Tag Archives: parking meters

Managing Parking at the Trailhead Development in Boulder, Colorado

By Dom Nozzi

January 1, 2014

There is a new neighborhood being built at the western side of Boulder (just east of the Sanitas Trail System) called “Trailhead.”

For Trailhead to be a great neighborhood, it needs to incorporate some or all of the following parking-related ideas. As far as I know, sadly, these design features are not being incorporated.

Parking meters should be installed on Trailhead streets to reduce spillover parking to nearby neighborhoods, ensure that sufficient parking is available in Trailhead, and provide revenue for enhancements and upkeep of street and sidewalk infrastructure in Trailhead. I think that spillover parking from Trailhead will be almost unnoticeable in this neighborhood. If there IS significant spillover, parking permits or parking meters (that homeowners can be exempt from paying) would solve the issue.

I don’t like the idea that the Trailhead developer has to pay – up front – to provide “free” parking to residents of the development. Such parking requirements convert a cost drivers should pay at the end of their trips (the cost of parking) into one developers must pay at the start of their projects (and then pass on to homebuyers). Having developers pay up front is also problematic because it is unfair to those in the development who have relatively few or no cars. The price of parking should be unbundled from the price of housing at Trailhead so that a buyer has the option of paying less for a home by not opting to have parking provided.

I don’t at all like the idea of having the developer of Trailhead have to install a LOT more asphalt on the development site to provide “affordable housing for cars.” I much prefer the provision of less parking at Trailhead so that there is less asphalt for storing cars at Trailhead.

Studies throughout the nation over the past several decades show that the more parking provided at a development like Trailhead, the more cars will be owned per household, asphaltwhich increases the miles driven per household. I prefer less cars owned per household, and less per household miles driven.

I prefer more demand for transit by Boulder residents. Providing more parking at Trailhead reduces transit demand by those living at Trailhead.

I support community-wide eco-passes (a pass that allows the pass-holder to ride the bus system in the region for free), but only when Boulder properly manages parking in the city. Providing more parking at Trailhead makes community-wide eco-passes less likely, because there will be less demand for such passes.

I prefer compact, walkable, charming design at Trailhead. The more parking that Trailhead provides, the less walkable, compact and charming it will be.

Providing more parking at Trailhead makes that development more suburban. Making it more suburban means it will fit in less with the walkable character of the adjacent, historic Mapleton Hill neighborhood.



Leave a comment

Filed under Economics, Sprawl, Suburbia, Urban Design

Quality of life in Bloomington: What needs to be done?

Quality of life in Bloomington: What needs to be done?

Bloomington, Indiana Herald-Times

Guest column

November 17, 2007

This column was written by Dom Nozzi. He is the executive director of Walkable Streets, and has been a senior city planner for over 20 years.

I was invited to speak in Bloomington on October 22, 2007. I am the author of two books on sprawl, congestion and quality of life. My expertise is quality urban design. In my 20 years of research, visiting countless cities and preparing development regulations for the “college town” of Gainesville, Fla., I learned that quality of life is a powerful economic engine that communities most effectively leverage by providing a range of lifestyle choices from walkable urban, suburban and rural.

My most important realization was this: Compact, lower-speed, human-scaled walkability (particularly in a downtown) is the lynchpin for achieving a sustainable, more economically healthy and pleasant future.

I was able to tour much of Bloomington while in town. It became immediately clear what measures Bloomington will need to improve its overall quality of life for its citizens, its businesses and its environment. These measures are the “low-hanging fruit” that must be incrementally achieved in the coming years for Bloomington (especially in its downtown), if the city is to realize a brighter, more prosperous and sustainable future.

Convert one-way streets back to two-way.

Creating one-way streets was popular a number of decades ago as an easy way to speed high volumes of traffic through downtown. Nationally, cities are converting these back to two-way because of the obvious problems that one-ways create. One-onewaystreetsway streets result in a significant increase in speeding, inattentive driving, road rage, traffic infractions and motorist impatience.

Former “shopping streets” (often including residences) become drive-throughs instead of drive-tos. Life for the now declining number of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users becomes unsafe, inconvenient and unpleasant. Likewise, the street loses residences and businesses due to the more hostile conditions. The one-ways also require a great deal of extra motorist travel distance due to backtracking.

Install metered, on-street parking.

In a walkable location, on-street parking must be maximized. (In particular, College Avenue and Walnut Street downtown need on-street parking.) Such parking would be extremely beneficial to downtown businesses and pedestrians (the lifeblood of a downtown).

By contrast, off-street surface parking must be minimized, as it creates gap-toothed dead zones that inhibit walkability, create danger zones and undercut the “agglomeration economies” (the concentration of jobs, residences and commercial) that a downtown requires for health. On-street parking creates safer, slower-speed, more attentive driving, provides protection for pedestrians and offers high-quality, convenient parking for retailers.

On-street parking must be properly priced (targeting an 85-percent use rate), and the parking meter revenue must be dedicated to improving the streetscape in the vicinity of the meters, rather than being dispersed citywide.

Convert off-street surface parking to buildings.

Such parking is deadening to a walkable location, and makes retailing, office and residential substantially more costly. Surface parking — particularly when abutting streets — must be converted to active retail, residential and office buildings. Parking garages — especially when wrapped with retail — consume less parking space, and are much better for walkability than surface parking.conversion to town center

The tragic dilemma that cities such as Bloomington find themselves in is that most all of us are forced to drive a car (and park it) every single time we travel. By providing for cars, walking, bicycling and transit become more difficult. Understandably, we are compelled to urge that conditions be improved for our cars.

Wider, higher speed roads. Larger parking lots.

Yet the “habitat” for cars is at odds with the “habitat” for people, as people tend dislike being near high-speed roads or huge parking lots.

In the end, we find ourselves becoming our own worst enemies, fighting to improve life for our cars.

As we expand our communities for cars, the world for people shrinks.

The remedy is to return to the tradition we have abandoned. The tradition of designing our communities to make people happy, not cars.

Overall, Bloomington has much to be proud of. However, without incrementally taking the steps I recommend above, the quality of life for residents and retail is being severely compromised. I urge the city to start taking these steps as soon as possible.


Leave a comment

Filed under Sprawl, Suburbia, Transportation, Urban Design

A Conversation with Michael Ronkin about Parking

By Dom Nozzi

May 15, 2013

MR: There’s the idea that charging for parking is a regressive tax, one that will impact the poor more than the rich (… market pricing to free up spaces favors wealthier drivers). This can be said of any tax on a resource that is limited and that you want to see used less. The cigarette tax is a good example: poor uneducated people smoke more that rich educated people, but nobody advocates for giving poor smokers a tax break. Same with a fuel tax, carbon tax etc., it’s something we have to accept, and work on solutions that actually help those with less money, for example create an environment what you don’t “need” a car for daily errands.

DN: Excellent point. One comment I saw recently to respond to this common concern about hurting poor people with market pricing (to efficiently allocate a scarce resource) is that much (all?) of the parking revenue should be allocated to programs that help the poor more than the wealthy, such as putting the money into creating more, better and more frequent transit.

MR: Free on-street parking for short periods has been tried, but 2 hours is much too long.

DN: As I understand it, my girlfriend is NOT suggesting free, time-limited parking. She is suggesting a hybrid: PRICED, time-limited parking. Time-limited so that even a rich person must vacate the parking space fairly quickly, and would not be allowed to keep feeding the meter (because the programming of the meter would not allow it).

MR: Most errands can be accomplished in 2 hours; you can even have lunch n 2 hours. And this also leads to another undesirable phenomenon: people who want to stay longer, even all day, will move their car every 2 hours, adding to traffic and hogging the more desirable parking spaces.

DN: Good point. This would defeat Ann’s suggestion, I believe, since even if the meter would not allow a wealthy person to keep feeding the meter, the wealthy person would only need to move to another parking space. And as Shoup points out, a huge amount of traffic on streets consists of motorists searching for parking. In this scenario, both rich and poor motorists would be searching if the meter was time-limited.

MR: So how’s to make it work, combining your idea with Shoup’s: offer say 30-minutes free.

DN: But wouldn’t that result in folks just moving their car every 30 minutes?

MR: You also make the more desirable spots, the ones closer to the downtown core, more expensive.

DN: Yes, this must be done. One of the downsides of being less wealthy is that you are less able to afford to park in spots that are more desirable (closer). You are also less able to buy as much electricity for your home. Or purchase a steak dinner each time you go to a restaurant. Such a state of affairs is NOT “unfair” to lower income people. It is an unavoidable consequence of having less money. And is it really an intolerable thing that a lower income person would have to walk an extra block or two? Or use less electricity? Or eat steak only once every two weeks?

MR: So if you want to save money, you park a bit further out and walk a few blocks.

DN: Agreed.

MR: Which can lead to another problem, people parking in residential areas close in. Which you solve by issuing permits to residents, and limiting others to an hour or two, or heaven forbid, making them pay.

DN: Yes. The only thing that prevents this is a lack of leadership.

MR: Sounds crazy? It’s been done with other resources. Your electric bill for example. Okay, you don’t get free electricity, but you do pay more per KWH after a certain monthly amount. This was introduced about 25 years ago and nobody thought it would work. Prior to that, you paid less per KWH after a certain amount, just like the big box of cornflakes costs less per ounce than the small box. The paradigm shift occurred because people didn’t want more coal-fired or nuclear power plants.

DN: Exactly. Many, however, howl in agony when this sort of thing is proposed. “What about poor people????”

MR: Too long drivers have considered [parking] a right, something the public should make plentiful and cheap, even free. So one way another those parking spots have to be paid for, they are not free. Which is the point Shoup makes, we pay for them is so many other ways that also end up hurting the poor – mostly by creating an environment where people do need a car to survive.

DN: Precisely. Another way “free” parking hurts the poor: When “free” parking is provided, since it is not free, it must be paid for in hidden, indirect ways. Poor people therefore end up being forced to pay more for groceries when the grocery store parking%20lotprovides free parking – even if the low-income person arrives by walking, by bike, or by transit! That low-income person, in other words, is sometimes paying for parking he or she is not even using. And is partly subsidizing more wealthy motorists using parking spaces. If the parking at the grocery store was priced and paid for directly, the cost of fruits, vegetables and meats in the grocery store would be lower.




Leave a comment

Filed under Transportation