Comments on: Point/Counterpoint: Parking Reform Now or Later (or Never)? http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/09/19/pointcounterpoint-parking-reform-now-or-later-or-never/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:59:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Ian Turner http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/09/19/pointcounterpoint-parking-reform-now-or-later-or-never/comment-page-1/#comment-61209 Ian Turner Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:06:19 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=4600#comment-61209 There are actually a total of 200 ZIP codes in the country, accounting for 2% of the nation, where there were at least 500 households and where a majority of households had no vehicles available. Contact me privately for a list. There are actually a total of 200 ZIP codes in the country, accounting for 2% of the nation, where there were at least 500 households and where a majority of households had no vehicles available. Contact me privately for a list.

]]> By: Cap'n Transit http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/09/19/pointcounterpoint-parking-reform-now-or-later-or-never/comment-page-1/#comment-61204 Cap'n Transit Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:17:16 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=4600#comment-61204 I might add that I disagree with both you and Boarnet, specifically with this premise: "car travel will remain the dominant mode of transportation for the foreseeable future." I live in a place where car travel is not the dominant mode of transportation - at least in terms of population. There are a few places like that in California, such as <a href="http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=86000US94103&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP4&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-_sse=on" rel="nofollow">the 94103 zip code</a> in San Francisco, where 57.8% of households had no cars available in 2000. For reasons of conservation, clean air and safety, I would like to see the dominance of cars reduced in the foreseeable future. Boarnet's article doesn't <i>prove</i> that it can't be, it <i>assumes</i> that it can't be. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. I might add that I disagree with both you and Boarnet, specifically with this premise: "car travel will remain the dominant mode of transportation for the foreseeable future."

I live in a place where car travel is not the dominant mode of transportation - at least in terms of population. There are a few places like that in California, such as the 94103 zip code in San Francisco, where 57.8% of households had no cars available in 2000.

For reasons of conservation, clean air and safety, I would like to see the dominance of cars reduced in the foreseeable future. Boarnet's article doesn't prove that it can't be, it assumes that it can't be. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

]]> By: Cap'n Transit http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/09/19/pointcounterpoint-parking-reform-now-or-later-or-never/comment-page-1/#comment-61203 Cap'n Transit Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:49:17 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=4600#comment-61203 Don, here's the article you're referring to <a href="http://www.uctc.net/access/33/Access%2033%20-%2005%20-%20New%20Planning%20Approaches.pdf" rel="nofollow">in a PDF</a>. And here's <a href="http://www.parkingtoday.com/ptplus-articledetails.php?id=667" rel="nofollow">the permalink</a> to Don's original article in <i>Parking Today</i>. Don, here's the article you're referring to in a PDF. And here's the permalink to Don's original article in Parking Today.

]]> By: Don Norte http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/09/19/pointcounterpoint-parking-reform-now-or-later-or-never/comment-page-1/#comment-61201 Don Norte Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:31:28 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=4600#comment-61201 I rececently read the No. 33, Fall 2008 edition an article in "ACCESS" published by Berkley College and written bt Marlon G. Boarnet that sums up the realities to the Shoop theory. "For some time, transportation policy has been split into advocates for and opponents of automobile travel. Bt focusing on modes, rather than the needs of people and places, the debate has failed to take cognizance of a singular reality in most growing urban areas. Fast-growing metropolises need both expansions in infrastructure that supports automobile transportation AND planning that supports alternatives to the automobile. It is not a matter of choosing one or the other, but rather of distingushing appropriate locations and contexts for each." I couldn't agree more. I rececently read the No. 33, Fall 2008 edition an article in "ACCESS" published by Berkley College and written bt Marlon G. Boarnet that sums up the realities to the Shoop theory.

"For some time, transportation policy has been split into advocates for and opponents of automobile travel. Bt focusing on modes, rather than the needs of people and places, the debate has failed to take cognizance of a singular reality in most growing urban areas. Fast-growing metropolises need both expansions in infrastructure that supports automobile transportation AND planning that supports alternatives to the automobile. It is not a matter of choosing one or the other, but rather of distingushing appropriate locations and contexts for each."

I couldn't agree more.

]]> By: JK http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/09/19/pointcounterpoint-parking-reform-now-or-later-or-never/comment-page-1/#comment-56559 JK Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:17:05 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=4600#comment-56559 How ironic that the opponent of parking reform generally, makes an argument for parking reform specific to New York City: "Once a city or region has achieved transportation efficiency by accommodating the number of trips generated by the appropriate mode of travel, then the option of reducing minimum parking requirements across the board can truly become a positive and cost-effective solution for our policymakers." Well, New York City is that city, so why isn't it eliminating the minimum parking requirement? How ironic that the opponent of parking reform generally, makes an argument for parking reform specific to New York City:

"Once a city or region has achieved transportation efficiency by accommodating the number of trips generated by the appropriate mode of travel, then the option of reducing minimum parking requirements across the board can truly become a positive and cost-effective solution for our policymakers."

Well, New York City is that city, so why isn't it eliminating the minimum parking requirement?

]]>