The Tallahassee/Leon County Planning Department is creating a multi-modal district within the urban core of Tallahassee. While methods of regulating parking within the new district are not currently part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, measures for implementing parking standards that would enhance the TOD are being considered.
Currently the City's Land Development Code provides minimum standards for the number of parking spaces associated with various land uses, with a 25% variance either way for redevelopment sites. Lately, discussion in the Planning Department, Growth Management Department and Planning community has been whether or not to set a maximum standard versus the common minimum standard for the number of parking spaces allowed / required.
Even if such parking standards are implemented by the Land Development Code, the plan may take some time before the cost-benefit to owners and the general public can be analyzed, since the new rule would apply only to new or redevelopment sites within the new Multi-Modal District.
In the meantime the debate over advantages and disadvantages of fixing the number of parking spaces, and free versus paid parking continues. The following is from a post event discussion following a presentation by Dr. Shoup on the issue of paid vs. free parking, at Fordham University's Pope Auditorium, in New York City, NY. The entire discussion may be found here http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/12/shoup-dogg-parking-policy-cult-hero-fills-fordham-auditorium/
(From Discussion)Hilary: JF - I think I've located our point of departure. Your first comment in this thread was this: "Using a curb parking occupancy target of 85%(about one spot a block free) doesn't "create more parking." The amount of curb parking is fixed." I would say the occupancy target of 85% DOES create more parking because I am defining "parking" as "putting your car into a parking spot." The Shoupian model considers parking to be the act of storing the car [bold test format mine--jc] . So under Shoup, the parking is fixed. Under my definition, it increases according to the rate of turnover. Our problem is not knowing whether we're setting the meters to maximize turnover and revenue, or minimize VMT.
In attempt to rebut the rate question, there was even some naive discussion suggesting people "get rid" of their cars. I'm just curious where the magical place exists where one can "get rid" of a car without putting it somewhere else on the grid. Assuming this amazing place existed, is it realistic to think that someone would just voluntarily unload one of the largest investments they have made, and on which they probably still owe money, to free up some parking spaces from which they will receive no benefit? (Some even floated a harebrained idea to limiting car ownership!)
I have recent experience with limited parking within retail districts.
I went to Atlanta this past weekend (Buckhead Community) and had my car booted in a public lot during my first visit to Lennox Mall because I was unaware that that lot, while posted, was specifically for the businesses only in that particular area of the Mall. No lines of designation, etc. were displayed. Attendants watched by surveillance camera until we left the area, then booted our vehicle. After my $50 fine, I asked the attendant, what the rules were, in case I might decide to visit again from FLORIDA!!
The point is, limiting parking, for instance, in frequented retail areas such as this, even if owner apprehensions could be soothed at the onset, would seem to quickly enable the avarice that I experienced in one of the poshest retail areas in downtown Atlanta. Where the number of people entering the retail establishments is limited by the amount of parking available, some owners would see it within their best interest to make up the loss through schemes such as this. It seems the greedy stay at least with, if not ahead of the curve when it comes to overcoming and actually turning to personal gain regulations that are meant for the general good.
Would parking regulations that cap the amount of parking in areas of the MMD be in the public interest? Probably not until drivers prefer to take public transit and walk rather than drive. Can this happen? It already does to some degree every July 4th , when citizens park at local shopping malls to take the bus to the fireworks display rather than wait hours to extract their vehicles from the parking areas located in Tom Brown Park, near the event. So, at least outdoor events that draw larger crowds than can be accommodated in surrounding parking areas would appeal to those that would normally drive; however, remember, some land owner has taken the cost and liability of providing an existing parking lot as a parking/ staging area to facilitate the use of that public transit.
Currently the City's Land Development Code provides minimum standards for the number of parking spaces associated with various land uses, with a 25% variance either way for redevelopment sites. Lately, discussion in the Planning Department, Growth Management Department and Planning community has been whether or not to set a maximum standard versus the common minimum standard for the number of parking spaces allowed / required.
Even if such parking standards are implemented by the Land Development Code, the plan may take some time before the cost-benefit to owners and the general public can be analyzed, since the new rule would apply only to new or redevelopment sites within the new Multi-Modal District.
In the meantime the debate over advantages and disadvantages of fixing the number of parking spaces, and free versus paid parking continues. The following is from a post event discussion following a presentation by Dr. Shoup on the issue of paid vs. free parking, at Fordham University's Pope Auditorium, in New York City, NY. The entire discussion may be found here http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/12/shoup-dogg-parking-policy-cult-hero-fills-fordham-auditorium/
(From Discussion)Hilary: JF - I think I've located our point of departure. Your first comment in this thread was this: "Using a curb parking occupancy target of 85%(about one spot a block free) doesn't "create more parking." The amount of curb parking is fixed." I would say the occupancy target of 85% DOES create more parking because I am defining "parking" as "putting your car into a parking spot." The Shoupian model considers parking to be the act of storing the car [bold test format mine--jc] . So under Shoup, the parking is fixed. Under my definition, it increases according to the rate of turnover. Our problem is not knowing whether we're setting the meters to maximize turnover and revenue, or minimize VMT.
In attempt to rebut the rate question, there was even some naive discussion suggesting people "get rid" of their cars. I'm just curious where the magical place exists where one can "get rid" of a car without putting it somewhere else on the grid. Assuming this amazing place existed, is it realistic to think that someone would just voluntarily unload one of the largest investments they have made, and on which they probably still owe money, to free up some parking spaces from which they will receive no benefit? (Some even floated a harebrained idea to limiting car ownership!)
I have recent experience with limited parking within retail districts.
I went to Atlanta this past weekend (Buckhead Community) and had my car booted in a public lot during my first visit to Lennox Mall because I was unaware that that lot, while posted, was specifically for the businesses only in that particular area of the Mall. No lines of designation, etc. were displayed. Attendants watched by surveillance camera until we left the area, then booted our vehicle. After my $50 fine, I asked the attendant, what the rules were, in case I might decide to visit again from FLORIDA!!
The point is, limiting parking, for instance, in frequented retail areas such as this, even if owner apprehensions could be soothed at the onset, would seem to quickly enable the avarice that I experienced in one of the poshest retail areas in downtown Atlanta. Where the number of people entering the retail establishments is limited by the amount of parking available, some owners would see it within their best interest to make up the loss through schemes such as this. It seems the greedy stay at least with, if not ahead of the curve when it comes to overcoming and actually turning to personal gain regulations that are meant for the general good.
Would parking regulations that cap the amount of parking in areas of the MMD be in the public interest? Probably not until drivers prefer to take public transit and walk rather than drive. Can this happen? It already does to some degree every July 4th , when citizens park at local shopping malls to take the bus to the fireworks display rather than wait hours to extract their vehicles from the parking areas located in Tom Brown Park, near the event. So, at least outdoor events that draw larger crowds than can be accommodated in surrounding parking areas would appeal to those that would normally drive; however, remember, some land owner has taken the cost and liability of providing an existing parking lot as a parking/ staging area to facilitate the use of that public transit.
Related Links:
Tallahassee Multi-Modal District http://talgov.com/planning/trans/trans.cfm
NYC DOT 's Proposal to study parking demand and test a pilot program for variable rate parking meters to see if would benefit the neighborhood: http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/06/24/dot-asks-public-for-ideas-on-shoupian-parking-program/
Comments
Post a Comment