freund has established an entire ride sharing platform on this very concept.  They enable an alternative ride currency that enables bartering and banking rides, too.  Their platform is being re-architected to be extensible and adaptable so that it might be usable in many parts of the world.

              See:  www.ITNAmerica.org

              -David


              David Levinger  |  The Mobility Education Foundation  |  Seattle  |  (206) 390-8118  |  david@...


              On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Simon Norton <S.Norton@...> wrote:


              The benefits of carsharing to society depend on it taking cars out of use. Would
              it therefore be a good idea if car clubs bought their cars from their
              prospective members ? Compared with buying new cars this would avoid the
              downside of loading these cars onto the secondhand market, and it would also
              reduce the capital cost of setting the schemes up (though this would be
              compensated by the extra maintenance costs of used cars).

              If car clubs did seek to buy cars from their members, would one expect the
              number willing to sell would be more or less than the vehicle requirement of the
              club ? If the former, what types of car would the club look for to buy ? Would
              there be any merit in governments underwriting a scheme whereby they would buy
              any car (for selling on or scrapping if it couldn't be used) on condition that
              its owner didn't replace it ?

              Have any of these ideas been considered in existing carshare schemes ?

              Simon Norton

              .


            • Simon Norton
              About 25 years ago there was a threat of a large underground car park under one of Cambridge s commons and there was a vigorous and successful campaign to
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 21, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                About 25 years ago there was a threat of a large underground car park under one
                of Cambridge's commons and there was a vigorous and successful campaign to
                oppose it by getting the County Council to go for park & ride instead.

                The problem is that they haven't progressed since then and still regard park &
                ride as the solution to all of Cambridge's traffic problems. The guided busway
                (currently over 2 years behind schedule and well over budget) is seen as
                essentially a glorified park & ride system. Meanwhile conventional bus services
                have been neglected and are now under grave threat all over the county.

                Campaigners have tended to see park & ride as a way of increasing car parking
                capacity serving a city without the need to actually allocate valuable land for
                car parking. The system also relieves the central area of the city but can
                actually increases problems on some radial routes leading to the car parks.

                The point I am trying to make is that park & ride is part of a solution, but it
                is not in itself a solution. As long as there are spaces in the city centre
                there will be traffic to use them, and there will be pressure to make park &
                ride competitive, which may mean lower fares than on bus services used by
                non-motorists and buses racing past stops even though these have few other buses
                serving them. However, if local authorities went for a complete phase-out of
                central parking except in cases of need then things might be better.

                I have now started to wonder whether things might be similar with carsharing. In
                other words, can it give worthwhile improvements unless accompanied by a
                phase-out of individual car ownership ? Does anyone have any evidence to show it
                can ?

                Simon Norton
              • roy russell
                Simon, I haven t seen any formal study that ties the reduction in registered vehicles with the adoption of car sharing. However, I do know that in both
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 22, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Simon,

                  I haven't seen any formal study that ties the reduction in registered vehicles with the adoption of car sharing.  However, I do know that in both Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC while there has been an increase in population over the past 10 years the number of registered vehicles has dropped, generally consistent with around 20 vehicles removed for every car sharing vehicle added.  These numbers are also consistent with surveys of car sharing members who report that they would own a personal vehicle were it not for the availability of car sharing.

                  I do think a preferable alternative to building a new 1,000 car parking structure could be to promote car sharing.  If conditions are right for it then it should be easy to displace that many personal vehicles with far fewer shared ones.  In Cambridge, MA with a similar  population (though higher population density) to Cambridge, UK, vehicle registrations dropped 2,685 between 2003 and 2008.  In DC vehicle registrations dropped 14,900 between 2005 and 2008.


                  -Roy Russell
                  --- In NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, Simon Norton <S.Norton@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > About 25 years ago there was a threat of a large underground car park under one
                  > of Cambridge's commons and there was a vigorous and successful campaign to
                  > oppose it by getting the County Council to go for park & ride instead.
                  >
                  > The problem is that they haven't progressed since then and still regard park &
                  > ride as the solution to all of Cambridge's traffic problems. The guided busway
                  > (currently over 2 years behind schedule and well over budget) is seen as
                  > essentially a glorified park & ride system. Meanwhile conventional bus services
                  > have been neglected and are now under grave threat all over the county.
                  >
                  > Campaigners have tended to see park & ride as a way of increasing car parking
                  > capacity serving a city without the need to actually allocate valuable land for
                  > car parking. The system also relieves the central area of the city but can
                  > actually increases problems on some radial routes leading to the car parks.
                  >
                  > The point I am trying to make is that park & ride is part of a solution, but it
                  > is not in itself a solution. As long as there are spaces in the city centre
                  > there will be traffic to use them, and there will be pressure to make park &
                  > ride competitive, which may mean lower fares than on bus services used by
                  > non-motorists and buses racing past stops even though these have few other buses
                  > serving them. However, if local authorities went for a complete phase-out of
                  > central parking except in cases of need then things might be better.
                  >
                  > I have now started to wonder whether things might be similar with carsharing. In
                  > other words, can it give worthwhile improvements unless accompanied by a
                  > phase-out of individual car ownership ? Does anyone have any evidence to show it
                  > can ?
                  >
                  > Simon Norton
                  >
                • Richard Layman
                  Arlington County did a study after their initial support of carsharing (they were the first jurisdiction in the DC region to allow the cars to be parked on the
                  Message 8 of 13 , Mar 22, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Arlington County did a study after their initial support of carsharing (they were the first jurisdiction in the DC region to allow the cars to be parked on the street, in dedicated parking spaces), but it was 4 years ago or so and I don't remember the results.

                    The point is that one particular thing is never enough, you have to have a well balanced transportation demand management program, a great transit system, compact development land use policies, etc. so that a greater number of trips can be accomplished by walking or biking (or transit), etc.

                    Alexandria VA has just released a new TDM plan which I haven't yet read.

                    Arlington County's master transportation plan is  "beautiful" conceptually in that each plan element derives from the goals and policies and is in turn congruent within the element with those policies.  E.g., since a primary goal is the reduction of single occupancy vehicle trips, it means that the parking and curbside management element doesn't prioritize individual car ownership, but accords streetspace to car sharing, transit stops, etc.

                    Seattle's Urban Mobility Plan is also excellent and worth reading...

                    The biggest lesson from the experience with sustainable transportation in cities like Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Portland, etc. ought to be that change is a process that starts with a breakthrough vision, but a vision that is supplemented by incremental improvements of a substantive nature going forward.

                    Note that for all their efforts, DC's mode split for walking/biking/transit commuting is something like double that of Portland's.  We have the right spatial pattern (and a strong employment center at the core), plus heavy rail transit, so we get away with insubstantial transportation demand management planning.

                    One thing in and of itself is never enough.  DC has proved that with transit.  We do a lot of transportation planning badly, but we can get away with it because we have a great spatial pattern bequeathed to us by L'Enfant.  When you have a spatial pattern that derives from the Walking City era (1800-1890), when you add transit service back and bike infrastructure, it extends the already extant land use patterns that promote placemaking, compact development, and sustainable transportation.

                    A parking garage/park and ride on the edge of a city is a 1970s policy.  It's 2011.  And there have been 40 years of knowledge gains in the interim...



                    --- On Tue, 3/22/11, roy russell <roy@...> wrote:

                    From: roy russell <roy@...>
                    Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: carsharing
                    To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 12:17 PM

                     

                    Simon,

                    I haven't seen any formal study that ties the reduction in registered vehicles with the adoption of car sharing.  However, I do know that in both Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC while there has been an increase in population over the past 10 years the number of registered vehicles has dropped, generally consistent with around 20 vehicles removed for every car sharing vehicle added.  These numbers are also consistent with surveys of car sharing members who report that they would own a personal vehicle were it not for the availability of car sharing.

                    I do think a preferable alternative to building a new 1,000 car parking structure could be to promote car sharing.  If conditions are right for it then it should be easy to displace that many personal vehicles with far fewer shared ones.  In Cambridge, MA with a similar  population (though higher population density) to Cambridge, UK, vehicle registrations dropped 2,685 between 2003 and 2008.  In DC vehicle registrations dropped 14,900 between 2005 and 2008.


                    -Roy Russell
                    --- In NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, Simon Norton <S.Norton@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > About 25 years ago there was a threat of a large underground car park under one
                    > of Cambridge's commons and there was a vigorous and successful campaign to
                    > oppose it by getting the County Council to go for park & ride instead.
                    >
                    > The problem is that they haven't progressed since then and still regard park &
                    > ride as the solution to all of Cambridge's traffic problems. The guided busway
                    > (currently over 2 years behind schedule and well over budget) is seen as
                    > essentially a glorified park & ride system. Meanwhile conventional bus services
                    > have been neglected and are now under grave threat all over the county.
                    >
                    > Campaigners have tended to see park & ride as a way of increasing car parking
                    > capacity serving a city without the need to actually allocate valuable land for
                    > car parking. The system also relieves the central area of the city but can
                    > actually increases problems on some radial routes leading to the car parks.
                    >
                    > The point I am trying to make is that park & ride is part of a solution, but it
                    > is not in itself a solution. As long as there are spaces in the city centre
                    > there will be traffic to use them, and there will be pressure to make park &
                    > ride competitive, which may mean lower fares than on bus services used by
                    > non-motorists and buses racing past stops even though these have few other buses
                    > serving them. However, if local authorities went for a complete phase-out of
                    > central parking except in cases of need then things might be better.
                    >
                    > I have now started to wonder whether things might be similar with carsharing. In
                    > other words, can it give worthwhile improvements unless accompanied by a
                    > phase-out of individual car ownership ? Does anyone have any evidence to show it
                    > can ?
                    >
                    > Simon Norton
                    >

                  • Larry Shaeffer
                    In Philly back in 02, those factors were why it was such an easy sell to get the city and parking authority on board to provide on-street parking spaces for
                    Message 9 of 13 , Mar 23, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In Philly back in ' 02, those factors were why it was such an easy sell to get the city and parking authority on board to provide on-street parking spaces for PhillyCarShare. Many of the center city neighborhoods were pressing for parking garages to alleviate a perceived on-street parking shortage for residents. At $40,000 per space (way more now) not counting land costs, the city wasn't anxious to start building.
                      BTW: parking study by city planning commish showed there was no real parking shortage in those neighborhoods, it was all perception-"if I can't park in front of my house, there's a parking shortage"
                      Larry Shaeffer

                      On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Richard Layman <rlaymandc@...> wrote:
                       

                      Arlington County did a study after their initial support of carsharing (they were the first jurisdiction in the DC region to allow the cars to be parked on the street, in dedicated parking spaces), but it was 4 years ago or so and I don't remember the results.

                      The point is that one particular thing is never enough, you have to have a well balanced transportation demand management program, a great transit system, compact development land use policies, etc. so that a greater number of trips can be accomplished by walking or biking (or transit), etc.

                      Alexandria VA has just released a new TDM plan which I haven't yet read.

                      Arlington County's master transportation plan is  "beautiful" conceptually in that each plan element derives from the goals and policies and is in turn congruent within the element with those policies.  E.g., since a primary goal is the reduction of single occupancy vehicle trips, it means that the parking and curbside management element doesn't prioritize individual car ownership, but accords streetspace to car sharing, transit stops, etc.

                      Seattle's Urban Mobility Plan is also excellent and worth reading...

                      The biggest lesson from the experience with sustainable transportation in cities like Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Portland, etc. ought to be that change is a process that starts with a breakthrough vision, but a vision that is supplemented by incremental improvements of a substantive nature going forward.

                      Note that for all their efforts, DC's mode split for walking/biking/transit commuting is something like double that of Portland's.  We have the right spatial pattern (and a strong employment center at the core), plus heavy rail transit, so we get away with insubstantial transportation demand management planning.

                      One thing in and of itself is never enough.  DC has proved that with transit.  We do a lot of transportation planning badly, but we can get away with it because we have a great spatial pattern bequeathed to us by L'Enfant.  When you have a spatial pattern that derives from the Walking City era (1800-1890), when you add transit service back and bike infrastructure, it extends the already extant land use patterns that promote placemaking, compact development, and sustainable transportation.

                      A parking garage/park and ride on the edge of a city is a 1970s policy.  It's 2011.  And there have been 40 years of knowledge gains in the interim...



                      --- On Tue, 3/22/11, roy russell <roy@...> wrote:

                      From: roy russell <roy@...>
                      Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: carsharing
                      To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 12:17 PM


                       

                      Simon,

                      I haven't seen any formal study that ties the reduction in registered vehicles with the adoption of car sharing.  However, I do know that in both Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC while there has been an increase in population over the past 10 years the number of registered vehicles has dropped, generally consistent with around 20 vehicles removed for every car sharing vehicle added.  These numbers are also consistent with surveys of car sharing members who report that they would own a personal vehicle were it not for the availability of car sharing.

                      I do think a preferable alternative to building a new 1,000 car parking structure could be to promote car sharing.  If conditions are right for it then it should be easy to displace that many personal vehicles with far fewer shared ones.  In Cambridge, MA with a similar  population (though higher population density) to Cambridge, UK, vehicle registrations dropped 2,685 between 2003 and 2008.  In DC vehicle registrations dropped 14,900 between 2005 and 2008.


                      -Roy Russell
                      --- In NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, Simon Norton <S.Norton@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > About 25 years ago there was a threat of a large underground car park under one
                      > of Cambridge's commons and there was a vigorous and successful campaign to
                      > oppose it by getting the County Council to go for park & ride instead.
                      >
                      > The problem is that they haven't progressed since then and still regard park &
                      > ride as the solution to all of Cambridge's traffic problems. The guided busway
                      > (currently over 2 years behind schedule and well over budget) is seen as
                      > essentially a glorified park & ride system. Meanwhile conventional bus services
                      > have been neglected and are now under grave threat all over the county.
                      >
                      > Campaigners have tended to see park & ride as a way of increasing car parking
                      > capacity serving a city without the need to actually allocate valuable land for
                      > car parking. The system also relieves the central area of the city but can
                      > actually increases problems on some radial routes leading to the car parks.
                      >
                      > The point I am trying to make is that park & ride is part of a solution, but it
                      > is not in itself a solution. As long as there are spaces in the city centre
                      > there will be traffic to use them, and there will be pressure to make park &
                      > ride competitive, which may mean lower fares than on bus services used by
                      > non-motorists and buses racing past stops even though these have few other buses
                      > serving them. However, if local authorities went for a complete phase-out of
                      > central parking except in cases of need then things might be better.
                      >
                      > I have now started to wonder whether things might be similar with carsharing. In
                      > other words, can it give worthwhile improvements unless accompanied by a
                      > phase-out of individual car ownership ? Does anyone have any evidence to show it
                      > can ?
                      >
                      > Simon Norton
                      >


                    • Simon Norton
                      Regarding Dave Holladay s post, I think it is important to distinguish the individual and social benefits of carsharing as against car ownership. I believe
                      Message 10 of 13 , Oct 24, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Regarding Dave Holladay's post, I think it is important to distinguish the
                        individual and social benefits of carsharing as against car ownership.

                        I believe that there are key benefits that can't be captured as long as
                        carsharing remains a niche market.

                        In many residential areas every available inch of roadspace is used for parking.
                        This means that when people need to have work done on their houses it's
                        difficult to find parking space for builders or whoever. It also means less
                        space for cyclists and pedestrians. When the road is used by buses, it can
                        sometimes mean significant delay for them as they have to move aside every time
                        they encounter a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction -- and if one
                        suggests that for that reason parking shouldn't be allowed (at least on both
                        sides of the road) one will be asked where else people can keep their cars.

                        New developments could be much more compact if less space was needed for parking
                        and garaging. This would benefit walkers and cyclists, and also lead to less
                        loss of land.

                        One problem is that charges for residential parking are far too low. In my area
                        of Cambridge, for example, an annual permit costs 52 pounds, or less than 17p a
                        day based on a 6 day week. By contrast a visitor's permit (which can be used by
                        builders etc.) costs 8 pounds for 5 days, i.e. nearly 10 times as much per day.

                        For new developments, of course, residential parking has to be designed out from
                        the beginning of we want people to rely on carsharing for those mobility needs
                        that are unsuited to other modes of transport (which for properly planned
                        developments in countries with integrated transport networks would be virtually
                        nil anyway).

                        Incidentally in response to Chris Bradshaw's posting I agree that the system of
                        specialised groups is leading to duplication in what we are receiving.

                        Simon Norton
                      • Richard Layman
                        I write about this issue from time to time myself.  I take a kind of cultural studies approach to the issue, asking whether or not we should privilege car
                        Message 11 of 13 , Oct 25, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I write about this issue from time to time myself.  I take a kind of "cultural studies" approach to the issue, asking whether or not we should privilege car owners over car users.  Car users are supported by carsharing schemes.  In 2005, I came to realize when DC decided to charge car sharing firms for space use at commercial rates, that really we are dealing with questions of privilege for the use of scarce public space, and that current policy typically privileges car owners with maximal "right" to the use of public space (parking lanes on roads) for car storage.   

                          - http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/10/high-cost-of-free-parking-revisited.html

                          I am impressed that Cambridge charges 52 pounds for a residential permit.  In DC, until recently the cost was $15/year (some places, including my block, don't have permit requirements depending on demand, but this would make it harder for me to park if I had a car, in other areas of the ward), now it's $30/year.  In North America, the only example of a significantly higher pricing for residential parking is in Toronto, where it can be as high as $50/mo. (Canadian) depending on various factors.  San Francisco charges $96/year and limits the number of permits that can be obtained by address.

                          - http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2010/11/residential-parking-permit-pricing.html
                          - http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2010/01/toronto-rules-or-charging-higher-rates.html

                          Lately DC has upped the rates significantly for carsharing firms, which comes back to the users in terms of higher rates by $2-$3/hour.  This pisses me off.  It means that in using a carshare 1-3 times/month, I pay far more for the use of public space for car storage than residents who own cars.

                          While I still don't think they do it perfectly, Arlington County Virginia's master transportation plan element on "parking and curbside management" does get into this issue somewhat.  It could be better, but it is a start.

                          -------

                          Goal #2 of the Arlington County Master Transportation Plan is stated as “Move More People Without More Traffic” and it specifically calls for the reduction of the proportion of single-occupant-vehicle travel and shifts from motor vehicles to other modes.
                          --------

                          Because the plan's goals include limiting single occupancy vehicle trips, the P&CM element prioritizes use of curbspace accordingly, so theoretically carsharing spots are prioritized over spots for single vehicle owners, and compared to DC, ArCo does not look at carsharing's use of this space as mostly an opportunity for income, but as a way to manage the demand for scarce parking space inventory.

                          - http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2012/05/missing-point-about-performance-parking.html

                          ANYWAY, my biggest point on this general issue is that transportation plans are supposed to provide comparative examples and better practice guidance and they most often DO NOT DO SO.  By doing so they create a context where these conflicts can be identified and addressed and argued about even if policy remains the same.  It also provides cover for elected officials on these issues, which tend to be very volatile.

                          DC is engaged in a parking planning initiative right now in the context of developing a transpo vision plan but they are mostly doing this aspect in house and the people involved, other than the top planners, don't seem to know very much about parking.  Plus they aren't introducing into the mix comparative examples from other jurisdictions, so as a result the ideaspace ends up being pretty dull and static.

                          Even when participants say good things or make points that indicate that change is possible, most of the facilitators don't know enough about the subject to pick up on their points and the opportunity is lost.

                          After participating in one meeting, I offered to facilitate (at no charge) but they blew me off.

                          Richard Layman
                          transportation planner (bicycle facilities, www.bicyclepass.com)
                          Washington, DC


                          From: Simon Norton <S.Norton@...>
                          To: newmobilitycafe@yahoogroups.com; worldtransport@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:11 PM
                          Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] carsharing

                           
                          Regarding Dave Holladay's post, I think it is important to distinguish the
                          individual and social benefits of carsharing as against car ownership.

                          I believe that there are key benefits that can't be captured as long as
                          carsharing remains a niche market.

                          In many residential areas every available inch of roadspace is used for parking.
                          This means that when people need to have work done on their houses it's
                          difficult to find parking space for builders or whoever. It also means less
                          space for cyclists and pedestrians. When the road is used by buses, it can
                          sometimes mean significant delay for them as they have to move aside every time
                          they encounter a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction -- and if one
                          suggests that for that reason parking shouldn't be allowed (at least on both
                          sides of the road) one will be asked where else people can keep their cars.

                          New developments could be much more compact if less space was needed for parking
                          and garaging. This would benefit walkers and cyclists, and also lead to less
                          loss of land.

                          One problem is that charges for residential parking are far too low. In my area
                          of Cambridge, for example, an annual permit costs 52 pounds, or less than 17p a
                          day based on a 6 day week. By contrast a visitor's permit (which can be used by
                          builders etc.) costs 8 pounds for 5 days, i.e. nearly 10 times as much per day.

                          For new developments, of course, residential parking has to be designed out from
                          the beginning of we want people to rely on carsharing for those mobility needs
                          that are unsuited to other modes of transport (which for properly planned
                          developments in countries with integrated transport networks would be virtually
                          nil anyway).

                          Incidentally in response to Chris Bradshaw's posting I agree that the system of
                          specialised groups is leading to duplication in what we are receiving.

                          Simon Norton



                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.