[sustran] Re: More about on-street parking

Walter Hook whook at itdp.org
Tue Apr 25 23:34:22 JST 2006


Not sure my earlier response on this went through, cause it didn't come back
to me.

Just wanted to add that I was surprised by the comments in support of
on-street parking from the likes of Todd and Eric and Eric.  I thought we
would be more on the same page on this. 

Eric B's support for on street parking, that it is ugly and therefore will
ultimately one day lead to citizen awareness, does not appear to be borne
out by the facts.  Streets in most cities have been clogged with ugly,
undercharged parked cars since the 20s, and it has not led to any
consciousness raising: people just don't see anything wrong with it because
it is just normal to them.  We need some beautifully redesigned streets to
show neighborhoods that they don't have to live on ugly streets.  Once
people see a better option, perhaps everyone would be clamoring for it.
That is what is happening in china with pedestrian zones.  Now every
district government wants one, to the delightful consternation of the
traffic engineers.  Should we be encouraging congestion and on street
parking in the hopes it will one day lead to a sustainable mobility
revolution?  That is like rejecting safe working conditions and the minimum
wage because it ameliorates the chances of some dreamed for utopian
revolution.  

Was also surprised to hear Todd all of a sudden the voice of parking
efficiency, and Eric supporting parking as a buffer for pedestrians.  I
mean, if it's a buffer we're after, surely flowers are better.   

If folks are not familiar with the work of Prof. Hermann Knoflacher of the
Univ. of Vienna, i recommend it.  He makes a compelling argument that on
street parking is THE central problem with western traffic systems.   He
goes so far as to say that if we dealt with the parking issue, we wouldn't
need congestion charging.  Maybe.  He argues that total travel times are
biased in favor of private car modes over transit modes largely because
society allows people to park their cars right in front of their houses and
right adjacent to their offices, while the nearest bus stop is likely to be
some distance away.  Because the walking trip is taken at very slow speeds,
and this has to be added to the waiting time for the bus, the total trip
time is therefore significantly biased against the transit trip.  Therefore,
on street parking has several significant dis-benefits: one, it biases modal
choice towards private car use, two it consumes public space that otherwise
could be used for children to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk,
etc. In addition, on street parking is generally badly underpriced in terms
of land rent, subsidizing driving.  In addition, car parking if removed
would also provide the space for a bike lane that could be physically
protected from traffic, although on a residential street the bike lane isn't
necessary if you can traffic calm the whole street. 

Is KNoflacher for off-street parking?  I tried to nail him down on this.
What I think he said was, if you can get rid of the parking without adding
off street parking, that is the best.  If you need to make a political
compromise, better to go for off street parking that is located on the major
arterials with no direct access from the residential streets.  This creates
then the conditions for no needed motor vehicle traffic on residential
streets except delivery access, and hence creates conditions where the
streets could be dramatically redesigned for children, public space, etc.  I
asked him if there were concrete examples of where this had been done, he
said there were some in Vienna but was a little vague...

Best
Walter 


 

Best

Walter 


-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Todd Edelman
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:32 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking

Hi,

I suppose I could admit I am a "carfree fundamentalist" who sees nothing
sustainable about cities which allow individually owned and operated cars
inside....so I will just mostly ignore this "better car parking" stuff. 
So just comment:

> ...
> on-street parking can act as a buffer between pedestrians and a busy
> arterial.

I have heard this argument before. Arent there better buffers? For
example, trees, plants, bikelanes, watercourses, sculptures, vending
machines, and so on? In carcities, how about if it was a rule that if you
are so close to pedestrians you simply have to drive really, really slow?
This is not rocket science.

---

This list really confuses me sometimes.

Do people want to spend their whole professional lives (and afterwards)
regulating parking and trying to get cars to slow down? How many people on
this would be perfectly happy to not be able to use a car if their city
was designed to provide everything you need without one? To reference a
recent thread on this list, are people ready to sacrifice
sustainability(!) for peace, quiet, safety and proximity?

Thanks,
T

------------------------------------------------------

Todd Edelman
International Coordinator
On the Train Towards the Future!

Green Idea Factory
Laubova 5
CZ-13000 Praha 3

++420 605 915 970

edelman at greenidea.info
http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

Green Idea Factory,
a member of World Carfree Network



================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list