01-09-2017, 02:40 PM
(01-05-2017, 12:09 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote:(01-05-2017, 11:02 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: I don’t want to be the killjoy here, but all this discussion of what the parking rate “should be” ignores the right solution: SFPark. Adjust the parking rates to maintain a certain fraction of open spaces. The only change I would make is that rates should go to zero where and when appropriate. Anywhere that parking rates rise high enough to make it feasible to purchase land and construct a garage, such a project should be considered. Instead of arguing over what the rates should be based on different ideologies for how people ought to behave, let people decide how much parking is worth for them and park accordingly.
I like this approach although I'm sure we totally disagree on the actual amount of parking that should exist.
I’m curious how much parking you think should exist. I will say I’m not sure — a lot has to do with whether it is economically viable, subject to a real-world understanding that the market for transportation is hopelessly intertwined with the political process and previous decisions, some clearly bad and others more ambiguous. But I would say that any discussion of transportation and parking that doesn’t talk about why there is no political discussion of how much bread bakers bake (for example), is incomplete.
One thing I am certain of is that parking minima should not be permitted. That is, the zoning code should not be allowed to specify the minimum amount of parking that must be provided by a property owner or occupier. I’m almost as certain that maxima also should not be permitted.