Comments on: The Power of Parking Policy http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/15/the-power-of-parking-policy/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:49:03 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: P http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/15/the-power-of-parking-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-29962 P Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:13:37 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/14/the-power-of-parking-policy/#comment-29962 Maybe instead of relying on parking revenue the city could begin focusing on collecting revenue from traffic violations. The stoplight in front of my apartment is run nearly every cycle. (By cars that are all going at least 40 miles an hour- past schools, parks, and playgrounds no less.) Maybe instead of relying on parking revenue the city could begin focusing on collecting revenue from traffic violations.

The stoplight in front of my apartment is run nearly every cycle. (By cars that are all going at least 40 miles an hour- past schools, parks, and playgrounds no less.)

]]> By: Erik Feder - The Parking Expert http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/15/the-power-of-parking-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-29960 Erik Feder - The Parking Expert Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:02:57 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/14/the-power-of-parking-policy/#comment-29960 Because the NYC government earns so much revenue from parking tickets (well over $550 million annually), the City may be reluctant to implement Shoup’s concept. One of the main reasons that the amount of parking ticket revenue is so high (this figure does not include towing fines) is because the parking regulations on the street signs are so confusing. People don’t understand, make mistakes and get tickets. If the system changes so that all street parking is metered, there is much less confusion; far fewer parking tickets will be written and the City will collect much less parking ticket revenue. This is of course not a bad thing and Shoup’s ideas do make sense, but lost parking ticket revenue is a likely deterrent to the City adopting his proposal. Transportation expert Bruce Schaller made an attempt to address these concerns in an article that he penned for The Gotham Gazette. Schaller extols the virtues of Shoup’s ideas, then counters the parking ticket revenue issue by saying: "The concern about fine revenue seems premature. This program would have to be very widely and very successfully implemented before there is any chance that parking reform turns parking enforcement personnel into the mythical Maytag repairman with nothing to do." This seems to be having your cake and eating it, too. Is the idea worth implementing, or isn’t it? If Schaller truly believes that this idea is worth considering in NYC, how can he say, "The concern about fine revenue seems premature"? We must look to the future before implementing any plan for parking reform and clearly, no plan will be implemented unless there is a fair chance that it will be "very successfully implemented". As for turning "parking enforcement personnel into the mythical Maytag repairman with nothing to do", if all of NYC’s 300+ parking regulations are reduced to "Metered Parking", then it is inevitable that there will be far fewer parking tickets written. Again, this is not a bad thing, but the City Government clearly will not favor losing revenue. They won’t come close to making up in parking meter revenue what they lose from parking ticket revenue; this issue must be adequately addressed if this plan is to move forward. Because the NYC government earns so much revenue from parking tickets (well over $550 million annually), the City may be reluctant to implement Shoup’s concept. One of the main reasons that the amount of parking ticket revenue is so high (this figure does not include towing fines) is because the parking regulations on the street signs are so confusing. People don’t understand, make mistakes and get tickets. If the system changes so that all street parking is metered, there is much less confusion; far fewer parking tickets will be written and the City will collect much less parking ticket revenue. This is of course not a bad thing and Shoup’s ideas do make sense, but lost parking ticket revenue is a likely deterrent to the City adopting his proposal.

Transportation expert Bruce Schaller made an attempt to address these concerns in an article that he penned for The Gotham Gazette. Schaller extols the virtues of Shoup’s ideas, then counters the parking ticket revenue issue by saying:

"The concern about fine revenue seems premature. This program would have to be very widely and very successfully implemented before there is any chance that parking reform turns parking enforcement personnel into the mythical Maytag repairman with nothing to do."

This seems to be having your cake and eating it, too. Is the idea worth implementing, or isn’t it? If Schaller truly believes that this idea is worth considering in NYC, how can he say, "The concern about fine revenue seems premature"? We must look to the future before implementing any plan for parking reform and clearly, no plan will be implemented unless there is a fair chance that it will be "very successfully implemented". As for turning "parking enforcement personnel into the mythical Maytag repairman with nothing to do", if all of NYC’s 300+ parking regulations are reduced to "Metered Parking", then it is inevitable that there will be far fewer parking tickets written. Again, this is not a bad thing, but the City Government clearly will not favor losing revenue. They won’t come close to making up in parking meter revenue what they lose from parking ticket revenue; this issue must be adequately addressed if this plan is to move forward.

]]> By: Nicolo Macchiavelli http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/15/the-power-of-parking-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-29949 Nicolo Macchiavelli Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:46:45 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/14/the-power-of-parking-policy/#comment-29949 The development of the West Side Yards, coupled with the extension of the #7 train is paid for by the city (up to the cost over-runs) through Payments in Lieu of Taxes. However, most of that development is going come all packaged up with more parking. Given the proximity of the Lincoln Tunnel and Port Authority there is going to be lots of new congestion in an already congested area. Supposedly Doctoroff has been open to having the city pick up some of the vig on the cost over runs but there are also certain bonding threshold issues. Maybe there could still be a chance to cut down on the parking requirements (fertility drugs for cars) given all of the political-economic flexing that still has to be done on that project. The development of the West Side Yards, coupled with the extension of the #7 train is paid for by the city (up to the cost over-runs) through Payments in Lieu of Taxes. However, most of that development is going come all packaged up with more parking. Given the proximity of the Lincoln Tunnel and Port Authority there is going to be lots of new congestion in an already congested area. Supposedly Doctoroff has been open to having the city pick up some of the vig on the cost over runs but there are also certain bonding threshold issues. Maybe there could still be a chance to cut down on the parking requirements (fertility drugs for cars) given all of the political-economic flexing that still has to be done on that project.

]]> By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/15/the-power-of-parking-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-29923 Angus Grieve-Smith Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:07:33 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/14/the-power-of-parking-policy/#comment-29923 "Jeff Zupan of the Regional Plan Association wants to rewrite city zoning restrictions that would put caps on the amount of parking developers can build. The new parking requirements would be based on the availability of mass transit, rather than the somewhat arbitrary minimum levels they are required to meet now." Sounds like a good idea, but it could lead to a dead end. For example, in a neighborhood with lousy mass transit options (let's say Glendale), there would be relatively high parking requirements, which means that people in that area will continue to drive and to oppose transit expansion. A tweak would be to set the parking requirements just a little lower than whatever they think is "necessary," thus avoiding making it easy to drive. That could backfire, though, if people wind up resenting the city for not making developers provide "enough parking." "Jeff Zupan of the Regional Plan Association wants to rewrite city zoning restrictions that would put caps on the amount of parking developers can build. The new parking requirements would be based on the availability of mass transit, rather than the somewhat arbitrary minimum levels they are required to meet now."

Sounds like a good idea, but it could lead to a dead end. For example, in a neighborhood with lousy mass transit options (let's say Glendale), there would be relatively high parking requirements, which means that people in that area will continue to drive and to oppose transit expansion.

A tweak would be to set the parking requirements just a little lower than whatever they think is "necessary," thus avoiding making it easy to drive. That could backfire, though, if people wind up resenting the city for not making developers provide "enough parking."

]]>