Tag Archives: on-street parking

What Are the Obstacles to Making Our Streets Safer?

By Dom Nozzi

July 1, 2016

There have been a great many traffic injuries and deaths in the Boulder area in recent weeks. This is a terrible tragedy and tracks what is happening nationally. If we are to call ourselves a civilized society, there are effective things we must do to make our streets safer.

A very large percentage of neighborhood streets in Boulder (and the region) are excessively wide, which induces excessive driving speeds and dangerously inattentive driving. Boulder needs to redesign many of these streets to be safer. Good tactics are the common and effective traffic calming measures which narrow the street (yet still allow adequate emergency vehicle response times), including the use of slow streets, give-way streets, design-for-slow-streetsand shared streets. Each of those designs deliver slow design speeds which are crucial for neighborhood safety. A quick, easy and low-cost way to create slower, more attentive neighborhood streets is to allow and encourage a lot more on-street car parking, in addition to bulb-outs, traffic circles and chicanes. Slow speed neighborhood streets dramatically improve neighborhood quality of life and safety, and effectively promote more walking, bicycling and sociable neighborhood interactions.

An extremely common suggestion to address dangerous speeding is to lower speed limits. But mounting signs with lower speed limits, as nearly all traffic engineers know, is highly ineffective unless we also redesign the street. The typical motor vehicle speeds are generated by the design speed of the street rather than speed limit signs (which are so commonly disregarded that many derisively call them “suggested” speed limits). It is also unfair to the motorist to install a speed limit sign that is far below the street design speed. When the street design strongly encourages motorists to drive at higher speeds than the speed limit, a large number of speeding violations and tickets result.

I have been a bicycle commuter in a great many cities in the US, and in my opinion, the state highways in Boulder (in particular, Broadway, Canyon, and 28th St) are among the most hostile, deadly state roads I have ever bicycled or walked. The state highways in Boulder are death traps not only for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users, but also motorists. Those streets (and their huge intersections) are too big and therefore too high speed to be located within a city. It is important to note that city health is promoted with slow speeds, so these state highways are undermining the quality of life in Boulder.

The fierce opposition to the Folsom street reconfiguration project, as well as opposition to other safety and quality of life street redesign measures such as the traffic calming program in the 1990s, suggests that many in the Boulder population are not ready to accept enactment of street designs which effectively improve street safety and quality of life.

Even in Boulder, it is nearly impossible for the vast majority to travel anywhere without a car. American cities (including Boulder) are designed so that regular, safe, convenient travel by bicycle, walking, or transit is out of the question for almost all of us (mostly because roads are too big and distances are too large). That means, inevitably, that large numbers of people are obligated to drive a car even though it is too dangerous for them to do so. They have had too much to drink. Or they are angry or emotionally upset. They are distracted or exhausted by their multi-tasking, busy lives. Or their driving skills are questionable due to age or poor eyesight or other factors. In a society where nearly all trips must be made by motor vehicle, this problem is large and unavoidable.

It is incumbent on us, therefore, to design our streets and communities to be more compact and slower in speed. Otherwise, dangerous streets and unacceptably high numbers road crashes will always be a part of our lives.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Transportation

What Are the Obstacles to Making Our Streets Safer?

 

By Dom Nozzi

July 1, 2016

There have been a great many traffic injuries and deaths in the Boulder area in recent weeks. This is a terrible tragedy and tracks what is happening nationally. If we are to call ourselves a civilized society, there are effective things we must do to make our streets safer.

A very large percentage of neighborhood streets in Boulder (and the region) are excessively wide, which induces excessive driving speeds and dangerously inattentive driving. Boulder needs to redesign many of these streets if there is to be any chance of making the city street system anywhere near safe. Good tactics are the common and effective traffic calming measures which narrow the street (yet still allow acceptable emergency vehicle response times), including the use of slow streets, give-way streets, and shared streets. low-speed-streetEach of those designs deliver slow design speeds which are crucial for neighborhood safety and quality of life. A quick, easy and low-cost way to create slower, more attentive neighborhood streets is to allow and encourage a lot more on-street car parking, in addition to bulb-outs, traffic circles and chicanes. Slow speed neighborhood streets not only dramatically improve neighborhood quality of life and safety. They also effectively promote more walking, bicycling and sociable neighborhood interactions.

An extremely common suggestion to address dangerous speeding is to lower speed limits. But mounting signs with lower speed limits, as traffic engineers know, is highly ineffective unless we also redesign the street. The typical motor vehicle speeds are generated by the design speed of the street rather than speed limit signs (which are so commonly disregarded that many derisively call them “suggested” speed limits). It is also unfair to the motorist to install a speed limit sign that is far below the street design speed. When the street design strongly encourages motorists to drive at higher speeds than the speed limit, a large number of speeding violations and tickets result.

I have been a bicycle commuter in a great many cities in the US, and in my opinion, the state highways in Boulder (in particular, Broadway, Canyon, and 28th St) are among the most hostile, deadly state roads I have ever bicycled or walked. The state highways in Boulder are death traps not only for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users, but also motorists. Those streets (and their huge intersections) are too big and therefore too high speed to be located within a city. It is important to note that city health is promoted with slow speeds, so these state highways are undermining the quality of life in Boulder.

The fierce opposition to the Folsom Street reconfiguration project in 2015, as well as opposition to other safety and quality of life street redesign measures such as the traffic calming program in the 1990s, suggests that many in the Boulder population are not ready to accept enactment of street designs which effectively improve street safety and quality of life.

Even in Boulder, it is nearly impossible for the vast majority to travel anywhere without a car. American cities (including Boulder) are designed so that regular, safe, convenient travel by bicycle, walking, or transit is out of the question for almost all of us (mostly because roads are too big and distances are too large). That means, inevitably, that large numbers of people are obligated to drive a car even though it is too dangerous for them to do so. They have had too much to drink. Or they are angry or emotionally upset. They are distracted or exhausted by their multi-tasking, busy lives. Or their driving skills are questionable due to age or poor eyesight or other factors. In a society where nearly all trips must be made by motor vehicle, this problem is large and unavoidable.

It is incumbent on us, therefore, to design our streets and communities to be more compact and slower in speed. Otherwise, dangerous streets and unacceptably high numbers road crashes will always be a part of our lives.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Road Diet, Transportation, Walking

The Ingredients of a Quality Street in a Town Center

 

By Dom Nozzi

June 17, 2002

Many people put “nature” at the top of their list of what makes for a great street or neighborhood or town center.

Trees and wetlands are essential. They are extremely important. They are critical. In fact, in the suburban and rural/preserve portion of the urban-to-rural transect, trees and wetlands are near the top of the priority list.

However, they are not sufficient. And in a town center, they are nowhere near the top of the list of important ingredients in creating a healthy place.

In a walkable urban neighborhood center or town center of a transect, I would create the following priority list for design elements of a street.meatmarket

Dom’s Vibrant Street Casserole (serves…everyone)

  1. Building facades abuts or are very, very close to the streetside sidewalk, with entrances on the sidewalk.
  2. Relatively high residential densities on the street or otherwise near the street.
  3. A mix of residential and non-residential development on the street.
  4. On-street parking.
  5. Short blocks, modest turn radii, no more than 3 lanes of 2-way street (3rd lane is landscaped median with pocket turn lanes), prominent crosswalk.
  6. Verticality — buildings are at least 2 stories high.
  7. Aligned building facades.
  8. Modest street light and traffic signal height.
  9. Alley.
  10. Narrow lot width.
  11. Transparency on building facade — adequate windows at eye level — implicit here is an absence of excessive blank wall horizontally.
  12. Shading street trees — limbed up, formally aligned and spaced so as to avoid blocking the view of at least the first floor building facades.
  13. Streetscaping — street furniture, etc.
  14. Ample sidewalk width — wide enough for sidewalk cafes, couples to comfortably walk side-by-side, street furniture.
  15. Modest sign size.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Urban Design

Recreational Bicyclists and On-Street Parking

 

By Dom Nozzi

June 27, 2002

Ever since I started work as a town planner in 1986, Gainesville FL has had very loud bicycling advocacy.

As a lifelong bike commuter, I am obviously supportive of some of what is being advocated. Yet despite this city paying a lot of lip service to fighting sprawl or increasing the number of bike commuters or reviving our town center, much bike advocacy has been detrimental to such objectives.

The problem, as I see it, is that bike advocates tend to be mostly recreational bicyclists, have little understanding of the needs of a bike commuter, and have even less of an awareness of quality urban design. The result is that they tend to sub-optimize on the needs of recreational bicycling. That is, they overemphasize such needs to the detriment of other crucial community needs.

Bicycling advocates in Gainesville and other communities in America will often fight against on-street parking. In my opinion, such a fight is terribly counterproductive to not only quality of life, but the interests of bicyclists.

In my years as a city planner, the most important lesson I’ve learned is that the pedestrian is the design imperative for cities. Not bicyclists. Not transit users. Not motorists. Not Bambi. Not even seniors or the disabled.

Getting it right for the pedestrian is the most effective, efficient way to create and promote a city quality of life.

And one of the most important way to design for the pedestrian is to have on-street parking.garrett-street-glenwood-park-atlanta

A healthy town center (not to mention healthy transit, healthy Bambi, and a healthy place for seniors/kids/disabled) depends on a healthy pedestrian environment, as even AASHTO recognizes. And a healthy town center is an important way to protect or promote a compact city.

An unhealthy town center, by contrast, accelerates the abandonment of the town center and dispersal of important community destinations to destinations that are too remote to get to by bike, by bus, or by wheelchair.

This is an important reason why bicycling advocates should be advocates for pedestrian design — particularly for features such as on-street parking. A quality pedestrian design promotes the continuation of a compact city. A compact city reduces travel distances. Modest travel distances are, of course, crucial in making bike commuting viable, not to mention improving conditions for Bambi, the disabled, children, and transit users.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bicycling, Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design

Transportation Comes Before Land Use

 

By Dom Nozzi

May 21, 2004

The condition of the street determines what happens alongside it. I agree with urbanist Robert Gibbs when he says it is unfair to require a business to abut a streetside sidewalk when the street does not have on-street parking. When street carrying a relatively large volume of cars lacks on-street parking, the street is too hostile to have buildings butt up to it. I don’t at all blame businesspeople for pulling away from the street when the street is a “car sewer.”street without on street parking

In sum, either a relatively large street without on-street parking is forever to be a strip commercial “lost land” because it is impractical to shrink its size, or it needs to be made livable (largely with on-street parking and removal of travel lanes – both of which create a more human-scaled, slower-speed environment) before you start requiring buildings to behave themselves by pulling up to the sidewalk and having an entrance face the street.

If we try to force buildings to be pedestrian-friendly BEFORE the street is rehabilitated, we risk giving urbanism a black eye. We understandably increase the likelihood of a political firestorm of businesspeople SCREAMING to elected officials not to force their buildings up on the sidewalk.

Sadly, we fail to heed the above warning, and instead we almost always keep our fingers crossed and hope — in desperation — that we can fix the land development regulations or redo the urban design along a street before we fix the street, because fixing the street is (usually rightly) seen as being a non-starter (at least in our lifetimes), and the former is WAY more do-able.

To put land use before transportation is an ineffective path of least resistance.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Road Diet, Transportation, Urban Design

The Proposed Student Village in Gainesville Florida

By Dom Nozzi

December 14, 2005

I reviewed plans for the design of a new “student village” in southwest Gainesville Florida in late 2005.

I am an enthusiastic advocate of walkable, quality urbanism and was therefore quite pleased to see the dense, mixed-use, walkable, compact design that had been created by a student studio project group for this southwest Gainesville location at the southwest gateway to the University of Florida campus.

Here are some items that concern me:

I believe it is unwise to allow the size of fire trucks to dictate the height of the buildings and the width of the travel lanes, as this plan proposes. If walkable design requires certain dimensions, I don’t think it is a good idea to revise those dimensions to accommodate over-sized trucks. I would suggest that the final report recommend that the City and County invest in smaller fire trucks (and maybe smaller transit vehicles) to accommodate the walkable, compact, human-scaled neighborhoods that we will increasingly be building in our communities.

Yes, buying such trucks would probably be more expensive. But it is a lot more expensive to save money on the conventional over-sized fire trucks and then be obligated to bear the large costs (car crashes, lower-value/lower-quality development, etc.) that result from those big trucks.

Quality urbanism is somewhat more expensive than mediocre urbanism, but this community needs to have the wisdom and the pride to willingly want to pay those extra costs by, for example, buying smaller fire trucks.

I was impressed by how the proposal is illustrating block size comparisons for the downtowns of well-known cities in other parts of the world. It is crucial for walkability that the block sizes used in the Student Village be as small as possible (200 to 400 ft). Note that Portland OR is widely admired for its modest block sizes.

Similarly, it is crucial that the design maximize connectivity and accessibility, as this significantly adds to travel choice and walkability, not to mention substantially reducing traffic congestion.

In my opinion, the design options are showing an over-abundance of park space. While I acknowledge that a large number of SMALL parks, plazas and squares is important for quality urbanism, we should be careful about relatively large parks. Such parks can detract from the human-scaled proximity that walkability requires by introducing walking Tetro_Student_Village_Renderings_003distances that are too large. As a side note, I would be concerned that the quantity of greenspace in the proposal might have a significant deadening effect on the Village — walkability is better promoted when we have a bustling, compact concentration of mixed and vibrant buildings in close proximity to each other. Parks, if not laid out modestly, can detract from that.

I wonder about how much dense urbanism we can realistically expect in this location. While it is close to the UF campus, I don’t know that it will contain a major transportation “crossroads” that throughout history has been essential in the emergence of dense urbanism. Main Street and University Avenue originally did that in Gainesville. Today, it is primarily the I-75 interchanges that provide such a critical mass of vehicle trips. Can we realistically expect a critical mass of trips in this location to drive dense urbanism? I believe this is an important question, as doing such things as changing land use designations from low density to high density doesn’t do much at all to influence the emergence of dense urbanism.

I am uncomfortable with the recommendation to allow buildings that are 7-10 stories high. Taller buildings typically detract from walkability, because they generally result in excessive amounts of auto parking surrounding them. Taller buildings also result in a smaller number of buildings in the Village. For walkability, I’d rather have, say, 6 five-story buildings than 3 ten-story buildings. More buildings means more vibrancy and more proximity, and less dead space. Paris, for example, is one of the great cities of the world with regard to quality urbanism, and I believe they limit their buildings to 5 stories.

I am uncomfortable with the idea of creating tall, dense development in the southwest corner of our urban area. Frankly, I don’t believe that poly-centric cities are a good idea. My concern is that a second “downtown” for Gainesville would drain retail, office and residential energy that is so desperately needed in Gainesville’s original downtown. Also, it seems to me that for the sake of creating a sense of community and reducing vehicle travel, our civic, socially-condensing institutions should be located in a single place (downtown, and to a lesser extent UF), rather than creating a second set of civic buildings at our urban edge.

One could argue, I suppose, that the Village could become a stand-alone “new city” that is distinct from Gainesville, but again, due to the lack of an important crossroads here, I’m not sure this is a realistic idea.

I applaud the project for recognizing the importance of creating low-design-speed streets in the Village. That is essential if this is to be a successful, dense, vibrant, walkable project. As I indicated at the meeting, there are a great many designs that can be introduced to slow vehicle speeds beyond creation of 10-foot wide travel lanes. I firmly believe that to create safer, low-speed, high-quality streets, we need to move back to the timeless tradition of re-introducing friction in our streets (on-street parking, buildings and street trees close to the street, bulb-outs, no more than 3 lanes of street width, etc.). Streets are safer when motorists are obligated to pay attention and be careful. Streets are less safe when we follow the “forgiving street” convention of removing friction, which enables inattentive, high-speed car travel.

A dilemma for this project in its desire to create low design speeds is that the Village is located in a suburban, high-speed environment. That means that when driving in this portion of our urban area, motorists have a very strong expectation of being able to drive very fast and very inattentively. That means that it is crucial that the Village incorporate strong, unmistakable messages at its borders. That is, high-visibility Gateway Street treatments are important. As a motorist enters the Village, the street should clearly announce that the motorist is entering a slow-speed, pedestrian-oriented village. Features that could be used to announce such a message might include a narrowing of the street, buildings closer to the street, lower-profile post-mounted traffic signals, perhaps a roundabout, landscaped monument signs (and maybe a banner of some sort) proudly announcing entrance to the village, on-street parking, brick paving, painted paving, etc.

In my opinion, parking strategies are essential to the success of this project as a walkable, vibrant, urban place. First, it is very important that this project strongly encourages (or if feasible, requires) new residential (and ideally, commercial) development to UNBUNDLE parking from the cost of the residential unit. The convention of bundling the cost of the parking into the price of the residence is almost begging people to own and use cars at the residence. Since the project recommends a strong transit element, I am confident that a good number of residents would opt to forego paying more for their residence by not purchasing a parking space (only possible if the parking is unbundled from the residential price).

I have some concerns about the project calling for structured, multi-story parking garages. The per-space cost for such parking is quite enormous, and I am not at all sure that the land/market where the Village is located will be able to justify such an expense. How many retailers or prospective residential tenants, in other words, would be willing to pay roughly $10,000 per parking space in this location? Also, I have learned over the years that people tend not to want to park in structured parking unless they will be parked for several hours (for a job, a major entertainment event, etc.). Typically, people don’t like parking in a garage in order to go shopping.

In sum, I believe that parking in the Village should emphasize priced parking — particularly on-street parking. Certainly, structured parking is preferable to surface parking because it minimizes the parking footprint, thereby promoting compact walkability and additional retail opportunities. But while I favor structured parking, I don’t know that we can expect the market to be able to provide it in the Village. This is not to say we should just have a free-for-all on surface parking. Surface parking can and needs to be controlled by having the Village be parking exempt (don’t require new development to provide parking). Downtown Gainesville, for example, is parking exempt — a necessity for any place that intends to be walkable. It also needs to be controlled by only allowing it to occur at the rear or side of buildings. Structured parking, by the way, should only be allowed if it is wrapped by office/retail/residential.

I would refer the designers of this proposal to Donald Shoup’s new book (The High Cost of Free Parking). In my 19 years as a city planner, it is one of the most magnificent book I have ever read. The book should be required reading for all planners, engineers and elected officials.

I have not seen this yet in the Village plan, but I assume that the plan will recommend that there is a modest build-to requirement that obligates buildings to be pulled up to the street and sidewalk.

In sum, I am quite impressed by the project, despite my concerns.

Leave a comment

Filed under Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design

On-Street Parking, Town Centers, Pedestrians and Bicyclists

 

By Dom Nozzi

December 30, 2008

If we are talking about the creation (or restoration and revival) of a town center, the litmus test for which strategies to use must consider whether the strategy will create a low-speed “park once” environment. For a healthy town center, the pedestrian must be the design imperative.

A common and effective way to create such an environment is with on-street parking. On-street parking, by itself, is not necessarily sufficient in creating a better environment for retail, bicyclists or pedestrians. But on-street parking is one of the most beneficial tactics that can be leveraged in an existing or up-and-comashevilleing low-speed town center. On-street parking should therefore be included whenever
possible.

Too commonly, a place that a community seeks to transform into a walkable town center is fronted by a six-lane corridor. But such a “stroad” design (as Charles Marohn calls a street that is designed poorly for both urbanism and suburbanism) is anything but low-speed or park once, typically. Such a “drive-through” design, to be transformed into a healthy town center, must do what it can to ratchet down speeds and the width of the street. On-street parking and travel lane removal tend to be the most effective ways to do that.

Note that when town centers are designed well, bike lanes can be incompatible with a low-speed walkable town center design. Even though bike lanes ARE usually a good idea in other settings.

In other words, street design must be context-sensitive. We need to be careful not to suboptimize certain forms of travel (such as bicycling) in inappropriate locations.

Leave a comment

Filed under Transportation, Urban Design

In Town Centers the Pedestrian is the Imperative, NOT Bicyclists or Cars or Transit or the Disabled

 

By Dom Nozzi

January 6, 2009

I applaud the desire to provide for all forms of travel. This is particularly important in (what should be) a low-speed town center environment.

For a town center to be healthy for retail and all forms of travel, low-speed car travel is essential, and a “park once” environment must be created. Here, the pedestrian, not the bicyclist or car or transit, must be the design imperative. If we “get it right” for the pedestrian in the town center, every stakeholder tends to benefit: not just Céret,_France,_main_street_2pedestrians, but bicyclists, transit, retail, residential, children, seniors, well-behaved motorists, the disabled and everyone else.

However, if we suboptimize bicycling, transit or cars to the detriment of other community objectives, the unintended consequence is that most everyone loses.

Too often, eager bicycling advocates loudly proclaim that a town center needs bike lanes and a removal of on-street car parking. But I believe that bike lanes and the removal of on-street parking in a town center serve to suboptimize bicycling — and I speak as a bicycle commuter.

How do we make the pedestrian the design imperative in a town center? Some of the more important tactics include reducing dimensions (such as street widths, building setbacks and the size of parking), increasing commercial and residential compactness, and obligating slow, attentive speeds by motorists.

Probably the most powerful, affordable way to achieve the above-mentioned tactics is on-street parking. Such parking effectively slows cars and obligates attentiveness by adding friction to the street. Such parking is also essential for healthy town center retail. And such parking sometimes dramatically improves pedestrian safety by reducing the street crossing distance.

In a town center, bike lanes tend to undercut each of those design objectives.

Shoup’s “The High Cost of Free Parking” is perhaps the best book I’ve ever read in the field of planning/transportation (a must-read for all planners, designers and elected folks). In that book, Shoup identifies excessive parking as an enormous problem in nearly all American communities.

However, he points out that it is subsidized, underpriced OFF-STREET parking, required in excess by nearly all local governments, that is one of the most important problems in American cities. Shoup is a strong advocate of on-street parking (especially when it is properly priced and therefore efficiently used). I believe he would agree with me that for nearly all cities (even those with too much parking), an extremely important objective is to substantially INCREASE the amount of on-street parking and substantially reduce the amount of off-street parking. And that as much town center street frontage as possible be lined with on-street parking.

In a properly designed town center, car speeds are low enough that it is not only safe and pleasant for pedestrians and retailers and residences. Car speeds are also low enough to permit safe and pleasant sharing of the travel lane by bicyclists. And in a town center, for those bicyclists who are uncomfortable sharing even a slow-speed travel lane with cars, there tends to be nearby parallel lanes off the main street for the bicyclist.

Important downsides for removing town center on-street parking:

*Smaller retailers tend to suffer so much that empty storefronts result and retailers flee to more remote locations that are inconvenient/unsafe to walk or bicycle or bus to. In other words, bicyclists should be strong supporters of a healthy town center retail/residential environment, in part because it promotes a compact community with short travel distances.

*Unless travel lane width is dramatically reduced, bike lanes tend to add asphalt width to the main street. That can mean longer, more dangerous crossing distances for pedestrians, and higher speed and less attentive (and therefore more dangerous) car travel.

Again, town center designers must be careful not to suboptimize bicycle, transit or car travel in the town center, since doing so tends to be detrimental to the pedestrian, which is the town center design imperative. The irony for bicyclists calling for the removal of on-street parking in a town center is not only that it is detrimental to bicycling. On-street parking removal in a town center was (and still is) most loudly called for by the motorist lobby (which fought to increase town center street widths and car speeds beginning about 85 years ago).

And for the record, I am a strong advocate of in-street bicycle lanes on most all major streets in a city. I believe, however, that they tend to be incompatible with a low-speed, human-scaled ped-friendly town center.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Transportation, Urban Design, Walking

On-Street Parking Should be Calibrated Based on Community Location

 

By Dom Nozzi

February 10, 2010

Town centers are fundamentally different in character, purpose, and objectives. Distances and setbacks are smaller. Speeds are more modest. There is more walking and less driving.

Therefore, design and development regulations should be calibrated so that town centers do not see the application of inappropriate suburban design.

For example, in town centers, in nearly all cases, residential single-family, residential multi-family, commercial and civic uses should all have on-street parking.

In a healthy town center, there are three design imperatives:

  1. Pedestrians.
  2. Low speeds.
  3. Modest dimensions for streets, destination distances and building setbacks.

One of the most effective, low-cost ways to do that is to provide as much on-street parking in a town center as possible, for all land use categories.asheville

As one moves out of the town center, design starts incrementally changing. In the first few rings outside of the town center, transit and bicycling become the imperative. Speeds increase and dimensions, distances, and setbacks are larger. Bike lanes become more appropriate and on-street parking becomes less appropriate.

In the more drivable outer suburban rings, cars become the design imperative. Speeds are relatively high, as are sizes. On-street parking is largely non-existent, and bike lanes become rather important and appropriate.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design

Neighborhood Parking Permits in Boulder Colorado?

 

By Dom Nozzi

February 9, 2016

“Spillover” parking, where a nearby business, shop, school, or park draws so many cars that on-street parking spaces in a neighborhood are used by such visitors, is a problem in a great many neighborhoods around the nation — including Boulder, Colorado. The tool that Boulder has employed since the 1990s is one that is commonly used to by a great many cities to address spillover parking: neighborhood parking permits (NPP).635836379848447331-20151120-7665

However, the Neighborhood Parking Permit program is clumsy, complicated, convoluted, crude, and makes it too easy for people to cheat (by, for example, selling their permits). The program has created on-going headaches for neighborhoods, staff, and elected officials.

A great many parking problems neighborhoods experience can be much better solved by using what Donald Shoup calls “Parking Benefit Districts.” Parking is metered with hanging tags or in-vehicle meters and the revenue is used in the neighborhood where it is generated to provide neighborhood benefits such as landscaping or sidewalk repair (rather than funneling the revenue into the General Fund).

Benefit districts would result in reducing many housing and development problems in Boulder by minimizing neighborhood opposition to development (caused by fear of spillover parking and too many cars). There would be less opposition – opposition that is fierce in Boulder, despite a universal recognition of an affordable housing crisis in Boulder — to Accessory Dwelling Units, compact development, or increased occupancy limits.

The City would also have less need to require developers to provide excessive amounts of off-street parking. Parking would become more convenient in neighborhoods and nonresident commuters would be paying for neighborhood improvements.

NPP has worked well in a few Boulder neighborhoods, but going forward, Boulder should move toward Benefit Districts.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Transportation