I used to believe that groups of people knew what was in their own best interest, then I started studying how merchants reacted to car policy. Shop owners in cities are always wrong about how many people arrive at their business by car. Always wrong about the impact of losing parking spaces, and always pleasantly (if begrudgingly) surprised at how well they do when streets are pedestrianized.
on the other hand, stripping out carparks for bus lanes when the bus doesn't actually stop anywhere near that spot without doing anything to actually improve the road for pedestrians and cyclists (though, to be fair, in the specific example the footpath and crossings weren't too bad for pedestrians) IS fairly likely to have a negative impact if not compensated for in some fashion. Simple fact is that most of the time people don't have all the data, and some of what they do have is misleading junk data (due to propaganda). Also, some people are just idiots, though that's a lesser factor.
And when they go under because some "I know better than you" anti-car activists got rid of all parking, you guys will then just assume they weren't good businesses anyway.
The results of my city's study of downtown parking usage over a few day period showed that what business owners thought, that there was inadequate parking, largely wasn't the case. Only one or two lots filled during one short time period, but even then adjacent lots had spots. Most lots always had space, and all lots had space nearly all the time.
Maybe biases? Customers by car probably are buying more per person than customers on foot but the actual number of customers by car are fewer but they don't see that...
I call this the "scratchy blanket". A scratchy blanket can provide warmth. Then, if someone offers a downy blanket, the person with the scratchy blanket will say "What, give up the thing that keeps me warm?" or "if I uncover myself to change blankets, I'll get cold" (followed by "what? Give up the thing that keeps me warm!?).
I was thinking about what impact street parking has for the average speed. Also provides a barrier for pedestrians. But a wall of trees would be even more preferable than a wall of parked cars
Personally, I'd prefer a dedicated bus lane instead, it would be a nice barrier, too. For a physical barrier, (retractable) bollards are the way to go.
As a City parking manager its very refreshing to see a video explaining some the issues we have to think about. I think I will share this video with colleagues, councillors and the public - its a succinct overview of the issues around pricing and rationing on-street (and off-street parking). Well done.
I think it is also important to keep in mind that limiting parking is not of much use if you have no alternative to driving. This is a lesson that many small and medium towns in Germany learned the hard way. After removing free parking from the town center, people from the surrounding villages simply did not come any more and went to shopping centers at the edge of town. Where I come from, they solved the problem by offering the first hour for free in a nearby parking garage
Interestingly, from the overhead shot of the area surveyed, it is clear that there are two parking garages in the area already, and both were probably not full as the top level was shown to be mostly empty on both. Of course we don't know when the overhead picture was taken, and they may be private garages, but assuming they are city owned, that makes the case to reduce on street parking stronger, at least in this area.
At the end of the day, there is parking, as you said in the nearby garage. So, from a purely rational standpoint, a business wanting to give customers a break could simply lower the price of their merchandise, rather than making every shopper pay more to subsidize parking fees in the garage. The real problem here is that people aren't rational, have too much emotional attachment to free parking, and the difference between free parking and $5 parking is psychologically worth more than a $5 price difference in merchandise at the store itself, even though it's the same $5. A lot of the insistence on parking being free is about dealing with people like this who can't think rationally.
I think it is rational to subsidize parking in a garage. Local shops can hardly compete with internet prices anyway, so a customer that comes to the shop does not try to optimize that aspect
I wonder if those towns actually exist. Most towns I know are still dominated by cars in their centers with the shops and resturants dying, while those that reduced the access for cars or parking thrive due to making shopping a better experience. Remember, i is a town center, not a strip mall.
Keep in mind that we are neither talking about North America nor about larger cities were people can "just take transit". We are talking about towns like Biberach (Baden-Württemberg, Germany) that are surrounded by a rural area (in the German definition of rural).
Here in San Diego, tons of dedicated bike lanes are being put in everywhere. In many cases, the street parking is not eliminated, but instead, what used to be street parking becomes a bike lane with a strip of planters, and then one of two driving Lanes becomes the parking Lane. That way, there's enough room for parking, bikes, but let's room for driving. It doesn't seem to make traffic any worse though, in the streets have a much more walkable scale by being narrow and having more plantings. Overall, I think it's good to preserve street parking but play around with different configurations of passenger loading, 30 minutes, surge demand pricing, and other models that allow for flexibility as habits and needs change. People always think they can predict or plan the future, which is what doomed streetcar systems all over the country in favor of cars. Now, the city's wish they had kept the streetcars. So before radically eliminating parking altogether, these flexible models are a good way to feel out what works and what doesn't.
Yeah, it really depends on the location and what the traffic looks like there. Reducing lanes is often a better alternative than removing parking. But if there aren’t more than one lane in each direction you can’t do that unless you make it a one-way. The most important part is making space for more efficient travel. How you do it depends on the context.
Dave Amoss had been working on project like that and even did research on it. Comparing those interventions. He is even a go author on a book including case studies how this can work.
I agree with this to an extent. Ultimately, though, street parking is just more street space taken from pedestrians and cyclists in favor of cars. There may be cases where street parking is always preferred, but I'm not sure what that would even be. I think as an intermediate step this is fine, but the goal should be to hopefully eliminate it in favor of sidewalks and bike lanes.
@@jamalgibson8139 yes I agree, having a long-term vision that's implemented in short-term increments allows for evaluation and adjustment along the way. I would say that a completely car free city is problematic for people who live in suburbia but want to go into the city for recreational purposes. At the very least, well-placed parking garages should be available in lieu of Street parking.
@@tstieber My opinion on suburbanites going to the city for recreation is that they should suck it up and take public transit, but I understand that is not a mainstream opinion. I agree that parking garages are a good solution to the parking problem, as it concentrates the problem into set areas and doesn't distribute the problem throughout the city. If managed well, it can even substantially reduce the godawful amount of parking that cities have in their current form. So long as those garages are built in a way that doesn't destroy the local environment, I think that really is something more cities should look into supporting.
Great video, as usual! I watched on Nebula. 😉 Parked cars really don't belong on the street, except in some highly limited cases. Japan is the only country that does this properly, however. We need to break this expectation that drivers can just park at the side of the road. Cars are not horses.
I think what's particularly interesting about the intersection you chose is that there are literally 2 parking structures right there. Ironically this didn't seem to come up in your analysis in removing the on-street parking, it probably should have. Like that intersection is a great candidate to replace the on-street parking with bike lanes, because of those two structures which might be under utilized due to the on-street parking.
Part of the issue is people don't like parking garages in general. They're time consuming to use, often tight for space (a growing issue as average vehicle sizes have grown) and usually just as or more expensive than street parking, especially if you only need to stop somewhere for a few minutes. It can easily take an extra 5 minutes each getting in and out of a garage compared to using surface parking. I could park in the far corner of the lot at my current office building and easily get inside in less time than I could get my car parked in the garage of the building I used to work in.
@@jimzecca3961 I think garages are somewhat alienating too. You don't really feel like you're part of the community and welcome as much when you park in a garage. You think "I'm here to visit this one place and leave." It takes an awful lot of soft meditation to get yourself past such thoughts. When you park on the street, you feel like you've actually arrived and are actually part of it, and like you are free to visit anything or anyone there.
There was a story I heard about a small downtown where a department store like Hechts built a parking garage which was mostly empty during the day. People were wondering if there was a way to utilize that. Workers at downtown shops were taking a break to move their car from one timed parking space on the street to another during their shift (so they wouldn't get a ticket) which meant they were taking up spaces potential customers could have used.
Set up a (local) monitoring format to make it publishable. Numbers, numbers, numbers. If anyone has the time..... (In the Netherlands (Utrecht) shopkeepers asked to have parking spaces removed because they noticed their businesses lagged compared to shops without street parking.)
Even better, many larger shopping chains in The Netherlands will only build new locations in pedestrian areas. That is where the shoppers are! Try to introduce car traffic and street parking again and you have a fight on your hands!
Your Toronto example clearly demonstrates that most shops in this neighbourhood get the vast majority of their shoppers from that neighbourhood. Bloor St (and it’s easterly extension known as The Danforth) links dozens of residential neighbourhoods and the majority of those residents walk, take the TTC (major subway line runs along this corridor) and bike. So the character of the neighbourhoods major streets run through is a major consideration in your decision scenario.
Or at least did... The problem with our data is it's all from the past, and we are currently exiting an era where almost all real retail exchanges occurred in suburban big box stores due to the logistics economics of the 1990s. That era is being finished off by online retailers like Amazon, and in sectors that went online early, like books, we're already seeing the small stores reclaim the remaining non-online sales after Borders went out of business and B&N teeters on the brink of bankruptcy. In other words, don't expect brick and mortar to remain hyperlocalized as what's left of it becomes hyperspecialized and largely insensitive to price.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 incorrect, the Bloor Street Bike Lane Economic Impact Studies happened from 2009-2017. Its much harder to purposely drive to a brick and mortor store or mall if you can just purchase all the items online in a suburb. Much easier when you're walking/cycling to and from work/TTC to stop by a local business on your way home.
@@scottanos9981 Depends. Sometimes the street is not all that busy, but your stuck next to an idling engine for 30 minutes straight. And that idling engine might be a truck, which emits more exhaust.
I think the approach needs to situational. On-street parking can be a good option in less densely inhabited suburban and rural areas. In cities, though, you really need to find ways to limit it. For urban residential neighbourhoods and any commercial districts where underground parking isn’t an option, you can use parking metres or time limited blue zones (with long-term parking rights for local residents), while at the same time making as much of the city centre as you can entirely car free. And of course, build up transit and bike infrastructure so cars aren’t needed in the first place!
I think that car-free city centres are not a thing talked about enough when North Americans discuss how to manage cars in cities. They are absolutely ubiquitous here in Europe; most cities and even quite modestly sized towns have city centres that are completely off-limits to cars, and it not only helps safety and air quality in these busy city centres, but it is also a godsend for shops and restaurants there: Narrow sidewalks and walls of traffic separating one side of the street from the other are not very conducive to a leisurely shopping experience, so people just won't do it. Ban the cars, and people will turn up in droves.
I agree. That is why I think the example in the video is so silly. Why do you need on street parking right in front of a large parking structure that is less than 1/2 full? This would be the perfect location for a bike lane.
@@rjfaber1991 I’ve lived car free for like 2 years in a midwestern city and it makes my life so much more pleasant on a daily basis. How exhausting driving actually is is something very much overlooked. I probably have to move this summer and I’m not looking forward to having to drive semi regularly again. Though even in the city I’m moving to I should be able to do my daily commute by a single 30 minute bus ride. So it’s not too bad. I’ll miss light rail though so much better than bus.
@@rjfaber1991 well, they'll turn up in droves provided the area is actually Accessable from where they live/work without a car. Plenty of cities aren't set up that way (despite the fact that they really should be.)
One thing that I, as a pedestrian, like about on-street parking is the barrier it provides me from moving traffic. I'm at least 8 feet farther from moving cars with a big wall of metal in between. I think it also makes urban patio dining more pleasant too, for the same reason. I feel safer walking along streets with street parking than I do walking along streets without. It also slows down traffic.
There are many ways of creating this barrier you talk about. There could be trees, a separated bike lane, a patio spot, plants and bushes. Literally anything is better than a car there.
The plants would increase property value and look better than a car and would clean the air rather than pollute it, give you shade, and uses less width space than a parking lot. They also carbon capture and provide wildlife habitat, whatever little wildlife there is in a city. You can also feel safer if the cars drove slower, and to do that just narrow the streets by spending less on asphalt surface area. Save on tax money with narrower roads, and you get slower cars. The on-street cars make the road appear narrower so you feel safe, but go straight to the source and narrow the roads with a dedicated bike lane.
If a vehicle comes barreling towards the line of parked cars, chances are you're still getting hit by a car. They're not sturdy like trees, there's more debris that can hit you, and worse case, a chain reaction occurs.
Cars these days are so big that I'm always afraid of walking into an intersection from behind a parked pickup where a driver might hook me on a right turn.
I reluctantly agree. People definitely drive faster on roads with no on street parking. But I also fully agree with all of the points City Beautiful makes too. And ultimately I'm always going to be pro-protected bike lanes. There can be other traffic calming measures such as smaller/fewer lanes, traffic diverters and curb extensions.
Just today I saw an area of Houston, Rice Village, where parking lots and curbside parking was being converted to outdoor seating and picnic/yard game areas. Love seeing it in person and learning about it on here
I imagine as a car driver, on street parking is nice and comfortable in many scenarios. In Europe its also pretty normal to have streets stuffed with standing cars. I actually have no string negative feelings for this but when walking, i obviously enjoy streets with less obstacles there.
As a driver I must say that I actually hate it. Both when driving and parking. When driving, some streets become so narrow with parked cars that you have to stop and let oncoming cars go. I won’t even mention people parking close to turns, which basically blocks all the view, and leads to dangers (actually for all the traffic participants). But what about me parking myself? Well, first of all it’s a fake sense of “there will be space”. Even places I know well, where parking is free and which are usually available, they suck a lot. Somebody parks wide or it’s the wrong time of day - you have to go and look. Worst time was when I was moving, and couldn’t find a place to park close to home, because it was all parked like crazy all day long. Don’t even get me started on how some people react negatively to you parking on the street and blocking the road even if temporary. Also I think it’s becoming harder and harder to control it with time, I am sure a lot of people don’t actually pay at parking machines, and I see no parking discs where they are required quite often. And this is all without touching the security of on street parking: a big truck missing a turn, a car trying to fit into a tight parking spot - boom and your new shiny baby is scratched and nobody Is probably going to be responsible. I usually try to park on big underground or overground garages, or at least controlled parking areas.
@@mikadrakolis4556 Yeah and you have to be on high alert for people coming and going from those parked cars. And you have to avoid colliding with them when they reenter the road. There's also the nightmare of trying to parallel park in the middle of traffic. These things aren't huge problems if the speed limits for these roads were slowed way, way, waaaay down. But in the US you know people are gonna barrel through at like 40mph
@@mikadrakolis4556 I see. Driving a car in a city can be quite hectic. That's true. The design of our city is actually neither car friendly nor is it pedestrian-friendly. In Europe AND America. If a ton of people move in or out (for example rush hour) it's pure chaos in many big cities. Road parking just adds more stress most of the time.
Here's something that I want people to keep in mind as they push for changes like this (I'm not against the changes, but this is a cautionary tale). Denver, the biggest city near me, is especially bad at making small scale changes like converting parking to bike lanes along a street... and then patting themselves on the back and considering it job done. Problem is, it's not part of a bigger plan, and usually done in isolation. The bike lanes often go mostly unused because they do this along business heavy areas, and few people live close enough to bike (it's getting better but mixed development wasn't really a thing in Denver until maybe 15 years ago) and now people who had to drive to that business because they were too far to walk or bike have nowhere to park, and end up cruising for parking, or even more often, giving up because the only parking to be found is too far to walk to the destination, and transit in the city is an absolute nightmare. I don't want to live in the city, but sometimes I have to go to the city for concerts, specialty shops, etc. I'd be perfectly happy to hop on a train or bus or whatever and walk or take transit around while visiting, but in many North American cities, that part doesn't exist yet. Please, please look at the comprehensive systems when pushing for changes. You can turn those parking spaces into a bike line or wider sidewalks, but maybe hold off on that step until other pieces of the puzzle are in place, and focus on the parts that reduce the need for the parking space in the first place.
A fair point. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem though, if you mix use but there's not enough transit/bike options then people will start to clog things up with cars.
I appreciate you comment because you plainly state that while you don't want to live in the city, you are willing to use public transit rather than make the city accommodate you driving a car. And that's all people need to do. Cities can accommodate cars if car drivers are willing to pay. Do that or take public transit. During the transition period away from car dependent cities, there will be fits and starts, but it will be easier for people to deal with the change if they even do carpooling. There are lots of park and rides in America, too. And for people who need to drive into the city, it will be better for them to do so after the transition is done since there will be less traffic and congestion. Possibly even during the transition, too. Less Driving Benefits Everyone (Including Other Drivers) th-cam.com/video/YjpvNr5lGSw/w-d-xo.html The Best Country in the World for Drivers th-cam.com/video/d8RRE2rDw4k/w-d-xo.html
In most languages, words "street, road, lane, etc." translate to path of movement. Parking is not movement. All parking must be off the streets. Pick-up + drop-off for people should be allowed for most of street length. Spot for cargo loading+unloading needs to be provided at certain spots based on distance (from annother such spot), population density, etc.
On Street parking... Sure is an interesting topic. As someone in britain it's on litterally every single residential street often turning the 2 lane street into 1 lane with passing areas due to all the parked cars.
It is not only in Britain that parked cars in practice reduce a line. But I think the problem is bigger in Europe, as we normally have narrower streets than in the USA.
I think in areas where the street is not wide enough for on street parking on both sides and for cars to pass each other, on street parking should be banned on one side of the street.
Yes. San Francisco could have dedicated lanes for most to all Muni lines if they ditched some street parking. Portland could have dedicated lanes for much more of the streetcar by ditching some street parking.
Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised this doesn't take into account residential parking for locals. I know mixed-usage zones are rarer and rarer in the United States (which is extremely unfortunate - it seems to be one of the staples of well-balanced, self-sufficient local economies and healthy social environments in Europe). In my town most parking spots are those ' 3 hours max' type of parking, but we all ignore them because there's hundreds of people living in downtown apartments (over top of street front businesses) that have nowhere to park. In Europe that would not be a problem - just sell your car and take public transit to work - but this is America, a country that has waged a war on public transit as harsh as their war on 'drugs' and resource-tapping international military incursions. It's a shame because at the end of the day those businesses starting closing down because touristy-weekend-only traffic isn't enough. Everyone starts saying "Not enough people live downtown anymore" and nobody can figure out why - it's because governments, from the federal level to the municipal, make downtown residential people 3rd class citizens. They wish we wouldn't exist - or at least their regulations and official measures blatantly make that hidden intention clear...
It's not that you can count Europe as survivable only by public transportation. I live in a town of 4000, and I raise the same consideration as you. Street parkings are a necessity for locals. And btw, not every work can be done without a car.
Mandatory car park as a building requirement for the construction of residential buildings is what is required, this is governmental oversight and incompetency. Everyone suffers as a result.
Stop comparing the United States to Europe, because we have more people in one state then a lot of whole countries in Europe is no comparison you can’t compare Europe to the United States because Europe is essentially smaller. Anything outside of India, Canada, China, Africa, and a few other places, can we be compared to we have to function way differently because it’s way more people per capita
LMAO “downtown residential people 3rd class citizens” I can’t speak for everywhere but most of the downtown residents in large American cities are heavily catered to. In part because they are disproportionately affluent/wealthy.
@@MelGibsonFan In the cities that have been gentrified, sure, but check with those cities before all the senators' families and CEOs' daughters moved in - ask them how they're catered to.
I would be in favour if there was spaces kept specifically for disabled people and others with mobility issues. My mother has mobility issues but can’t be classed as disabled to get the blue badge and often it means parking at a car park and it’s very time consuming for to get around as she has to walk incredibly slow vs if she just popped into a shop from an adj space. It’s also an issue when carrying bags for example. I wouldn’t have a problem with able bodied people like myself being forbidden from those parking spaces and made to use car parks or garages. Here in Ireland as far I am aware we have high fines if you park in a disabled parking space, maybe the same could be done for these 2nd tier “prioritised” spaces
I'm in that kind of situation. I can't get the plaque for my car but most days I cannot walk outside without aid, so parking garages are hell to use since there's usually a distance from the car to the exit, then going up to surface level and then walking to your destination. I used to barely ever street park in front of businesses (to save money and hassle), now I have to do it all the time.
@@sigmarizzlerking convince American cities that public transportation is better than a car. Very hard thing to do and you have suburbia which requires cars
@@Sparticulous strictly speaking even suburbia doesn't Require cars... Public transit is entirely doable, just massivley less efficient than it should be. And even that issue can be reduced or eliminated if the suburbs are actually built around the idea that people will be traveling by way of walking or biking to the local train station or the like most of the time.
@@sigmarizzlerking That's a non-starter in the US, unless you are going to try to reverse the cultural trend toward max efficiency. Cars are always more efficient unless you make it excessively prohibitive. They went that route in my city and business simply left. The bus-only road in downtown is now one of the most dangerous streets because all the business left and less desirable parts of society moved in. It doesn't match the culture of speed and efficiency, and you don't change culture with the snap of a finger..
On thing that is not mentioned about street parking is how it prevents advertising your shop front to drivers and pedestrians. I live in Japan where there is no street parking and not being distracted from looking at the architecture and public art by a sea of parked cars makes living here all the more enjoyable (though yes, there are still way too many cars in Japan)
On-street parking on commercial streets are a waste of space (and result in traffic jams when people want to get in and out of spots) And it's totally unnecessary to have the parking on the street. In busy places, people still end up parking a couple blocks away from their destination anyway. Places should widen sidewalks, add bike lanes, or allow patios. That's a much better use of price real estate. Move car storage to less active locations.
Living in city ( Atlanta) which has eliminated a lot of on street parking I have strong opinions on this. 1. On street spaces here are typically 8x22 or 176 square feet. For planning purposes, we use 300-400 sf for a deck or lot. I would not call that environmentally friendly. Often older buildings have been demolished to build profitable private lots ( follow the "campaign contributions" on that) which creates a snaggle tooth feel that is not comfortably walkable. When that happens the on street parking is replaced by a bike or extra moving lane and the street becomes a faster way to blow through a neighborhood since on street parking also slows traffic. 3. On street parking creates a safety barrier both psychologically and physically between pedestrians and moving traffic. 3 Current codes here require on street active use in new buildings i.e. retail , restaurants etc which remain vacant or low use. Often the back door facing off street parking becomes the main entrance and the street entrance is under used or even locked. 5. We're also seeing a hybrid: midrise buildings 50-100' off a stroad with vacant storefronts at the base and not a pedestrian in sight despite a winding landscaped sidewalk next to the stroad 6. On street says "somebody's home" in business areas. 5. Here at least I will say that show me a street with no on street parking and I'll show you one with fast traffic and many empty or under used storefronts and few if any pedestrians.
Dave, you probably wont read this but have you been to Naperville IL? I think you've mentioned them before. They have an amazing suburban downtown. There are several streets with no on street parking and it has one one major road cutting through the center but all the side roads are low volume. They have a free garage parking structure near the center and I believe free parking lots on the outer parts of the downtown. It has a small river that cuts through the edge of the downtown has had a really beautiful riverwalk making it great for walking and biking. Honestly, they could get rid off all the on-street parking given they have free lots throughout and these buildings tend to have an alley which might make for easy places to load and unload. Downton Arlington Heights, IL and Oak Brook, IL is much the same and both of these have at least one train line stop that takes you into the city of Chicago. Then there is downtown Evanston which is much more densely populated that I don't think compares to the more suburban downtown I've mentioned but it's very beautiful downtown for a suburb.
I think one of the reasons Naperville has such a strong central shopping district was the free parking. That and being an affluent suburb plus having the river walk area as a draw must help.
I used to manage a store in Culver City which taught me the importance of parking to my bottom line. We started in a building no parking, then moved to a building with a shared parking lot, then finally to building with our own lot. With each move sales doubled. However once we had our own lot, we had to hire guards to keep people from using it as free parking for the entire neighborhood. There just is no optimum solution to parking as long as we're a car based society.
Charging restaurants for it is fair as long as you charge for parking too. Nothing is for free and if you get spaces where they are at a premium you need to pay for it.
We need better public transportation if we want to reduce parking. If things were similar to other countries or even cities like DC or NYC people wouldn’t be as car dependent.
Yes. And places like NYC are a great example of it working already. Removing parking spaces allows for more foot traffic for businesses allowing them to expand to outdoor dining and getting overall more traffic in general
I think a comparison between parking spaces and a bike lane should include some comment on the effect of existing or absent bike racks for bikes to park.
Narrowing streets is good but that space would be better used by giving it over to pedestrian or bike infrastructure. And a lot of cyclists get injured or killed each year because parked cars to the right of them on the road open their doors and force them to swerve into traffic, so having on-street parking isn't the most effective way of improving road safety
@@azd685 I maintain my opinion that having the bike lane in the right door zone (NOT THE LEFT DOOR ZONE!) of the parking spaces is a perfect solution to this, as slow- and medium-speed bike riders are minimally threatened (can only hit stationary objects, no risk of collision with a car in the traffic lanes) when a CAR PASSENGER fails to check for bikes before opening the door.
A lot of on street parking is downtown though, which often has narrower streets to begin with since they weren’t designed for cars. I think in many places both are not an option
It's only "smoother" until buses and trucks get stuck trying to make turns and paralyze everything. I've seen it happen at stroad intersections with average/wide lane widths, so it's only going to be more likely when turn radii get deliberately reduced.
I avoid on street parking as much as possible. I greatly prefer finding a lot. But even if I didn't prefer them, I think they probably are more cost effective for non-free parking since you can have a single machine at the entrance instead of a separate meter at every parking space. Underground parking is my favorite option of all. I don't go into cities often (partly because I end up spending too much money every time I do) but when I do I look for a place to park in this order: 1) underground, 2) above ground parking deck, 3) ground level parking lot, 4) on street parking.
It's also worth remembering that in many European towns and cities there are lots of residential streets where there isn't space for residents to park a car on their own property. I live on just such a street - off-street parking is possible on one side but not the over.
It'd be awesome if on-street parking wasn't allowed either in those cities. We really need to start making cities car-free, or at least eliminate personal car ownership as much as possible
@@azd685 Those streets need to be a very long way down the list of streets where you eliminate on-street parking, though. You can't force people to give up their car until after you've ensured there are good quality alternatives that will work for them.
@@stephengray1344 Ok then, cities should implement no on- or off-street parking for all new housing developments in conjunction with excellent transit access for those communities, building a demographic with a vested interest in seeing public transit succeed, and use that to justify further expansion of the transit system. And THEN they should ban on-street parking in your neighborhood.
Great video, would have also been good to address that there appears to be multiple parking garages in the vicinity of where you filmed the study. Why does street parking also need to supplement this?
For visuals and the health of having less cars in cities I'd like to be able to say yes let's get rid of them, but as someone who recently this summer lost the ability to walk normally, screw parking garages. I have to get from home to where I'm going door to door somehow and I need to do that with my own car unless the state is willing to pay for taxis for everybody or something of such sort, but that's not a good solution either.
Proper public transit infrastructure would account for and mitigate this issue, well, depending on the exact disability in question, I suppose.... but it would still be far from perfect, I suspect (it's also Far cheaper. Again, if done right). But failing that, much more limited on street parking that's reserved for special use cases such as disabled persons and not available for general use at all ever would still be a step up (after all, there are less disabled people who require it than non-disabled people who would simply like to have it). Parking buildings are pretty rubbish in general, really.
I’m fine with people getting free or low-cost parking. I don’t drive and use public transit. But I could lose count at how many times I’ve seen people leave work in the middle of the day because they have to move their car or else they’ll get a ticket. Or they can’t park near the destination because they’ll get a ticket. These tickets are expensive and can cut a whole week of pay in some cases. Just like free public transit, free public parks, public libraries, and public museums, free public parking is one less thing we can all share together and we don’t have to fight one another over.
Except free public parking brings a shit ton of negative externalities with it that the other things that you mention just don't have. And if these people need to leave work in the middle of the day to move their car, then that's a pretty good indicator that cars are the PROBLEM here. Letting everyone leave their car everywhere as long as they want will lead to all of those parking spaces being full all of the time. Those people who need to leave work to move their car would probably benefit from a good transit connection or decent bike infrastructure. That way they wouldn't have to leave to move their car.
@@scottanos9981 I think time is just as important if not more than money serve it doesn’t matter how much money you make in salary you still have to spend time and paying your fine if you receive one
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 Hardly, the time is negligible compared to the fine. and the wealthy have their secretaries and financial advisors fill out the paperwork more times than not.
I think what concerns many cyclists is will their bike be there when they come back. Secure bike parking will encourage bike ridership. Yes, get a beater, cover with stickers and use two u-locks. Get a grandma bike like they use in the EU. We need secure bike parking.
@@anubizz3 Almost all bikes you see around are just normal bikes that you could buy from anywhere between €80 and €200. If a perfectly functional bike in great technical working order that does the job it's intended to do is your definition of a bike that nobody wants, then we have a very weird situation where almost all Dutch people have a bike that nobody wants. People don't leave their €2000 high end racing bikes outside. But most people don't have super expensive bikes like that. If you leave a bike like that outside, then okay, you're kinda asking for it. But most bikes are not that.
@@alex2143 Well am I wrong that Amsterdam canals are full of unwanted bike? if the original owner don't want it anymore why do you think Thief want it? so they can sell it for 10 EUR? We have around 20 + unlock bike in my apartment complex some even worth $600 when new, no one ever bother to steal it. while the expensive one the theft bother to break into lock up storage. Netherlands not that special here like what this Urbanist want you to believe Funny when people get so offended by meter on street parking , while asking for Secure bike parking....
@@anubizz3 I'm just giving you my perspective as a Dutchman. If I put my bike somewhere, I'm not really worried at all about it getting stolen. Did you know that the Netherlands has more bikes than people btw? Just thought that was an interesting tidbit to share.
I don't think they even try in some cities now. My entire street is "2 hour parking" and nobody care or enforces it. Me, and everyone else, regularly park there all day and we never get tickets. There is a lot of construction too which has led to people just parking in bike lanes when they close the street parking. Again, no tickets. I'm thankful for it, as there is no alternative for less than $200/month. The problem is that they keep approving 100+ unit apartment buildings with ZERO parking. This is a city that does not have a subway/rail system beyond a single north/south route, has unreliable busses, a patchwork and incomplete bike lane system, and safety is an issue in many parts of the city for those that do take public transit. I don't know the solution, but removing the parking we do have without replacing it is not it. I'm also moving to the suburbs as soon as I can.
It seems there need to be seasonal and regional considerations, too. If you're shopping downtown in a city in Wisconsin or Minnesota in December, January, or February, it's a different calculation than you'd make for a dedicated bike lane in San Luis Obispo.
It gets pretty cold in Oslo Norway, well below freezing with no daylight for much of the year, yet their healthy cycling numbers barely go down in the winter months. That's because their excellent separated bike lanes get swept of snow & ice as a priority, several times a day if necessary.. It's all about the infrastructure, & the correct clothes.There is nothing like a little exercise to keep you warm for the rest of the day.
@@zivkovicable Thanks, and yep that's interesting and I agree, but it would involve reprogramming an entire society -- that's used to something different -- to think and behave the way Scandinavians do. In Oslo, these are long-established attitudes and behavior; in the U.S., not so much. Still, I suppose you have to begin the process of re-education somewhere.
@@rickrose5377 Not so long in the case of Oslo. We are talking about a dramatic improvement in the last ten years. Even the daddies of cycling infrastructure Denmark & the Netherlands didn't start building their network until the late 1970's, with their cities dominated by cars until then. it's a mistake to think that it was cultural & the attitudes were long established.
As a Minnesotan, you’re right, less people bike in the winter (bike lanes are less useful). However, a lot of places actually have to also close street parking, because snow makes them dangerous (it’s hard to use snowplows with street parked cars).
@@zivkovicable well, there is an element of culture and attitude: Convincing the officials to actually do the thing to begin with. ... and even then, it's more a case of overcoming propaganda from certain (very wealthy) groups that benefit more from car-centric infrastructure.
This reminds me of a video I saw on FB where a guy was bragging about how he and a neighbor in a dense NJ neighborhoood keep two extra low value cars on the road so they can spread them out in the morning with no room to park between them... then in the evening, they park them close together so they can have a reserved spot for their main driver. The message was supposed to be "look how clever I am" but all I could think was "you selfish bastard - I'm glad I'm not your neighbor."
That sounds like a good deal...until you realize that just the cost of registering and insuring those two extra cars probably costs more per month than simply paying for parking in a garage.
@@ab-tf5fl - I wouldn't be so sure. Either way, it doesn't seem like "paying for a garage" was an option -- certainly not one right outside his apartment where he could charge his electric cars by running wires over the sidewalk. All this said, nothing would make my internal imp happier than finding out that he had to eat cat food to make ends meet after spending all his money on security cameras and cars he doesn't use.
Yes also make roads out of thirsty cement to reduce sand use and save rivers. Also thirsty cement reduce flooding and increase groundwater aquifer levels. Also that parking garage roof can use some solar or wind mybe bolth on its top to reduce energy needs or fill it with native plants like flowers and bushes mybe a couple trees.
which makes perfect sense. Provided your bus or light rail is actually covering the trip that the people using the cars parking there would be making. If they're coming from places your route doesn't serve though, you're kind of screwing people over if you don't provide alternatived parking (well, assuming they still have to go to that specific destination.)
Ideally, there would be an alley between blocks of stores to access parking lots and for delivery trucks. Maybe when I have billions to spend on designing a new city, alternate streets will be either for pedestrians/bikes/trams or for cars and trucks, keeping them entirely separate.
Reminds me of Disney world. The back has work vehicle and truck access while the front area is blocked off from the back and is pedestrian only. Look at epcot from above, for example. This meant restocking as needed without blocking customers.
Short answer: *YES* Long answer: Absolutely yes. It would curb car traffic, reduce emissions, allow for more green and public spaces, bike infrastructure, walkability, be a huge step towards the sponge city concept and climate resiliency, reduce geographic and socioeconomic divisions in cities, and it would warm my heart. Ok, time to watch the video.
Dave, since you used to live in Wisconsin. This might be of interest to you. Milwaukee has a group proposing to remove 32 acres worth of freeway from the downtown lakefront area to create a more walkable, livable neighborhood. If you want to know more the group that started this effort is called "Rethink 794". I'm excited to see what my city could be in the next 10 years
That’s really good, isn’t like one of those Freeway Removal projects that the US Department of Transportation has or something? I know there was a provision in either the Bipartisan infrastructure deal or the IRA that allows cities to remove freeways that negatively impact communities of color.
I live in an apartment complex. Thinking about this, it hurts walkability in an otherwise dense area. These complexes range in size from a big box store to entire strip mall. On top of that they have less entrances. My nearest shopping center is only 200 yards away but I have to walk 800 yards to get there by walking 150 yards the wrong way and then around 2 other complexes. 1600 yards to the nearest retail is to far to conveniently walk, especially since it is a CVS, a few restaurants, and a salon. The grocery store and the bank left.
As with everything in city planning, it’s very complex. But I appreciate you showing the pros and cons. Maybe you could create a street parking cheat sheet? I know that would be helpful for me as someone learning about planning. Also, as I grew up in a suburb with practically no limits on parking, visiting my friends in Los Angeles was always incredibly stressful with trying to find parking, remembering cash, etc. I don’t live in a big city for one of those and many other reasons.
Fellow surbanite here (not sure if you still live in one but I have lived in suburbs all my life) and couldn't agree more. I hate parallel parking and haven't had to do it since my drivers license test except for yesterday visiting the city, and I dread the day I gotta go back😂 but yeah it's definitely a source of anxiety
Ban street parking, make public transit cheaper then use those big superstore parking lots to create park and rides. If Walmart/Target cry about it, to bad for them. No one fills those lots anyway, as we saw this past black Friday. If small businesses cry about it, they will stop once the calmer streets attract more customers.
I'm a bit confused by the drone footage. There's plenty of parking structure space too. I'm all for removing street parking if affordable parking lots exist. Actually I wonder why a shared lot on the outer areas of a business district with a shuttle or trolley stop isn't the standard bridge between car centric and pubic transit.
Personally, I never liked parallel parking on busy streets. In fact, I dislike it so much, that I'd much rather have parking lots or garages built within walking distance of all those businesses that were dependent on street parking, even using eminent domain if need be, and repurpose the street parking for bus and delivery truck lanes that could optionally be shared with cyclists.
There's a city near me that has several parking garages around the downtown shopping area. It's fantastic. You park and then walk along the lovely street, sometimes popping into other shops on your way.
I also prefer parking in a parking garage where your car is protected from the weather. No heating up in the summer, no hail damage in storms. On street parking makes no sense.
@@jimzecca3961 There's a street on my commute that has diagonal parking and it is one of the most terrifying parts to drive by. That whole street is a nightmare though (people park in the median between directions).
Local governments can cash in on outside dining as well - in Germany streets are usually owned by the city and cities have the possibilities to take fees on commercial usages of the street like shop displays, signage or outdoor seating - they are also supposed to control that businesses do not overstep their allowed spaces to accomodate for all street usages. It has been my job for the past 1,5 years now to work in public administration issuing those allowances on commercial street uses.
Leaving this comment without having paper evidence on hand, could a case possibly be made for every-block, fixed-price-increase-per-minute/hour compact parking ramps or small lots? This way, streets could be left clear to outdoor dining blocks, delivery vehicles, and bikes, while cars, removed from the street, still have a place to go, at least in my head. The key point here is that if possible, said parking places are on every block (or every other block, or possibly further as long as associated destinations are within comfortable walking distance), and because they are per-block, they can then be tiny... and then in turn, each could be a small local business. I saw a model somewhat like this in Tijuana, Mexico, with tiny parking lots slotted between taller, mixed-use buildings, and to me it seems to work, at least. Admittedly though, somewhat deviating from topic, I feel like a lot of problems with private transit... or, I suppose, the solutions given to solve private transit problems... are more like stem-level fixes (at least here in the United States) rather than solutions at the root-level. If US zoning laws could only be amended to permit the placement of critical commercial businesses (grocery stores, mainly, but... heck, cafes, barber shops, convenience stores, even?) in residential areas (that is, with the same spacing priorities as schools, or denser) instead of the hyper-segregated "only houses here, and any shops must be way over there" mega-blocks we have now, I feel like people would definitely feel less forced to take cars everywhere. Additional thoughts are welcome? In any case, thanks for the video!
I feel like if there isnt a meaningful transit alternative, it comes across as very elitist and trying to force people out of their cars. I think they should work on transit options before starting road diets, removing spaces, etc.
Many larger European cities have parking underground near the city center, making the whole distance from shops thing irrelevant. Those centers tend to be slow-traffic only, so pedestrians and cyclists are allowed but not motorized vehicles.
The distance from shops thing isn't irrelevant if you can't walk well or at all, it's still (usually) the walk from the car to the exit point, some stairs, then an elevator, then some long hallway before you're out on street level and nowhere close anymore to where you were originally going. I recognize most people are able to walk, but as someone who very recently became physically disabled to an extent using city centre parking garages is just hell.
I never parallel park, I hate it, but you also need to make sure you have sufficient parking garages nearby. My local city is very walkable, but it has accessible parking garages every block or two. I do think it's good to have "quick spaces" that allow you to park for a few minutes, which tend to mean they don't park too close together.
Here in Phoenix, I'd like to see this study... Because when for many months out of the year its over 100 and for 2-3 months its almost 115 atleast each day, there is not many people out biking in our heat. Now cars with A/C, that is more valuable then a bike lane. The amount of streets we've added bike lanes to is insane, and I've NEVER seen most used... and the ones that do, risk their own safety as most of the time, they will get hit by a car... Drivers are horrible here.
So, are you saying that people shouldn't have a safe place to bike during the winter months when it's cooler because some of the year, it's too hot? That doesn't seem fair.
As much as I agree with this video, its genuinely impossible in my area's current situation. The goal right now is to limit it to just on-street parking, rather than expansive parking lots. Installing sidewalks is our step one here, completely removing cars from the business areas would be like telling people they are losing everything they know. Its not a good situation, the fact that sidewalks are even a question as to if you'll find one is horrible, but starting with on-street parking is the only real way to get any progress.
@@thesuomi8550 while that would be another potential solution, that'd mean someone has to maintain a tower made only for cars, instead of people having to pay the local government for far more limited on-street parking. The reason on-street is preferable is because it reduces parking while still making it available for the car-nuts
I am generally in favour of more walkable/bikeable neighbourhoods. On a recent trip to Montreal I noticed on St. Catherine street how it has been set up to discourage cars. The problem is: it also discourages people with mobility issues. The first parking space I found was a whole km from my intended destination. The cobbled streets are worse for wheeled mobility aids than the usual bad pavement. The sidewalks often had debris that became barriers to anyone who isn't able to walk perfectly. Rather than eliminate on street parking entirely, keep much of it, and designate it for accessible permits only.
I was wondering about certain increases in parking in some neighborhoods. Business owners immediately believe there will be a loss of business, but if it increases parking turnover, it would actually increase the number of people able to park and order take out. There is also a need for quick turnover for DoorDash and other food delivery services. I can’t tell you how difficult it is parking just to pick up orders in Seattle, but it is because street parking is being used for very long periods when it should really be short drop offs and pickups. Garages underground should be used for longer periods.
Business owners believe correctly. No turnover will fix a long-term loss of consumers in a neighborhood. If customers will stop living and working nearby there will be nobody for parking turnover.
Another example of car drivers and owners getting everything subsidised. The great thing about expensive parking is it makes more funds available for worthwhile things like transit.
I remember when both the 14th Street and Flushing busways were being implemented. One of the "concerns" from business owners in both cases was the lanes would take away space from customers. They made is seem as if 90% of all customers arrive on car and park in these specific spots, which is wildly out of touch in reality. You don't even need a study to figure this out! Think of all the dozens of customers that visit a specific store in an hour. Is the owner of that one business really telling me that these customers all found parking.........in Manhattan? Ya know, the city with really bad congestion? In front of the store? All at the same time? And just for the one business? And the residents, trucks, and customers for other stores?
It would be ideal if there were a compromise here. Not everyone _can_ ride a bike _or_ walk. How many of those people are able to use the street parking? If it isn't reserved, marked for accessibility, etc? Maybe not so many as would gain the most benefit. Bike and pedestrianization is, for the most part, a net positive for a community, but it doesn't undo the need for parking and shortening the walking/wheelchair distance by having nearer parking can be a great service for many. Plus, the fact of the matter is, people have cars and people use cars. Encouraging use of biking, walking, public transit, etc can reduce car traffic, but unless you've made a car inaccessible area, there will still be a drive for...driving. Street parking, as it is in many contexts, doesn't do a great job of fulfilling the needs of those who most need it, but it can mitigate them. Since cars will still be a thing, those people will still need to put them somewhere, which is where parkinglots and parking garages come into the picture...which bring their own, many issues. I'm not someone qualified to say what the solution would be, so I won't offer one. I would just say that I do not believe it would be a simple matter going one way or the other. You would gain and lose no matter what you do; so, if some sort of compromise can't be found, then it really behooves the planner to identify what would best serve that specific community/location. One would hope it would be one that caters best to everyone, but that just simply isn't possible everywhere.
reserving most on street parking for delivery and/or handicap spots would probably be the best compromise. as it stands currently, people who can't walk will probably not find a free parking spot close enough to the place they're going to anyways
More people can walk or bike than drive a car, though. And I'm sorry, but the whole concept of cars being more friendly for the disabled just doesn't hold water.
@@doom-generation4109 (if I’ve understood correctly, most people with disabilities prefer the term “disabled” over “differently abled”. for me “differently abled” sounds more patronizing than helpful or accurate)
@@doom-generation4109 The decision to use the term "differently abled" suggests that you haven't spent much time with disable people. The politics of identity-first vs. person-first language can be messy, but I have yet to meet anyone who considers themselves disabled and uses the term "differently abled." Over time, if transit becomes more accessible, flexible, and frequent, disabled people who use a private automobile as part of their mobility will decrease. But it is unfair to expect someone who has difficulty walking longer distances to take a three hour bus ride with two connections to make a twenty minute trip by private car.
@@doom-generation4109 It's not a binary situation, but I can say that person who uses a manual or motorized wheelchair, has difficulty with prolonged cardio activity, etc, would see very little benefit to a bike lane, but *could* see benefit from accessible on street parking. Public transit can fill in a lot, and could be a great help. Still, routes are not always designed with short stop-to-location trips in mind, and may add unnecessarily long ride times for those reliant on them. So, it wouldn't be a perfect solution, but nothing ever is. That's the thing: there is no perfect good/bad here. The ideal is just about giving everyone as many options as possible without restricting anyone's right to movement. And yes, more people probably can walk or bike...but that doesn't mean we should ignore those who can't or chose not to. (which is not to say you are, just that it is a consequence of not making considerations for those individuals in planning discussions)
In Japan, they make parking building about 4-5 story height. They use lift and may be mechanic to pack up many cars efficiently. No need get rid of cars to gain space. Everybody happy. Very little road side parking or maybe none.
Great stuff! In one of your SLO clips, I think I saw a sign for off-street public parking. (Possibly in that big multilevel garage?) How does this kind of city-owned parking fit into the equation? One thing off-street lots do is prevent parallel parkers from temporarily holding up traffic as they get in and out of spaces. Is the opportunity cost of dedicating off-street land to parking necessarily higher than the cost of using a street lane for parking vs. bike lanes or parklets?
As someone who bikes a lot in my city, on street parking is the absolute worst. It is absolutely awful being between two cars with only a foot of space on either side. This makes drivers and bikers "compete" for the road which should be shared because the design creates a contant tension between cars and bikes. Cars have to be extra weary of bikes, often having to move a little bit into the other lane to give the bike extra space and bikers have to be extremely weary of cars on both sides, as a forgotten signal or careless driver can quickly end a life. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with cars. With a group of friends a car ride can be one of the most memorable parts of the night. But cars should not be the only option and modes of transportation should work in harmony and never against each other. The main problem I have with on street parking is that it by discouraging bikers, there are less bikers. When there are less bikers (or none in particularly hostile places to bikers) cars watch out for them less and forget to share the road, which is where accidents and fatalities happen. And since nobody bikes, people often assume that biking just sadly isn't possible so we should move on when in reality, we should be separating cars and bikes in order to create a more harmonious balance to accommodate both modes of transportation.
My big issue with parking meters are that you have to gauge how long you're going to be parked somewhere, especially important if your local parking pigs are particularly vicious. My city has structures in it's downtown, and while ugly, it's a more efficient way of handling demand for parking and you can just pay for however long you need to be there. I will walk a longer distance to use either free or structure parking as a result.
Where I live in Brisbane, Australia there is a major road called Gympie Road. This road starts at an intersection of other major roads and heads north past the biggest shopping centre in town (Westfield Chermside) and then continues on past other shops and stuff. The section between the southern end and the big shopping centre is probably as close as Brisbane gets to a Stroad. This road among other things sees a lot of bus traffic heading from the CBD to Westfield Chermside and beyond and the government wants to build what they call the "northern transitway" which is intended to be a set of bus lanes (and bus priority improvements) along this stretch of road. This is much needed (I have been on buses where it has taken 3 light changes to move through a particular intersection along this stretch of road. The problem with this project is that whilst the initial plan was for bus lanes that would operate 24/7, the government bowed down to the wishes of business owners (including a bunch of car yards) over the loss of on-street parking (which in this area is free to use) and changed the plans so the busways will only operate during peak times (despite the clear need for the bus lanes even during non peak times just based on my own observations). Wish we had a government with the guts to say NO to the business owners and make the bus lanes 24/7 which will provide a much bigger overall benefit than a few people being able to park their cars in front of a car yard or other business.
In Sydney on-street parking reduces and slows through traffic in shopping streets at off peak times compared to peak times when parking is banned and through traffic uses kerbside lanes. It therefore it has a side benefit of improving walkability.
A well-balanced take on the issue. I'm a car-guy and a lot of channels tend to make very biased judgements, but what's said here is just logical and reasonable. A subject I'd love for you to cover would be the implementation of Keicar laws outside Japan. What impact could these laws have on parking, congestion, city planning, emissions etc. This would be particularly interesting if you'd bring the Keicar concept into the 21st century and make it electric.
Your TYPICAL city is San Luis Obispo? Give me a break. Parking is better than bike lanes. I live in Portland a bike Mecca. I don’t believe your study. Portland’s bike lanes are underutilized compared to parking. The problems with studies where the authors have an axe to grind are infamous.
I think the best compromise solution for on street parking in real cities is to have alternating blocks be one way in each direction and instead of the street being two travel lanes and parallel parking on both sides instead have it be one car travel lane in one direction, diagonal parking on the right side and a two-way protected bike lane on the other. The overall street is no wider, bikes can safely use every street and the diagonal parking is easier/faster to pull into and safer with the doors out of the travel lanes or sidewalks. You'll still have more than 50% of the parking you had in the current approach. I particularly like diagonal parking because if you are driving along the block and suddenly see an open space you can pull right in versus having to go past the space and backup to parallel park which can be a challenge if someone is driving right behind you.
In my make believe world in my head, every building would have to have underground parking to meet their individual needs. They’d also need to cover as much space inside/on their building with plantlife as their footprint.
From a landuse perspective, parking garages are preferable to street parking if you're planning anew. If you already have the pavement, and you don't need a bus lane on that street, there's more to lose than to gain by taking away the parking. The problem, even in Europe, is that there is a significant population, generally of the people with more money to spend, who derive virtually all of their transportation via personal vehicles---and very few cities can thrive with a market that doesn't include those people. I don't think the monkeying around with the parceling out of street space that seems to be currently fashionable costs a lot... it doesn't keep cities from investing in train lines, which is ultimately what is needed, to replace car commuting. But I don't see where it helps either. If you divert people away, they may well stay away.
I live in Hamiton Ontario and recently the city rejigged our two main stroads through the city by adding bus lanes. The car-centric crowd got all uppity because traffic increased, moaning about the bus-only lanes...meanwhile street parking on this major stroad takes up an entire lane of traffic and is usually occupied sparingly by a car or two every couple of blocks because of some legacy business from a bygone era. It's a major headache. Street parking should be for side streets only.
I basically never go shopping downtown. I'm not going to pay to park so that I can pay to support a business. I'll just support more urban businesses that provide the basic service of a parking spot.
The more I think about it the more I think cities should just get rid of cars entirely, imagine if we replaced them with trolleys, covered walking/bicycle/personal ev lanes, and greenery, add parking structures to the periphery, and along highways. It would make cities much nicer, faster, cleaner and safer, and help with emmissions substantially. Everyone hates driving in cities anyway.
The problem is not parking it's density. It's both not dense enough to be a walking city, and too dense for cars. Cycling also requires parking and has a higher injury risk, many cities that industrialized with cycling moved away from it. All in all cycling should be limited to cycling only roads that aren't in densely populated centers. Maybe through parks and along the coast
Having elderly parents has shown me that unless parking is close to their destination they have difficulties getting out. Also any parent who’s child is still in a stroller and multiple young children may need close parking. Must really depend on the demographics and family make up of the area your in as well as the what type of businesses or services are in that area and the demographics of the people who use their services. Really enjoy watching your videos as they get me thinking about how we could design our cities better. We certainly could do so much better so great that people like you are working on this.
There are ways to get around that don't depend on cars. Small children prefer riding in a bike compared to a car, and once you get old enough you can't even drive anymore.
When kiddo was still stroller-sized, I absolutely hated getting in and out of the car with her. Unfortunately, the "must fold stroller" rule on our buses also make it difficult to be a little kid in the city. My preferred car+stroller experience was always the corner space of a parking garage. Lots of room to get everything organized, the spot was covered if it rained, and shaded if it were sunny. On street parking was easily my least favorite. There's a curb to deal with for the stroller that's in the back. If there's more than one kid, you have to get one them out on the traffic side.
@@Jack-fw4mw I get my kid around on the back of my bike in most situations, and I promise you that transporting a kid on a bike has more complexity than in a car. Some of that is a result of it car-centric infrastructure. But some of it is just the logistics of a bike. Unless you have a bakfiets, there's really not a good spot for carrying a stroller. No stroller means that you are going to have to carry your kid for a big part of your day out.
@@inksuckeye1 It sounds like you live in a place with great bus service. I tried to take the bus to my last doctor's appointment. It was going to be a two hour trip that required walking two miles on the shoulder of a six lane highway. It's a 10 minute drive. What many people who make statements like yours seem to miss is that the availability of modes other than private vehicles is widely variable depending on your location. Because many people in car centric areas have a sunk cost in their automobile, they are inclined to keep doing what they are doing. And until alternate modes can meet their needs (getting to a doctor's appointment, picking their kid up from childcare before they get fined for being late,) it's going to be hard to move those people away from that bias. As I mentioned above, getting a kid in and out of a car kinda sucks, and it really sucks to try and do it curbside. But the vagaries of American insurance and childcare availability mean that you don't always have the option of choosing providers who are accessible by transit.
in a dense city: YES. If you have subterrain-parking, it is simply a waste of space. In a decent european city, a sqm of "building land" (zoned for construction) costs arour 1-5k €. That means, your parking space is worth between 12-75k €. Just the SPACE, not including pavement, payment service, cleaning etc. So, if the city would lease the land to developers for 5% of the value annually, they would earn 600-3750 € a year. And that doesn't even include, the taxes of the people that would move into these buildings. So, yeah, if your city already has a decent urbanist design, on street parking should be exclusive for the people/services that really need it. Like delivery vans, taxi stops, etc. And definitely not to store your metal box!
While I am in favor of bike lanes...there is a place that I like to go to for lunch during the week. I don't go very often though because there is very little parking and you can't really get there without a car. As for parking fees, more and more cities have privatized that aspect so the city isn't getting that money. Private businesses are, and they often have contracts that are not in the public's interest
@@andresaliba problem is that this is in an industrial area, and there would be very little use of any bike lanes there. Atlanta has many areas that should be of a higher priority for bike lanes than this area. I was simply stating that because I can't park there...I just don't go as often. No need to read more into it than stated.
@@scpatl4now Industrial areas are amazing places to have bike lanes. Everyone that works there would save an immense amount of money if they could go to work using bikes. It would also drastically reduce the pollution the area already causes.
@@andresaliba I get what you are saying, but this is an "up and coming" area...as people like to say. Lots of abandoned buildings, but quickly converting. Maybe one day it will have bike lanes, but with the City of Atlanta...that's more of a wish than reality.
To answer the thing about not being able to find a parking spot, Donald Shoup (“The High Cost of Free Parking”) has a solution: charge market price for the parking spots. That is, for a given block on a given side of the street, for a given day of the week and time of day, raise the parking meter rate until there are usually a few spots available in that place and time. Then you’ll be able to find a spot when you go to that restaurant. Reinvest the money made from that block on improvements for that block. Everyone wins.
One thing important to know about on-street parking is the same thing for creating a mass-transit metro system and that's where are people coming from? If people are coming from out of town or the suburbs then getting rid of parking will eliminate these customers. If they are driving from a few blocks away (like people in the suburbs do to go to their nearest stores), then maybe parking isn't really needed, and what is are safer streets and sidewalks (and neighborhood paths) to first encourage walking then biking.
I like the concept of bike lanes. I do think they have a positive impact on cities. However, perhaps in Northern climates they could be seasonal, say from April 15th through November 15th. There is definitely a drop off in bike use during the winter months and many of those bike riders are probably using cars and could benefit local business with additional parking. Has this concept been tried anywhere?
Bike use only drops off in the winter because segregated bike infrastructure is extremely poorly maintained, or not maintained st all. Quality of infrastructure is by far the most important predictor of cycling popularity. Plenty of people now also bike on roads in the winter, and it's not even that bad if you just wear the right clothing and throw on some studded tires. In a snow storm, it's far more dangerous to be in a car than on a bike. Also remember that many people cycle because they do not own cars.
@@Vio45lin Obviously, keeping the bike infrastructure year round and maintaining it is the best option; and not even having painted bike gutters is the worst option. But if the city doesn't keep bike lanes snow free during the winter anyways, I as a cyclist would actually prefer them to be converted to parking. Rather than drivers having the expectation that cyclists belong off the car lanes, and cyclists feeling they have to try to swerve into and out of bike lanes covered with patches of ice just because those lanes are there (somewhere under the snow). And giving the space back to parked cars might actually be a convincing argument for having more cycle lanes, at least in the summer. It might also backfire and mean having less actually usable cycle lanes in the winter, depending on how serious the city is about cycle infrastructure.
My local authority - and I assume it's the same for many others - allow parking even where it slows down traffic. In fact they use it for that purpose. Basically parked cars reduce the effective road width, so drivers tend to slow down. This might be good for slowing traffic in busy pedestrian areas, but it's not good for cyclists - or drivers. I usually keep half a metre of so from the kerb when cycling, and this allows drivers to pass at a safe distance. But if I see a line of parked cars ahead, of course I have to move out, into the traffic flow. So I get cars backing up behind me, frustrated they can't pass.
Here where i live, Sao Paulo, Brazil. The street where my parents own a store, its a little downtown area, the town hall decided to charge for street parking, results: the consumers used to park their cars to go shopping, now that they must pay for parking in the street, they prefer to go online shopping or to big shopping malls. So the street now are a desert, with a big drop in local sales, plenty stores are closing. Cars are not enemies at all...
I feel like that’s very situational. In the German city where I live parking is extremely limited (no minimum requirements and a chronic shortage) and small businesses are way more prevalent and healthier than in the US (where I’m from).
Sao Paulo is very car dependent. Just look at downtown, around Sé, everything should be pedestrianized with no access to cars. Other major projects destroyed the fabric of the city like Minhocão, 23 de Maio, etc... It takes 3 hours for people in the periphery to reach the other side of the city using public transportation. The entire city is an example of car destruction.
Definitely in many places, what should be done is an assessment of what the best use of that public space. Wider sidewalks? green space? Bike lanes? Parking? Alfresco dining? There isn’t one answer
Definitely makes streets feel less welcoming and lively, the space they take up can often be better used. In Toronto, there have been studies that show converted patios that replace street parking are orders of magnitude more profitable than the money they bring in when used as parking spaces
Most of this on-street-parking is literally next to a parking garage. I don't understand the rationale for on-street parking so close to off-street parking. So the next-best use should advance. E.g. if there are a lot of deliveries, then space should be made for that - delivery trucks double-parked is quite the obstacle to nicely moving traffic. Then, connecting places to go on a bike with bikelanes - the library there is an obvious candidate to bike to...
I used to believe that groups of people knew what was in their own best interest, then I started studying how merchants reacted to car policy. Shop owners in cities are always wrong about how many people arrive at their business by car. Always wrong about the impact of losing parking spaces, and always pleasantly (if begrudgingly) surprised at how well they do when streets are pedestrianized.
on the other hand, stripping out carparks for bus lanes when the bus doesn't actually stop anywhere near that spot without doing anything to actually improve the road for pedestrians and cyclists (though, to be fair, in the specific example the footpath and crossings weren't too bad for pedestrians) IS fairly likely to have a negative impact if not compensated for in some fashion.
Simple fact is that most of the time people don't have all the data, and some of what they do have is misleading junk data (due to propaganda). Also, some people are just idiots, though that's a lesser factor.
And when they go under because some "I know better than you" anti-car activists got rid of all parking, you guys will then just assume they weren't good businesses anyway.
The results of my city's study of downtown parking usage over a few day period showed that what business owners thought, that there was inadequate parking, largely wasn't the case. Only one or two lots filled during one short time period, but even then adjacent lots had spots. Most lots always had space, and all lots had space nearly all the time.
Maybe biases? Customers by car probably are buying more per person than customers on foot but the actual number of customers by car are fewer but they don't see that...
I call this the "scratchy blanket". A scratchy blanket can provide warmth. Then, if someone offers a downy blanket, the person with the scratchy blanket will say "What, give up the thing that keeps me warm?" or "if I uncover myself to change blankets, I'll get cold" (followed by "what? Give up the thing that keeps me warm!?).
I was thinking about what impact street parking has for the average speed. Also provides a barrier for pedestrians. But a wall of trees would be even more preferable than a wall of parked cars
Personally, I'd prefer a dedicated bus lane instead, it would be a nice barrier, too. For a physical barrier, (retractable) bollards are the way to go.
Parking is often an issue for collision involving cyclist and pedestrians. It is not just done to the speed on the road.
trees are also better looking than a sea of concorete and 1000kg metal boxes on wheels
Walls of trees sound great until you realize the roots will mess up all the underground utilities
@@saxtremerBus drivers are often even more dangerous to cyclists from my point of view.
As a City parking manager its very refreshing to see a video explaining some the issues we have to think about. I think I will share this video with colleagues, councillors and the public - its a succinct overview of the issues around pricing and rationing on-street (and off-street parking). Well done.
STILL though ughhh Street parking
yay
city beautiful did well in providing facts for this video
I think it is also important to keep in mind that limiting parking is not of much use if you have no alternative to driving. This is a lesson that many small and medium towns in Germany learned the hard way. After removing free parking from the town center, people from the surrounding villages simply did not come any more and went to shopping centers at the edge of town. Where I come from, they solved the problem by offering the first hour for free in a nearby parking garage
Interestingly, from the overhead shot of the area surveyed, it is clear that there are two parking garages in the area already, and both were probably not full as the top level was shown to be mostly empty on both. Of course we don't know when the overhead picture was taken, and they may be private garages, but assuming they are city owned, that makes the case to reduce on street parking stronger, at least in this area.
At the end of the day, there is parking, as you said in the nearby garage. So, from a purely rational standpoint, a business wanting to give customers a break could simply lower the price of their merchandise, rather than making every shopper pay more to subsidize parking fees in the garage.
The real problem here is that people aren't rational, have too much emotional attachment to free parking, and the difference between free parking and $5 parking is psychologically worth more than a $5 price difference in merchandise at the store itself, even though it's the same $5.
A lot of the insistence on parking being free is about dealing with people like this who can't think rationally.
I think it is rational to subsidize parking in a garage. Local shops can hardly compete with internet prices anyway, so a customer that comes to the shop does not try to optimize that aspect
I wonder if those towns actually exist. Most towns I know are still dominated by cars in their centers with the shops and resturants dying, while those that reduced the access for cars or parking thrive due to making shopping a better experience.
Remember, i is a town center, not a strip mall.
Keep in mind that we are neither talking about North America nor about larger cities were people can "just take transit". We are talking about towns like Biberach (Baden-Württemberg, Germany) that are surrounded by a rural area (in the German definition of rural).
Here in San Diego, tons of dedicated bike lanes are being put in everywhere. In many cases, the street parking is not eliminated, but instead, what used to be street parking becomes a bike lane with a strip of planters, and then one of two driving Lanes becomes the parking Lane. That way, there's enough room for parking, bikes, but let's room for driving. It doesn't seem to make traffic any worse though, in the streets have a much more walkable scale by being narrow and having more plantings.
Overall, I think it's good to preserve street parking but play around with different configurations of passenger loading, 30 minutes, surge demand pricing, and other models that allow for flexibility as habits and needs change. People always think they can predict or plan the future, which is what doomed streetcar systems all over the country in favor of cars. Now, the city's wish they had kept the streetcars. So before radically eliminating parking altogether, these flexible models are a good way to feel out what works and what doesn't.
Yeah, it really depends on the location and what the traffic looks like there. Reducing lanes is often a better alternative than removing parking. But if there aren’t more than one lane in each direction you can’t do that unless you make it a one-way.
The most important part is making space for more efficient travel. How you do it depends on the context.
Dave Amoss had been working on project like that and even did research on it. Comparing those interventions. He is even a go author on a book including case studies how this can work.
I agree with this to an extent. Ultimately, though, street parking is just more street space taken from pedestrians and cyclists in favor of cars. There may be cases where street parking is always preferred, but I'm not sure what that would even be.
I think as an intermediate step this is fine, but the goal should be to hopefully eliminate it in favor of sidewalks and bike lanes.
@@jamalgibson8139 yes I agree, having a long-term vision that's implemented in short-term increments allows for evaluation and adjustment along the way. I would say that a completely car free city is problematic for people who live in suburbia but want to go into the city for recreational purposes. At the very least, well-placed parking garages should be available in lieu of Street parking.
@@tstieber My opinion on suburbanites going to the city for recreation is that they should suck it up and take public transit, but I understand that is not a mainstream opinion.
I agree that parking garages are a good solution to the parking problem, as it concentrates the problem into set areas and doesn't distribute the problem throughout the city. If managed well, it can even substantially reduce the godawful amount of parking that cities have in their current form.
So long as those garages are built in a way that doesn't destroy the local environment, I think that really is something more cities should look into supporting.
Great video, as usual! I watched on Nebula. 😉
Parked cars really don't belong on the street, except in some highly limited cases. Japan is the only country that does this properly, however.
We need to break this expectation that drivers can just park at the side of the road. Cars are not horses.
I think what's particularly interesting about the intersection you chose is that there are literally 2 parking structures right there. Ironically this didn't seem to come up in your analysis in removing the on-street parking, it probably should have. Like that intersection is a great candidate to replace the on-street parking with bike lanes, because of those two structures which might be under utilized due to the on-street parking.
Yes, I was surprised he didn't mention those.
Also, I don't think we should be assuming that what worked in one time and will work in every time and place.
Part of the issue is people don't like parking garages in general. They're time consuming to use, often tight for space (a growing issue as average vehicle sizes have grown) and usually just as or more expensive than street parking, especially if you only need to stop somewhere for a few minutes. It can easily take an extra 5 minutes each getting in and out of a garage compared to using surface parking. I could park in the far corner of the lot at my current office building and easily get inside in less time than I could get my car parked in the garage of the building I used to work in.
@@jimzecca3961 I think garages are somewhat alienating too. You don't really feel like you're part of the community and welcome as much when you park in a garage. You think "I'm here to visit this one place and leave." It takes an awful lot of soft meditation to get yourself past such thoughts. When you park on the street, you feel like you've actually arrived and are actually part of it, and like you are free to visit anything or anyone there.
There was a story I heard about a small downtown where a department store like Hechts built a parking garage which was mostly empty during the day. People were wondering if there was a way to utilize that. Workers at downtown shops were taking a break to move their car from one timed parking space on the street to another during their shift (so they wouldn't get a ticket) which meant they were taking up spaces potential customers could have used.
Set up a (local) monitoring format to make it publishable. Numbers, numbers, numbers. If anyone has the time.....
(In the Netherlands (Utrecht) shopkeepers asked to have parking spaces removed because they noticed their businesses lagged compared to shops without street parking.)
Do you have any links to the study? Because in my city there's a boomer that lobbies for the return of street parking in our main shopping street.
Even better, many larger shopping chains in The Netherlands will only build new locations in pedestrian areas. That is where the shoppers are!
Try to introduce car traffic and street parking again and you have a fight on your hands!
Your Toronto example clearly demonstrates that most shops in this neighbourhood get the vast majority of their shoppers from that neighbourhood. Bloor St (and it’s easterly extension known as The Danforth) links dozens of residential neighbourhoods and the majority of those residents walk, take the TTC (major subway line runs along this corridor) and bike. So the character of the neighbourhoods major streets run through is a major consideration in your decision scenario.
Or at least did... The problem with our data is it's all from the past, and we are currently exiting an era where almost all real retail exchanges occurred in suburban big box stores due to the logistics economics of the 1990s. That era is being finished off by online retailers like Amazon, and in sectors that went online early, like books, we're already seeing the small stores reclaim the remaining non-online sales after Borders went out of business and B&N teeters on the brink of bankruptcy. In other words, don't expect brick and mortar to remain hyperlocalized as what's left of it becomes hyperspecialized and largely insensitive to price.
@@alexanderfretheim5720 incorrect, the Bloor Street Bike Lane Economic Impact Studies happened from 2009-2017. Its much harder to purposely drive to a brick and mortor store or mall if you can just purchase all the items online in a suburb. Much easier when you're walking/cycling to and from work/TTC to stop by a local business on your way home.
@@drfusioncraft I don't think you understand the study you're citing.
Don’t forget the health impact of breathing the exhaust of vehicles idling in parking spaces right next to the outdoor cafe seating.
It's far negligible relative to the exhaust put out by the accelerating cars on a busy street anyway
@@scottanos9981
Depends. Sometimes the street is not all that busy, but your stuck next to an idling engine for 30 minutes straight. And that idling engine might be a truck, which emits more exhaust.
I think the approach needs to situational. On-street parking can be a good option in less densely inhabited suburban and rural areas. In cities, though, you really need to find ways to limit it. For urban residential neighbourhoods and any commercial districts where underground parking isn’t an option, you can use parking metres or time limited blue zones (with long-term parking rights for local residents), while at the same time making as much of the city centre as you can entirely car free. And of course, build up transit and bike infrastructure so cars aren’t needed in the first place!
I think that car-free city centres are not a thing talked about enough when North Americans discuss how to manage cars in cities. They are absolutely ubiquitous here in Europe; most cities and even quite modestly sized towns have city centres that are completely off-limits to cars, and it not only helps safety and air quality in these busy city centres, but it is also a godsend for shops and restaurants there: Narrow sidewalks and walls of traffic separating one side of the street from the other are not very conducive to a leisurely shopping experience, so people just won't do it. Ban the cars, and people will turn up in droves.
I agree. There are so many variables to account for and this video barely touches on them
I agree. That is why I think the example in the video is so silly. Why do you need on street parking right in front of a large parking structure that is less than 1/2 full? This would be the perfect location for a bike lane.
@@rjfaber1991 I’ve lived car free for like 2 years in a midwestern city and it makes my life so much more pleasant on a daily basis. How exhausting driving actually is is something very much overlooked.
I probably have to move this summer and I’m not looking forward to having to drive semi regularly again. Though even in the city I’m moving to I should be able to do my daily commute by a single 30 minute bus ride. So it’s not too bad. I’ll miss light rail though so much better than bus.
@@rjfaber1991 well, they'll turn up in droves provided the area is actually Accessable from where they live/work without a car. Plenty of cities aren't set up that way (despite the fact that they really should be.)
One thing that I, as a pedestrian, like about on-street parking is the barrier it provides me from moving traffic. I'm at least 8 feet farther from moving cars with a big wall of metal in between. I think it also makes urban patio dining more pleasant too, for the same reason. I feel safer walking along streets with street parking than I do walking along streets without. It also slows down traffic.
There are many ways of creating this barrier you talk about. There could be trees, a separated bike lane, a patio spot, plants and bushes. Literally anything is better than a car there.
The plants would increase property value and look better than a car and would clean the air rather than pollute it, give you shade, and uses less width space than a parking lot.
They also carbon capture and provide wildlife habitat, whatever little wildlife there is in a city.
You can also feel safer if the cars drove slower, and to do that just narrow the streets by spending less on asphalt surface area. Save on tax money with narrower roads, and you get slower cars. The on-street cars make the road appear narrower so you feel safe, but go straight to the source and narrow the roads with a dedicated bike lane.
If a vehicle comes barreling towards the line of parked cars, chances are you're still getting hit by a car. They're not sturdy like trees, there's more debris that can hit you, and worse case, a chain reaction occurs.
Cars these days are so big that I'm always afraid of walking into an intersection from behind a parked pickup where a driver might hook me on a right turn.
I reluctantly agree. People definitely drive faster on roads with no on street parking. But I also fully agree with all of the points City Beautiful makes too. And ultimately I'm always going to be pro-protected bike lanes. There can be other traffic calming measures such as smaller/fewer lanes, traffic diverters and curb extensions.
Just today I saw an area of Houston, Rice Village, where parking lots and curbside parking was being converted to outdoor seating and picnic/yard game areas. Love seeing it in person and learning about it on here
I imagine as a car driver, on street parking is nice and comfortable in many scenarios. In Europe its also pretty normal to have streets stuffed with standing cars. I actually have no string negative feelings for this but when walking, i obviously enjoy streets with less obstacles there.
As a driver I must say that I actually hate it. Both when driving and parking. When driving, some streets become so narrow with parked cars that you have to stop and let oncoming cars go. I won’t even mention people parking close to turns, which basically blocks all the view, and leads to dangers (actually for all the traffic participants). But what about me parking myself? Well, first of all it’s a fake sense of “there will be space”. Even places I know well, where parking is free and which are usually available, they suck a lot. Somebody parks wide or it’s the wrong time of day - you have to go and look. Worst time was when I was moving, and couldn’t find a place to park close to home, because it was all parked like crazy all day long. Don’t even get me started on how some people react negatively to you parking on the street and blocking the road even if temporary. Also I think it’s becoming harder and harder to control it with time, I am sure a lot of people don’t actually pay at parking machines, and I see no parking discs where they are required quite often. And this is all without touching the security of on street parking: a big truck missing a turn, a car trying to fit into a tight parking spot - boom and your new shiny baby is scratched and nobody Is probably going to be responsible. I usually try to park on big underground or overground garages, or at least controlled parking areas.
@@mikadrakolis4556 Yeah and you have to be on high alert for people coming and going from those parked cars. And you have to avoid colliding with them when they reenter the road. There's also the nightmare of trying to parallel park in the middle of traffic.
These things aren't huge problems if the speed limits for these roads were slowed way, way, waaaay down. But in the US you know people are gonna barrel through at like 40mph
@@mikadrakolis4556 I see. Driving a car in a city can be quite hectic. That's true. The design of our city is actually neither car friendly nor is it pedestrian-friendly. In Europe AND America. If a ton of people move in or out (for example rush hour) it's pure chaos in many big cities. Road parking just adds more stress most of the time.
In Europe many cars you see parked on the streets are from the residents themselves. Those will obviously be parked for many hours.
It's not really an obstacle unless the sidewalk is too narrow.
Here's something that I want people to keep in mind as they push for changes like this (I'm not against the changes, but this is a cautionary tale). Denver, the biggest city near me, is especially bad at making small scale changes like converting parking to bike lanes along a street... and then patting themselves on the back and considering it job done. Problem is, it's not part of a bigger plan, and usually done in isolation. The bike lanes often go mostly unused because they do this along business heavy areas, and few people live close enough to bike (it's getting better but mixed development wasn't really a thing in Denver until maybe 15 years ago) and now people who had to drive to that business because they were too far to walk or bike have nowhere to park, and end up cruising for parking, or even more often, giving up because the only parking to be found is too far to walk to the destination, and transit in the city is an absolute nightmare. I don't want to live in the city, but sometimes I have to go to the city for concerts, specialty shops, etc. I'd be perfectly happy to hop on a train or bus or whatever and walk or take transit around while visiting, but in many North American cities, that part doesn't exist yet. Please, please look at the comprehensive systems when pushing for changes. You can turn those parking spaces into a bike line or wider sidewalks, but maybe hold off on that step until other pieces of the puzzle are in place, and focus on the parts that reduce the need for the parking space in the first place.
A fair point. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem though, if you mix use but there's not enough transit/bike options then people will start to clog things up with cars.
I appreciate you comment because you plainly state that while you don't want to live in the city, you are willing to use public transit rather than make the city accommodate you driving a car.
And that's all people need to do. Cities can accommodate cars if car drivers are willing to pay.
Do that or take public transit.
During the transition period away from car dependent cities, there will be fits and starts, but it will be easier for people to deal with the change if they even do carpooling.
There are lots of park and rides in America, too.
And for people who need to drive into the city, it will be better for them to do so after the transition is done since there will be less traffic and congestion.
Possibly even during the transition, too.
Less Driving Benefits Everyone (Including Other Drivers)
th-cam.com/video/YjpvNr5lGSw/w-d-xo.html
The Best Country in the World for Drivers
th-cam.com/video/d8RRE2rDw4k/w-d-xo.html
In most languages, words "street, road, lane, etc." translate to path of movement. Parking is not movement. All parking must be off the streets.
Pick-up + drop-off for people should be allowed for most of street length. Spot for cargo loading+unloading needs to be provided at certain spots based on distance (from annother such spot), population density, etc.
On Street parking...
Sure is an interesting topic. As someone in britain it's on litterally every single residential street often turning the 2 lane street into 1 lane with passing areas due to all the parked cars.
It is not only in Britain that parked cars in practice reduce a line. But I think the problem is bigger in Europe, as we normally have narrower streets than in the USA.
I think in areas where the street is not wide enough for on street parking on both sides and for cars to pass each other, on street parking should be banned on one side of the street.
Yes. San Francisco could have dedicated lanes for most to all Muni lines if they ditched some street parking. Portland could have dedicated lanes for much more of the streetcar by ditching some street parking.
I think San Francisco has bigger problems, and needs to address those problems before pursuing such minor distractions.
Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised this doesn't take into account residential parking for locals.
I know mixed-usage zones are rarer and rarer in the United States (which is extremely unfortunate - it seems to be one of the staples of well-balanced, self-sufficient local economies and healthy social environments in Europe).
In my town most parking spots are those ' 3 hours max' type of parking, but we all ignore them because there's hundreds of people living in downtown apartments (over top of street front businesses) that have nowhere to park.
In Europe that would not be a problem - just sell your car and take public transit to work - but this is America, a country that has waged a war on public transit as harsh as their war on 'drugs' and resource-tapping international military incursions.
It's a shame because at the end of the day those businesses starting closing down because touristy-weekend-only traffic isn't enough. Everyone starts saying "Not enough people live downtown anymore" and nobody can figure out why - it's because governments, from the federal level to the municipal, make downtown residential people 3rd class citizens. They wish we wouldn't exist - or at least their regulations and official measures blatantly make that hidden intention clear...
It's not that you can count Europe as survivable only by public transportation.
I live in a town of 4000, and I raise the same consideration as you. Street parkings are a necessity for locals. And btw, not every work can be done without a car.
Mandatory car park as a building requirement for the construction of residential buildings is what is required, this is governmental oversight and incompetency. Everyone suffers as a result.
Stop comparing the United States to Europe, because we have more people in one state then a lot of whole countries in Europe is no comparison you can’t compare Europe to the United States because Europe is essentially smaller. Anything outside of India, Canada, China, Africa, and a few other places, can we be compared to we have to function way differently because it’s way more people per capita
LMAO “downtown residential people 3rd class citizens”
I can’t speak for everywhere but most of the downtown residents in large American cities are heavily catered to. In part because they are disproportionately affluent/wealthy.
@@MelGibsonFan In the cities that have been gentrified, sure, but check with those cities before all the senators' families and CEOs' daughters moved in - ask them how they're catered to.
Your parking study did not take into account that cars with a disabled placard can park in timed parking spots without a time limit.
I would be in favour if there was spaces kept specifically for disabled people and others with mobility issues. My mother has mobility issues but can’t be classed as disabled to get the blue badge and often it means parking at a car park and it’s very time consuming for to get around as she has to walk incredibly slow vs if she just popped into a shop from an adj space. It’s also an issue when carrying bags for example. I wouldn’t have a problem with able bodied people like myself being forbidden from those parking spaces and made to use car parks or garages. Here in Ireland as far I am aware we have high fines if you park in a disabled parking space, maybe the same could be done for these 2nd tier “prioritised” spaces
I'm in that kind of situation. I can't get the plaque for my car but most days I cannot walk outside without aid, so parking garages are hell to use since there's usually a distance from the car to the exit, then going up to surface level and then walking to your destination. I used to barely ever street park in front of businesses (to save money and hassle), now I have to do it all the time.
@@shroomyesc yeah, it’s so stupid they don’t accommodate for more people for example someone who made of just had hip surgery
Yes, make it into protected bike lanes or wider side walks. Put those parking in large multi story parking garages that have a fee
ehh the parking buildings are ugly and create dead zones and take up valuable space. better to remove the cars entirely
@@sigmarizzlerking convince American cities that public transportation is better than a car. Very hard thing to do and you have suburbia which requires cars
@@Sparticulous strictly speaking even suburbia doesn't Require cars... Public transit is entirely doable, just massivley less efficient than it should be. And even that issue can be reduced or eliminated if the suburbs are actually built around the idea that people will be traveling by way of walking or biking to the local train station or the like most of the time.
Structures with storefronts on the main floors!
@@sigmarizzlerking That's a non-starter in the US, unless you are going to try to reverse the cultural trend toward max efficiency. Cars are always more efficient unless you make it excessively prohibitive. They went that route in my city and business simply left. The bus-only road in downtown is now one of the most dangerous streets because all the business left and less desirable parts of society moved in. It doesn't match the culture of speed and efficiency, and you don't change culture with the snap of a finger..
On thing that is not mentioned about street parking is how it prevents advertising your shop front to drivers and pedestrians. I live in Japan where there is no street parking and not being distracted from looking at the architecture and public art by a sea of parked cars makes living here all the more enjoyable (though yes, there are still way too many cars in Japan)
On-street parking on commercial streets are a waste of space (and result in traffic jams when people want to get in and out of spots)
And it's totally unnecessary to have the parking on the street. In busy places, people still end up parking a couple blocks away from their destination anyway.
Places should widen sidewalks, add bike lanes, or allow patios. That's a much better use of price real estate. Move car storage to less active locations.
Let’s apply the mullet rule:
Biking in the front; parking in the back.
Living in city ( Atlanta) which has eliminated a lot of on street parking I have strong opinions on this. 1. On street spaces here are typically 8x22 or 176 square feet. For planning purposes, we use 300-400 sf for a deck or lot. I would not call that environmentally friendly. Often older buildings have been demolished to build profitable private lots ( follow the "campaign contributions" on that) which creates a snaggle tooth feel that is not comfortably walkable. When that happens the on street parking is replaced by a bike or extra moving lane and the street becomes a faster way to blow through a neighborhood since on street parking also slows traffic. 3. On street parking creates a safety barrier both psychologically and physically between pedestrians and moving traffic. 3 Current codes here require on street active use in new buildings i.e. retail , restaurants etc which remain vacant or low use. Often the back door facing off street parking becomes the main entrance and the street entrance is under used or even locked. 5. We're also seeing a hybrid: midrise buildings 50-100' off a stroad with vacant storefronts at the base and not a pedestrian in sight despite a winding landscaped sidewalk next to the stroad 6. On street says "somebody's home" in business areas. 5. Here at least I will say that show me a street with no on street parking and I'll show you one with fast traffic and many empty or under used storefronts and few if any pedestrians.
Dave, you probably wont read this but have you been to Naperville IL? I think you've mentioned them before. They have an amazing suburban downtown. There are several streets with no on street parking and it has one one major road cutting through the center but all the side roads are low volume. They have a free garage parking structure near the center and I believe free parking lots on the outer parts of the downtown. It has a small river that cuts through the edge of the downtown has had a really beautiful riverwalk making it great for walking and biking. Honestly, they could get rid off all the on-street parking given they have free lots throughout and these buildings tend to have an alley which might make for easy places to load and unload. Downton Arlington Heights, IL and Oak Brook, IL is much the same and both of these have at least one train line stop that takes you into the city of Chicago. Then there is downtown Evanston which is much more densely populated that I don't think compares to the more suburban downtown I've mentioned but it's very beautiful downtown for a suburb.
I think one of the reasons Naperville has such a strong central shopping district was the free parking. That and being an affluent suburb plus having the river walk area as a draw must help.
I used to manage a store in Culver City which taught me the importance of parking to my bottom line. We started in a building no parking, then moved to a building with a shared parking lot, then finally to building with our own lot. With each move sales doubled. However once we had our own lot, we had to hire guards to keep people from using it as free parking for the entire neighborhood. There just is no optimum solution to parking as long as we're a car based society.
Your final caveat there should give you an idea of where a solution may be.
In Pittsburgh, a lot of bike lanes and on-street dining were installed by making formerly 2 way streets into 1 way streets.
Charging restaurants for it is fair as long as you charge for parking too. Nothing is for free and if you get spaces where they are at a premium you need to pay for it.
We need better public transportation if we want to reduce parking. If things were similar to other countries or even cities like DC or NYC people wouldn’t be as car dependent.
Black Friday parking lots, and now Black Friday on street parking. I am noticing a trend here.
Yes. And places like NYC are a great example of it working already. Removing parking spaces allows for more foot traffic for businesses allowing them to expand to outdoor dining and getting overall more traffic in general
I think it works in NY because we already have decent mass transit and are relatively dense. We’d be fucked if we were a place like Houston
I think a comparison between parking spaces and a bike lane should include some comment on the effect of existing or absent bike racks for bikes to park.
Also, I don't think you need or should have a bike lane on EVERY street, and in general they're most suitable for medium to high speed roads.
Parking and bike lanes should both be put in place. Making the street narrow forces traffic move at a lower speed, and therefore smoother and safer.
Narrowing streets is good but that space would be better used by giving it over to pedestrian or bike infrastructure. And a lot of cyclists get injured or killed each year because parked cars to the right of them on the road open their doors and force them to swerve into traffic, so having on-street parking isn't the most effective way of improving road safety
@@azd685 I maintain my opinion that having the bike lane in the right door zone (NOT THE LEFT DOOR ZONE!) of the parking spaces is a perfect solution to this, as slow- and medium-speed bike riders are minimally threatened (can only hit stationary objects, no risk of collision with a car in the traffic lanes) when a CAR PASSENGER fails to check for bikes before opening the door.
A lot of on street parking is downtown though, which often has narrower streets to begin with since they weren’t designed for cars. I think in many places both are not an option
do NOT put my bike lane next to the doorzone
It's only "smoother" until buses and trucks get stuck trying to make turns and paralyze everything. I've seen it happen at stroad intersections with average/wide lane widths, so it's only going to be more likely when turn radii get deliberately reduced.
I avoid on street parking as much as possible. I greatly prefer finding a lot. But even if I didn't prefer them, I think they probably are more cost effective for non-free parking since you can have a single machine at the entrance instead of a separate meter at every parking space. Underground parking is my favorite option of all. I don't go into cities often (partly because I end up spending too much money every time I do) but when I do I look for a place to park in this order: 1) underground, 2) above ground parking deck, 3) ground level parking lot, 4) on street parking.
In Philadelphia, they have a single machine for each "parking zone" that does pay-by-plate instead of a meter for each slot.
It's also worth remembering that in many European towns and cities there are lots of residential streets where there isn't space for residents to park a car on their own property. I live on just such a street - off-street parking is possible on one side but not the over.
It'd be awesome if on-street parking wasn't allowed either in those cities. We really need to start making cities car-free, or at least eliminate personal car ownership as much as possible
That's also very common in older US cities, particularly the parts that used to be suburban (though many of those lots have driveways; mine doesn't).
@@azd685 Those streets need to be a very long way down the list of streets where you eliminate on-street parking, though. You can't force people to give up their car until after you've ensured there are good quality alternatives that will work for them.
@@azd685 You should not force people to give up owning cars, it's a individual personal decision according to each one's needs.
@@stephengray1344 Ok then, cities should implement no on- or off-street parking for all new housing developments in conjunction with excellent transit access for those communities, building a demographic with a vested interest in seeing public transit succeed, and use that to justify further expansion of the transit system. And THEN they should ban on-street parking in your neighborhood.
Great video, would have also been good to address that there appears to be multiple parking garages in the vicinity of where you filmed the study. Why does street parking also need to supplement this?
Yeah I don't think the solution proposed in this video would work well in other cases because here, the street parking was unnecessary to begin with.
For visuals and the health of having less cars in cities I'd like to be able to say yes let's get rid of them, but as someone who recently this summer lost the ability to walk normally, screw parking garages. I have to get from home to where I'm going door to door somehow and I need to do that with my own car unless the state is willing to pay for taxis for everybody or something of such sort, but that's not a good solution either.
Proper public transit infrastructure would account for and mitigate this issue, well, depending on the exact disability in question, I suppose.... but it would still be far from perfect, I suspect (it's also Far cheaper. Again, if done right). But failing that, much more limited on street parking that's reserved for special use cases such as disabled persons and not available for general use at all ever would still be a step up (after all, there are less disabled people who require it than non-disabled people who would simply like to have it).
Parking buildings are pretty rubbish in general, really.
I’m fine with people getting free or low-cost parking. I don’t drive and use public transit. But I could lose count at how many times I’ve seen people leave work in the middle of the day because they have to move their car or else they’ll get a ticket. Or they can’t park near the destination because they’ll get a ticket. These tickets are expensive and can cut a whole week of pay in some cases. Just like free public transit, free public parks, public libraries, and public museums, free public parking is one less thing we can all share together and we don’t have to fight one another over.
Except free public parking brings a shit ton of negative externalities with it that the other things that you mention just don't have. And if these people need to leave work in the middle of the day to move their car, then that's a pretty good indicator that cars are the PROBLEM here. Letting everyone leave their car everywhere as long as they want will lead to all of those parking spaces being full all of the time.
Those people who need to leave work to move their car would probably benefit from a good transit connection or decent bike infrastructure. That way they wouldn't have to leave to move their car.
@@alex2143 if the punishment for parking too long is just tickets, the rule isn't for rich people, it's for "little" people.
@@scottanos9981 I think time is just as important if not more than money serve it doesn’t matter how much money you make in salary you still have to spend time and paying your fine if you receive one
@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 Hardly, the time is negligible compared to the fine. and the wealthy have their secretaries and financial advisors fill out the paperwork more times than not.
I think what concerns many cyclists is will their bike be there when they come back.
Secure bike parking will encourage bike ridership.
Yes, get a beater, cover with stickers and use two u-locks.
Get a grandma bike like they use in the EU.
We need secure bike parking.
Bikes are so ubiquitous here in the Netherlands that the odds of any one bike getting stolen are really slim.
@@alex2143 Really even $2000 bike? or just the bike that nobody want and often thrown to the Amsterdam canals that never get stolen ?
@@anubizz3
Almost all bikes you see around are just normal bikes that you could buy from anywhere between €80 and €200. If a perfectly functional bike in great technical working order that does the job it's intended to do is your definition of a bike that nobody wants, then we have a very weird situation where almost all Dutch people have a bike that nobody wants.
People don't leave their €2000 high end racing bikes outside. But most people don't have super expensive bikes like that. If you leave a bike like that outside, then okay, you're kinda asking for it. But most bikes are not that.
@@alex2143 Well am I wrong that Amsterdam canals are full of unwanted bike? if the original owner don't want it anymore why do you think Thief want it? so they can sell it for 10 EUR? We have around 20 + unlock bike in my apartment complex some even worth $600 when new, no one ever bother to steal it. while the expensive one the theft bother to break into lock up storage. Netherlands not that special here like what this Urbanist want you to believe
Funny when people get so offended by meter on street parking , while asking for Secure bike parking....
@@anubizz3 I'm just giving you my perspective as a Dutchman. If I put my bike somewhere, I'm not really worried at all about it getting stolen.
Did you know that the Netherlands has more bikes than people btw? Just thought that was an interesting tidbit to share.
I don't think they even try in some cities now. My entire street is "2 hour parking" and nobody care or enforces it. Me, and everyone else, regularly park there all day and we never get tickets. There is a lot of construction too which has led to people just parking in bike lanes when they close the street parking. Again, no tickets. I'm thankful for it, as there is no alternative for less than $200/month.
The problem is that they keep approving 100+ unit apartment buildings with ZERO parking. This is a city that does not have a subway/rail system beyond a single north/south route, has unreliable busses, a patchwork and incomplete bike lane system, and safety is an issue in many parts of the city for those that do take public transit.
I don't know the solution, but removing the parking we do have without replacing it is not it. I'm also moving to the suburbs as soon as I can.
It seems there need to be seasonal and regional considerations, too. If you're shopping downtown in a city in Wisconsin or Minnesota in December, January, or February, it's a different calculation than you'd make for a dedicated bike lane in San Luis Obispo.
It gets pretty cold in Oslo Norway, well below freezing with no daylight for much of the year, yet their healthy cycling numbers barely go down in the winter months. That's because their excellent separated bike lanes get swept of snow & ice as a priority, several times a day if necessary.. It's all about the infrastructure, & the correct clothes.There is nothing like a little exercise to keep you warm for the rest of the day.
@@zivkovicable
Thanks, and yep that's interesting and I agree, but it would involve reprogramming an entire society -- that's used to something different -- to think and behave the way Scandinavians do. In Oslo, these are long-established attitudes and behavior; in the U.S., not so much. Still, I suppose you have to begin the process of re-education somewhere.
@@rickrose5377 Not so long in the case of Oslo. We are talking about a dramatic improvement in the last ten years. Even the daddies of cycling infrastructure Denmark & the Netherlands didn't start building their network until the late 1970's, with their cities dominated by cars until then.
it's a mistake to think that it was cultural & the attitudes were long established.
As a Minnesotan, you’re right, less people bike in the winter (bike lanes are less useful). However, a lot of places actually have to also close street parking, because snow makes them dangerous (it’s hard to use snowplows with street parked cars).
@@zivkovicable well, there is an element of culture and attitude: Convincing the officials to actually do the thing to begin with. ... and even then, it's more a case of overcoming propaganda from certain (very wealthy) groups that benefit more from car-centric infrastructure.
This reminds me of a video I saw on FB where a guy was bragging about how he and a neighbor in a dense NJ neighborhoood keep two extra low value cars on the road so they can spread them out in the morning with no room to park between them... then in the evening, they park them close together so they can have a reserved spot for their main driver. The message was supposed to be "look how clever I am" but all I could think was "you selfish bastard - I'm glad I'm not your neighbor."
That sounds like a good deal...until you realize that just the cost of registering and insuring those two extra cars probably costs more per month than simply paying for parking in a garage.
@@ab-tf5fl - I wouldn't be so sure. Either way, it doesn't seem like "paying for a garage" was an option -- certainly not one right outside his apartment where he could charge his electric cars by running wires over the sidewalk. All this said, nothing would make my internal imp happier than finding out that he had to eat cat food to make ends meet after spending all his money on security cameras and cars he doesn't use.
Yes also make roads out of thirsty cement to reduce sand use and save rivers.
Also thirsty cement reduce flooding and increase groundwater aquifer levels.
Also that parking garage roof can use some solar or wind mybe bolth on its top to reduce energy needs or fill it with native plants like flowers and bushes mybe a couple trees.
Thirsty cement?
When I do transit planning, I look for space to put a bus or light rail lane. On-Street parking is my target for finding space
which makes perfect sense. Provided your bus or light rail is actually covering the trip that the people using the cars parking there would be making. If they're coming from places your route doesn't serve though, you're kind of screwing people over if you don't provide alternatived parking (well, assuming they still have to go to that specific destination.)
@@laurencefraser That's what municipalities usually do. Solve one problem by creating other two
Ideally, there would be an alley between blocks of stores to access parking lots and for delivery trucks. Maybe when I have billions to spend on designing a new city, alternate streets will be either for pedestrians/bikes/trams or for cars and trucks, keeping them entirely separate.
Reminds me of Disney world. The back has work vehicle and truck access while the front area is blocked off from the back and is pedestrian only. Look at epcot from above, for example.
This meant restocking as needed without blocking customers.
Short answer: *YES*
Long answer:
Absolutely yes. It would curb car traffic, reduce emissions, allow for more green and public spaces, bike infrastructure, walkability, be a huge step towards the sponge city concept and climate resiliency, reduce geographic and socioeconomic divisions in cities, and it would warm my heart.
Ok, time to watch the video.
No, they shouldn't.
They Should just put the parking spaces at an angle to narrow the street.
As a New York resident, I believe that on street parking should be totally banned. That is causing a huge mess here in Manhattan.
Dave, since you used to live in Wisconsin. This might be of interest to you. Milwaukee has a group proposing to remove 32 acres worth of freeway from the downtown lakefront area to create a more walkable, livable neighborhood. If you want to know more the group that started this effort is called "Rethink 794". I'm excited to see what my city could be in the next 10 years
This sounds like a beautiful project. Love this
That’s really good, isn’t like one of those Freeway Removal projects that the US Department of Transportation has or something? I know there was a provision in either the Bipartisan infrastructure deal or the IRA that allows cities to remove freeways that negatively impact communities of color.
I live in an apartment complex. Thinking about this, it hurts walkability in an otherwise dense area. These complexes range in size from a big box store to entire strip mall. On top of that they have less entrances. My nearest shopping center is only 200 yards away but I have to walk 800 yards to get there by walking 150 yards the wrong way and then around 2 other complexes.
1600 yards to the nearest retail is to far to conveniently walk, especially since it is a CVS, a few restaurants, and a salon. The grocery store and the bank left.
As with everything in city planning, it’s very complex. But I appreciate you showing the pros and cons. Maybe you could create a street parking cheat sheet? I know that would be helpful for me as someone learning about planning. Also, as I grew up in a suburb with practically no limits on parking, visiting my friends in Los Angeles was always incredibly stressful with trying to find parking, remembering cash, etc. I don’t live in a big city for one of those and many other reasons.
Fellow surbanite here (not sure if you still live in one but I have lived in suburbs all my life) and couldn't agree more. I hate parallel parking and haven't had to do it since my drivers license test except for yesterday visiting the city, and I dread the day I gotta go back😂 but yeah it's definitely a source of anxiety
Ban street parking, make public transit cheaper then use those big superstore parking lots to create park and rides.
If Walmart/Target cry about it, to bad for them. No one fills those lots anyway, as we saw this past black Friday.
If small businesses cry about it, they will stop once the calmer streets attract more customers.
I'm a bit confused by the drone footage. There's plenty of parking structure space too. I'm all for removing street parking if affordable parking lots exist.
Actually I wonder why a shared lot on the outer areas of a business district with a shuttle or trolley stop isn't the standard bridge between car centric and pubic transit.
Yes. Here in Detroit, street parking could be replaced with a tram line, as would be the case when/if the M1 Rail gets extended to Pontiac.
Personally, I never liked parallel parking on busy streets. In fact, I dislike it so much, that I'd much rather have parking lots or garages built within walking distance of all those businesses that were dependent on street parking, even using eminent domain if need be, and repurpose the street parking for bus and delivery truck lanes that could optionally be shared with cyclists.
There's a city near me that has several parking garages around the downtown shopping area. It's fantastic. You park and then walk along the lovely street, sometimes popping into other shops on your way.
I also prefer parking in a parking garage where your car is protected from the weather. No heating up in the summer, no hail damage in storms. On street parking makes no sense.
This is why I feel most on street parking should be diagonal instead of parallel. Far easier and safer to get in and out of.
@@jimzecca3961 There's a street on my commute that has diagonal parking and it is one of the most terrifying parts to drive by. That whole street is a nightmare though (people park in the median between directions).
Local governments can cash in on outside dining as well - in Germany streets are usually owned by the city and cities have the possibilities to take fees on commercial usages of the street like shop displays, signage or outdoor seating - they are also supposed to control that businesses do not overstep their allowed spaces to accomodate for all street usages. It has been my job for the past 1,5 years now to work in public administration issuing those allowances on commercial street uses.
Leaving this comment without having paper evidence on hand, could a case possibly be made for every-block, fixed-price-increase-per-minute/hour compact parking ramps or small lots? This way, streets could be left clear to outdoor dining blocks, delivery vehicles, and bikes, while cars, removed from the street, still have a place to go, at least in my head. The key point here is that if possible, said parking places are on every block (or every other block, or possibly further as long as associated destinations are within comfortable walking distance), and because they are per-block, they can then be tiny... and then in turn, each could be a small local business. I saw a model somewhat like this in Tijuana, Mexico, with tiny parking lots slotted between taller, mixed-use buildings, and to me it seems to work, at least.
Admittedly though, somewhat deviating from topic, I feel like a lot of problems with private transit... or, I suppose, the solutions given to solve private transit problems... are more like stem-level fixes (at least here in the United States) rather than solutions at the root-level. If US zoning laws could only be amended to permit the placement of critical commercial businesses (grocery stores, mainly, but... heck, cafes, barber shops, convenience stores, even?) in residential areas (that is, with the same spacing priorities as schools, or denser) instead of the hyper-segregated "only houses here, and any shops must be way over there" mega-blocks we have now, I feel like people would definitely feel less forced to take cars everywhere.
Additional thoughts are welcome? In any case, thanks for the video!
I feel like if there isnt a meaningful transit alternative, it comes across as very elitist and trying to force people out of their cars. I think they should work on transit options before starting road diets, removing spaces, etc.
So interesting to see this playing out in my hometown! I’m wondering how badly people are overstaying OR ticketed during farmers market haha.
Many larger European cities have parking underground near the city center, making the whole distance from shops thing irrelevant. Those centers tend to be slow-traffic only, so pedestrians and cyclists are allowed but not motorized vehicles.
The distance from shops thing isn't irrelevant if you can't walk well or at all, it's still (usually) the walk from the car to the exit point, some stairs, then an elevator, then some long hallway before you're out on street level and nowhere close anymore to where you were originally going. I recognize most people are able to walk, but as someone who very recently became physically disabled to an extent using city centre parking garages is just hell.
I never parallel park, I hate it, but you also need to make sure you have sufficient parking garages nearby. My local city is very walkable, but it has accessible parking garages every block or two. I do think it's good to have "quick spaces" that allow you to park for a few minutes, which tend to mean they don't park too close together.
Here in Phoenix, I'd like to see this study... Because when for many months out of the year its over 100 and for 2-3 months its almost 115 atleast each day, there is not many people out biking in our heat. Now cars with A/C, that is more valuable then a bike lane. The amount of streets we've added bike lanes to is insane, and I've NEVER seen most used... and the ones that do, risk their own safety as most of the time, they will get hit by a car... Drivers are horrible here.
So, are you saying that people shouldn't have a safe place to bike during the winter months when it's cooler because some of the year, it's too hot? That doesn't seem fair.
@@ab-tf5fl I'm guessing you have never lived in Arizona?
As much as I agree with this video, its genuinely impossible in my area's current situation. The goal right now is to limit it to just on-street parking, rather than expansive parking lots. Installing sidewalks is our step one here, completely removing cars from the business areas would be like telling people they are losing everything they know.
Its not a good situation, the fact that sidewalks are even a question as to if you'll find one is horrible, but starting with on-street parking is the only real way to get any progress.
Maybe build parking garages?
@@thesuomi8550 while that would be another potential solution, that'd mean someone has to maintain a tower made only for cars, instead of people having to pay the local government for far more limited on-street parking. The reason on-street is preferable is because it reduces parking while still making it available for the car-nuts
I am generally in favour of more walkable/bikeable neighbourhoods. On a recent trip to Montreal I noticed on St. Catherine street how it has been set up to discourage cars. The problem is: it also discourages people with mobility issues. The first parking space I found was a whole km from my intended destination. The cobbled streets are worse for wheeled mobility aids than the usual bad pavement. The sidewalks often had debris that became barriers to anyone who isn't able to walk perfectly. Rather than eliminate on street parking entirely, keep much of it, and designate it for accessible permits only.
9:22 why did the audio cut off?
Also, interesting video. I wonder what the cut-off point is for a road being suitable to have on-street parking.
I was wondering about certain increases in parking in some neighborhoods. Business owners immediately believe there will be a loss of business, but if it increases parking turnover, it would actually increase the number of people able to park and order take out. There is also a need for quick turnover for DoorDash and other food delivery services. I can’t tell you how difficult it is parking just to pick up orders in Seattle, but it is because street parking is being used for very long periods when it should really be short drop offs and pickups. Garages underground should be used for longer periods.
Business owners believe correctly. No turnover will fix a long-term loss of consumers in a neighborhood. If customers will stop living and working nearby there will be nobody for parking turnover.
Another example of car drivers and owners getting everything subsidised. The great thing about expensive parking is it makes more funds available for worthwhile things like transit.
I remember when both the 14th Street and Flushing busways were being implemented. One of the "concerns" from business owners in both cases was the lanes would take away space from customers. They made is seem as if 90% of all customers arrive on car and park in these specific spots, which is wildly out of touch in reality.
You don't even need a study to figure this out! Think of all the dozens of customers that visit a specific store in an hour. Is the owner of that one business really telling me that these customers all found parking.........in Manhattan? Ya know, the city with really bad congestion? In front of the store? All at the same time? And just for the one business? And the residents, trucks, and customers for other stores?
It would be ideal if there were a compromise here. Not everyone _can_ ride a bike _or_ walk. How many of those people are able to use the street parking? If it isn't reserved, marked for accessibility, etc? Maybe not so many as would gain the most benefit. Bike and pedestrianization is, for the most part, a net positive for a community, but it doesn't undo the need for parking and shortening the walking/wheelchair distance by having nearer parking can be a great service for many. Plus, the fact of the matter is, people have cars and people use cars. Encouraging use of biking, walking, public transit, etc can reduce car traffic, but unless you've made a car inaccessible area, there will still be a drive for...driving. Street parking, as it is in many contexts, doesn't do a great job of fulfilling the needs of those who most need it, but it can mitigate them. Since cars will still be a thing, those people will still need to put them somewhere, which is where parkinglots and parking garages come into the picture...which bring their own, many issues.
I'm not someone qualified to say what the solution would be, so I won't offer one. I would just say that I do not believe it would be a simple matter going one way or the other. You would gain and lose no matter what you do; so, if some sort of compromise can't be found, then it really behooves the planner to identify what would best serve that specific community/location. One would hope it would be one that caters best to everyone, but that just simply isn't possible everywhere.
reserving most on street parking for delivery and/or handicap spots would probably be the best compromise. as it stands currently, people who can't walk will probably not find a free parking spot close enough to the place they're going to anyways
More people can walk or bike than drive a car, though. And I'm sorry, but the whole concept of cars being more friendly for the disabled just doesn't hold water.
@@doom-generation4109 (if I’ve understood correctly, most people with disabilities prefer the term “disabled” over “differently abled”. for me “differently abled” sounds more patronizing than helpful or accurate)
@@doom-generation4109 The decision to use the term "differently abled" suggests that you haven't spent much time with disable people. The politics of identity-first vs. person-first language can be messy, but I have yet to meet anyone who considers themselves disabled and uses the term "differently abled."
Over time, if transit becomes more accessible, flexible, and frequent, disabled people who use a private automobile as part of their mobility will decrease. But it is unfair to expect someone who has difficulty walking longer distances to take a three hour bus ride with two connections to make a twenty minute trip by private car.
@@doom-generation4109 It's not a binary situation, but I can say that person who uses a manual or motorized wheelchair, has difficulty with prolonged cardio activity, etc, would see very little benefit to a bike lane, but *could* see benefit from accessible on street parking. Public transit can fill in a lot, and could be a great help. Still, routes are not always designed with short stop-to-location trips in mind, and may add unnecessarily long ride times for those reliant on them. So, it wouldn't be a perfect solution, but nothing ever is. That's the thing: there is no perfect good/bad here. The ideal is just about giving everyone as many options as possible without restricting anyone's right to movement.
And yes, more people probably can walk or bike...but that doesn't mean we should ignore those who can't or chose not to. (which is not to say you are, just that it is a consequence of not making considerations for those individuals in planning discussions)
In Japan, they make parking building about 4-5 story height. They use lift and may be mechanic to pack up many cars efficiently. No need get rid of cars to gain space. Everybody happy. Very little road side parking or maybe none.
Great stuff! In one of your SLO clips, I think I saw a sign for off-street public parking. (Possibly in that big multilevel garage?) How does this kind of city-owned parking fit into the equation? One thing off-street lots do is prevent parallel parkers from temporarily holding up traffic as they get in and out of spaces.
Is the opportunity cost of dedicating off-street land to parking necessarily higher than the cost of using a street lane for parking vs. bike lanes or parklets?
As someone who bikes a lot in my city, on street parking is the absolute worst. It is absolutely awful being between two cars with only a foot of space on either side. This makes drivers and bikers "compete" for the road which should be shared because the design creates a contant tension between cars and bikes. Cars have to be extra weary of bikes, often having to move a little bit into the other lane to give the bike extra space and bikers have to be extremely weary of cars on both sides, as a forgotten signal or careless driver can quickly end a life.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with cars. With a group of friends a car ride can be one of the most memorable parts of the night. But cars should not be the only option and modes of transportation should work in harmony and never against each other. The main problem I have with on street parking is that it by discouraging bikers, there are less bikers. When there are less bikers (or none in particularly hostile places to bikers) cars watch out for them less and forget to share the road, which is where accidents and fatalities happen. And since nobody bikes, people often assume that biking just sadly isn't possible so we should move on when in reality, we should be separating cars and bikes in order to create a more harmonious balance to accommodate both modes of transportation.
My big issue with parking meters are that you have to gauge how long you're going to be parked somewhere, especially important if your local parking pigs are particularly vicious. My city has structures in it's downtown, and while ugly, it's a more efficient way of handling demand for parking and you can just pay for however long you need to be there. I will walk a longer distance to use either free or structure parking as a result.
Where I live in Brisbane, Australia there is a major road called Gympie Road. This road starts at an intersection of other major roads and heads north past the biggest shopping centre in town (Westfield Chermside) and then continues on past other shops and stuff. The section between the southern end and the big shopping centre is probably as close as Brisbane gets to a Stroad.
This road among other things sees a lot of bus traffic heading from the CBD to Westfield Chermside and beyond and the government wants to build what they call the "northern transitway" which is intended to be a set of bus lanes (and bus priority improvements) along this stretch of road. This is much needed (I have been on buses where it has taken 3 light changes to move through a particular intersection along this stretch of road.
The problem with this project is that whilst the initial plan was for bus lanes that would operate 24/7, the government bowed down to the wishes of business owners (including a bunch of car yards) over the loss of on-street parking (which in this area is free to use) and changed the plans so the busways will only operate during peak times (despite the clear need for the bus lanes even during non peak times just based on my own observations). Wish we had a government with the guts to say NO to the business owners and make the bus lanes 24/7 which will provide a much bigger overall benefit than a few people being able to park their cars in front of a car yard or other business.
Cars are terrible and on-street parking prices should reflect the massive externalities that drivers inflict on everyone.
In Sydney on-street parking reduces and slows through traffic in shopping streets at off peak times compared to peak times when parking is banned and through traffic uses kerbside lanes. It therefore it has a side benefit of improving walkability.
Cool of you to give your students a shout-out. Oftentimes not something that happens
A well-balanced take on the issue. I'm a car-guy and a lot of channels tend to make very biased judgements, but what's said here is just logical and reasonable.
A subject I'd love for you to cover would be the implementation of Keicar laws outside Japan. What impact could these laws have on parking, congestion, city planning, emissions etc. This would be particularly interesting if you'd bring the Keicar concept into the 21st century and make it electric.
Your TYPICAL city is San Luis Obispo? Give me a break. Parking is better than bike lanes. I live in Portland a bike Mecca. I don’t believe your study. Portland’s bike lanes are underutilized compared to parking. The problems with studies where the authors have an axe to grind are infamous.
It's not even what I'd call a real city. Very nice though, from what I remember in a short visit in the 1980s.
I think the best compromise solution for on street parking in real cities is to have alternating blocks be one way in each direction and instead of the street being two travel lanes and parallel parking on both sides instead have it be one car travel lane in one direction, diagonal parking on the right side and a two-way protected bike lane on the other. The overall street is no wider, bikes can safely use every street and the diagonal parking is easier/faster to pull into and safer with the doors out of the travel lanes or sidewalks. You'll still have more than 50% of the parking you had in the current approach.
I particularly like diagonal parking because if you are driving along the block and suddenly see an open space you can pull right in versus having to go past the space and backup to parallel park which can be a challenge if someone is driving right behind you.
In my make believe world in my head, every building would have to have underground parking to meet their individual needs. They’d also need to cover as much space inside/on their building with plantlife as their footprint.
Sounds like what disney and others had envisioned decades ago.
From a landuse perspective, parking garages are preferable to street parking if you're planning anew. If you already have the pavement, and you don't need a bus lane on that street, there's more to lose than to gain by taking away the parking. The problem, even in Europe, is that there is a significant population, generally of the people with more money to spend, who derive virtually all of their transportation via personal vehicles---and very few cities can thrive with a market that doesn't include those people.
I don't think the monkeying around with the parceling out of street space that seems to be currently fashionable costs a lot... it doesn't keep cities from investing in train lines, which is ultimately what is needed, to replace car commuting. But I don't see where it helps either. If you divert people away, they may well stay away.
I live in Hamiton Ontario and recently the city rejigged our two main stroads through the city by adding bus lanes.
The car-centric crowd got all uppity because traffic increased, moaning about the bus-only lanes...meanwhile street parking on this major stroad takes up an entire lane of traffic and is usually occupied sparingly by a car or two every couple of blocks because of some legacy business from a bygone era. It's a major headache.
Street parking should be for side streets only.
I basically never go shopping downtown. I'm not going to pay to park so that I can pay to support a business. I'll just support more urban businesses that provide the basic service of a parking spot.
The more I think about it the more I think cities should just get rid of cars entirely, imagine if we replaced them with trolleys, covered walking/bicycle/personal ev lanes, and greenery, add parking structures to the periphery, and along highways. It would make cities much nicer, faster, cleaner and safer, and help with emmissions substantially. Everyone hates driving in cities anyway.
The problem is not parking it's density. It's both not dense enough to be a walking city, and too dense for cars. Cycling also requires parking and has a higher injury risk, many cities that industrialized with cycling moved away from it. All in all cycling should be limited to cycling only roads that aren't in densely populated centers. Maybe through parks and along the coast
this is the most civil and respectful comment section I have seen on youtube in forever wow
Having elderly parents has shown me that unless parking is close to their destination they have difficulties getting out. Also any parent who’s child is still in a stroller and multiple young children may need close parking. Must really depend on the demographics and family make up of the area your in as well as the what type of businesses or services are in that area and the demographics of the people who use their services.
Really enjoy watching your videos as they get me thinking about how we could design our cities better. We certainly could do so much better so great that people like you are working on this.
There are ways to get around that don't depend on cars. Small children prefer riding in a bike compared to a car, and once you get old enough you can't even drive anymore.
When kiddo was still stroller-sized, I absolutely hated getting in and out of the car with her. Unfortunately, the "must fold stroller" rule on our buses also make it difficult to be a little kid in the city. My preferred car+stroller experience was always the corner space of a parking garage. Lots of room to get everything organized, the spot was covered if it rained, and shaded if it were sunny.
On street parking was easily my least favorite. There's a curb to deal with for the stroller that's in the back. If there's more than one kid, you have to get one them out on the traffic side.
@@Jack-fw4mw I get my kid around on the back of my bike in most situations, and I promise you that transporting a kid on a bike has more complexity than in a car. Some of that is a result of it car-centric infrastructure. But some of it is just the logistics of a bike. Unless you have a bakfiets, there's really not a good spot for carrying a stroller. No stroller means that you are going to have to carry your kid for a big part of your day out.
My mom used to take me everywhere on the bus when I was a kid, the idea that parents need parking because they have kids is crazy.
@@inksuckeye1 It sounds like you live in a place with great bus service. I tried to take the bus to my last doctor's appointment. It was going to be a two hour trip that required walking two miles on the shoulder of a six lane highway. It's a 10 minute drive.
What many people who make statements like yours seem to miss is that the availability of modes other than private vehicles is widely variable depending on your location. Because many people in car centric areas have a sunk cost in their automobile, they are inclined to keep doing what they are doing. And until alternate modes can meet their needs (getting to a doctor's appointment, picking their kid up from childcare before they get fined for being late,) it's going to be hard to move those people away from that bias. As I mentioned above, getting a kid in and out of a car kinda sucks, and it really sucks to try and do it curbside. But the vagaries of American insurance and childcare availability mean that you don't always have the option of choosing providers who are accessible by transit.
in a dense city: YES. If you have subterrain-parking, it is simply a waste of space.
In a decent european city, a sqm of "building land" (zoned for construction) costs arour 1-5k €. That means, your parking space is worth between 12-75k €. Just the SPACE, not including pavement, payment service, cleaning etc.
So, if the city would lease the land to developers for 5% of the value annually, they would earn 600-3750 € a year. And that doesn't even include, the taxes of the people that would move into these buildings.
So, yeah, if your city already has a decent urbanist design, on street parking should be exclusive for the people/services that really need it. Like delivery vans, taxi stops, etc. And definitely not to store your metal box!
While I am in favor of bike lanes...there is a place that I like to go to for lunch during the week. I don't go very often though because there is very little parking and you can't really get there without a car. As for parking fees, more and more cities have privatized that aspect so the city isn't getting that money. Private businesses are, and they often have contracts that are not in the public's interest
So you see the issue (can't really get there without a car) but don't see the solution (more bike lanes). Really?
@@andresaliba problem is that this is in an industrial area, and there would be very little use of any bike lanes there. Atlanta has many areas that should be of a higher priority for bike lanes than this area. I was simply stating that because I can't park there...I just don't go as often. No need to read more into it than stated.
@@scpatl4now Industrial areas are amazing places to have bike lanes. Everyone that works there would save an immense amount of money if they could go to work using bikes. It would also drastically reduce the pollution the area already causes.
@@andresaliba I get what you are saying, but this is an "up and coming" area...as people like to say. Lots of abandoned buildings, but quickly converting. Maybe one day it will have bike lanes, but with the City of Atlanta...that's more of a wish than reality.
To answer the thing about not being able to find a parking spot, Donald Shoup (“The High Cost of Free Parking”) has a solution: charge market price for the parking spots. That is, for a given block on a given side of the street, for a given day of the week and time of day, raise the parking meter rate until there are usually a few spots available in that place and time. Then you’ll be able to find a spot when you go to that restaurant. Reinvest the money made from that block on improvements for that block. Everyone wins.
One thing important to know about on-street parking is the same thing for creating a mass-transit metro system and that's where are people coming from? If people are coming from out of town or the suburbs then getting rid of parking will eliminate these customers. If they are driving from a few blocks away (like people in the suburbs do to go to their nearest stores), then maybe parking isn't really needed, and what is are safer streets and sidewalks (and neighborhood paths) to first encourage walking then biking.
I like the concept of bike lanes. I do think they have a positive impact on cities. However, perhaps in Northern climates they could be seasonal, say from April 15th through November 15th. There is definitely a drop off in bike use during the winter months and many of those bike riders are probably using cars and could benefit local business with additional parking. Has this concept been tried anywhere?
Bike use only drops off in the winter because segregated bike infrastructure is extremely poorly maintained, or not maintained st all. Quality of infrastructure is by far the most important predictor of cycling popularity. Plenty of people now also bike on roads in the winter, and it's not even that bad if you just wear the right clothing and throw on some studded tires. In a snow storm, it's far more dangerous to be in a car than on a bike. Also remember that many people cycle because they do not own cars.
@@Vio45lin Obviously, keeping the bike infrastructure year round and maintaining it is the best option; and not even having painted bike gutters is the worst option. But if the city doesn't keep bike lanes snow free during the winter anyways, I as a cyclist would actually prefer them to be converted to parking. Rather than drivers having the expectation that cyclists belong off the car lanes, and cyclists feeling they have to try to swerve into and out of bike lanes covered with patches of ice just because those lanes are there (somewhere under the snow).
And giving the space back to parked cars might actually be a convincing argument for having more cycle lanes, at least in the summer. It might also backfire and mean having less actually usable cycle lanes in the winter, depending on how serious the city is about cycle infrastructure.
In Scandinavia, people bike in winter, because it's maintaned.
My local authority - and I assume it's the same for many others - allow parking even where it slows down traffic. In fact they use it for that purpose. Basically parked cars reduce the effective road width, so drivers tend to slow down. This might be good for slowing traffic in busy pedestrian areas, but it's not good for cyclists - or drivers.
I usually keep half a metre of so from the kerb when cycling, and this allows drivers to pass at a safe distance. But if I see a line of parked cars ahead, of course I have to move out, into the traffic flow. So I get cars backing up behind me, frustrated they can't pass.
Here where i live, Sao Paulo, Brazil. The street where my parents own a store, its a little downtown area, the town hall decided to charge for street parking, results: the consumers used to park their cars to go shopping, now that they must pay for parking in the street, they prefer to go online shopping or to big shopping malls. So the street now are a desert, with a big drop in local sales, plenty stores are closing. Cars are not enemies at all...
This. Killing on street parking will kill many small businesses.
I feel like that’s very situational. In the German city where I live parking is extremely limited (no minimum requirements and a chronic shortage) and small businesses are way more prevalent and healthier than in the US (where I’m from).
Sao Paulo is very car dependent. Just look at downtown, around Sé, everything should be pedestrianized with no access to cars. Other major projects destroyed the fabric of the city like Minhocão, 23 de Maio, etc...
It takes 3 hours for people in the periphery to reach the other side of the city using public transportation. The entire city is an example of car destruction.
@@victorius2711 All studies on the matter says differently.
Definitely in many places, what should be done is an assessment of what the best use of that public space. Wider sidewalks? green space? Bike lanes? Parking? Alfresco dining?
There isn’t one answer
Definitely makes streets feel less welcoming and lively, the space they take up can often be better used. In Toronto, there have been studies that show converted patios that replace street parking are orders of magnitude more profitable than the money they bring in when used as parking spaces
06:10 Best stock footage ever 🐰🤣
Most of this on-street-parking is literally next to a parking garage. I don't understand the rationale for on-street parking so close to off-street parking. So the next-best use should advance. E.g. if there are a lot of deliveries, then space should be made for that - delivery trucks double-parked is quite the obstacle to nicely moving traffic. Then, connecting places to go on a bike with bikelanes - the library there is an obvious candidate to bike to...