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

10687Re: [carfree_cities] Re: something to watch out for

Expand Messages
  • N Schneider
    Jan 19, 2008
      In regard to parking: As someone on the parking management board for my city, I see the misperceptions of parking everyday.
      First, no parking is free. Someone paid to build it, maintain it and other related expenses.
      Parking requirements for most cities are based on the ITE parking guidelines which are based on outdated approaches to parking, suburban models, no transit and the belief that parking is an entitlement and that it is free and we have an endless supply.
      A few cities are starting to take a new perspective with programs like shared parking (for instance a movie theatre and an office share spaces as the need for spaces are at different times of the day), unbundle parking (residential units come with no parking included and parking spaces must be bought separately or not at all), no parking minimums (required by ITE guidelines) and parking maximums.
      In my opinion, anyone that owns more than one car should be taxed at an outrageous amount to subsidize the land requirements to house the vehicle, pollution generated, etc.
      All this pavement we have created to park, and run vehicles has permanently damaged the earth's surface, caused water shortages, ground water pollution, heat island effects, disrupted wildlife, used natural resources, increased our dependance on foreign oil... the list goes on.

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: dubluth <dubluth@...>
      To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:36:19 PM
      Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: something to watch out for

      I've seen such "outbursts". Some people take the availability of
      places to store their cars and trucks (without having to cover the
      cost) very personally. They miss (and might take pains to avoid
      seeing) the fact that supplying parking costs and that not just
      wealthy empty-nesters pay those costs.

      If a builder must supply just one stall per housing unit at a cost of
      say $30,000 per stall, the builder will build larger more expensive
      housing units unless customers actually value parking stalls that
      highly. The observed effect of parking requirements on housing supply
      and prices suggests that the cost of supplying parking exceeds its
      value to those affected housing residents.

      Unlike the examples I've seen, Tottenhamers might actually value
      parking enough to pay its costs. If so, that should provide a profit
      opportunity for someone willing to provide parking nearby, provided
      available land exists. A builder would risk including too little or
      too much parking, if not for the input of zoning rules or design
      hearings. Government mandates have eliminated the risk of too little


      Looking for last minute shopping deals?
      Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic