Administration & Management

Parking Minimums: Revisiting an old problem

New York Parking Structure

In today's New York Times, architecture critic Micahel Kimmelman looks at parking requirements for urabn development and he doesn't like how things have been going. 

For big cities like New York it is high time to abandon outmoded zoning codes from the auto-boom days requiring specific ratios of parking spaces per housing unit, or per square foot of retail space. These rules about minimum parking spaces have driven up the costs of apartments for developers and residents, damaged the environment, diverted money that could have gone to mass transit and created a government-mandated cityscape that’s largely unused. We keep adding to the glut of parking lots. Crain’s recently reported on the largely empty garages at new buildings like Avalon Fort Greene, a 42-story luxury tower near downtown Brooklyn, and 80 DeKalb Avenue, up the block, both well occupied, both of which built hundreds of parking spaces to woo tenants. Garages near Yankee Stadium, built over the objections of Bronx neighbors appalled at losing parkland for yet more parking lots, turn out never to be more than 60 percent full, even on game days. The city has lost public space, the developers have lost a fortune.

Streetsblog wonders what this endorsement for eliminating parking minimums might have on the Department of City Planning

This is not a new topic by any means. Donald Shoup's High Cost of Free Parking is a cornerstone of the field. Researchers from NYU have looked at the enforcement of New York City's minumum parking requirements and how proximity to transit affects the reuirements and the impact on housing affordability. There is also a thought that well-functioning off-street parking markets might be a solution. 

Congress set to kill off High Speed Rail funding

Trip to DC_June 2010_003_BWI

The U.S. Congress voted today on a new transportation bill. Included in the bill was language that killed funding for Obama's High Speed Rail program. From AP

The House voted Thursday to kill funds for President Barack Obama's signature high-speed rail program, but the initiative may have some life in it still.

Republican lawmakers are claiming credit for killing the program. But billions of dollars still in the pipeline will ensure work will continue on some projects. And it's still possible money from another transportation grant program can be steered to high-speed trains.

Obama had requested $8 billion in fiscal 2012 for the program and $53 billion over six years.

In light of exisiting questions regarding High Speed Rail in California, the future looks murky indeed. It will be an interesting ride. 

 

CA on the line for bulk of high-speed rail costs?

CA High-Speed Rail Design Concept: Transbay Terminal, San Francisco

The Los Angeles times published an article yesterday about the murky future of federal funding for high-speed rail in the state.

 

"If the federal government and private investors are not going to provide funds, and California is broke, why would it take on an enormous new commitment?" asked Martin Wachs, a Rand Corp. transportation expert and former director of UC Berkeley's Institute of Transportation Studies.

In coming months, Gov. Jerry Brown will decide whether to issue the bonds to launch the project — at a time when the nation and state are attempting to control mounting public debt that has already damaged both their credit ratings.

The bullet train hinges on a huge investment of federal dollars when Washington is intent on cutting the nation's budget. Republicans who control the House of Representatives have already declared new rail construction their "lowest priority."

This week it was also announced that the model and data used for ridership and revenue forecasts were sound. We'll have to wait and see how this progresses. 

Syndicate content