The High Cost of Free Parking

[mattaudio]

Or how we had 100,000 people a half century ago with significantly less parking.

Granted, it was due to large family sizes in small homes. But that's an issue of housing stock matching new demand, not an issue of mobility.

My grandparents raised 5 kids in a 3BR house in SW Mpls, and only one car. The one person-one car mentality is the biggest cultural obstacle. We can get over it. Good transit, walkable amenities such as schools and groceries, and incremental intensification (Acessory Dwelling Units, etc) will make it happen.

[RailBaronYarr]

I think it's important to note that Minneapolis will need to increase its share of regional jobs along with population growth to avoid the type of street congestion/parking hell people are worried about. If 100k people move to Minneapolis and a significant chunk of them aren't people with existing downtown jobs (ie moving in from the suburbs), there'll be a lot of daily driving out. I do think Minneapolis and the MetCouncil will need to reel in their schedules on projects like adding bicycle facilities, arterial transit corridor improvements, etc to show we have the capacity and safety to really get around without a car (or at least one of 2 working adults). We're definitely getting there.

[MNdible]

Or how we had 100,000 people a half century ago with significantly less parking.

Your follow up response to this suggests that your sort of get this, but just to expound:

The number of cars is more closely related to the number of households than overall population (12 year olds don't drive). When we get back to 500,000 people this time, it's going to be with probably nearly twice as many households as we had last time around. I'd guarantee that there are areas of Minneapolis that already have more households per acre than any part of town did when the city was at its previous population peak.

[mattaudio]

12 year olds don't drive, but they can/do cause car trips. Any child who grew up in the suburbs can attest to that.

Parents spend a large chunk of their day shuttling their kids around town for sports practices, play dates, school activities, etc. It was common that parents pushed cars on their children when they were 16 so they didn't have to play chauffeur anymore.

Compare that to two generations ago, when we had 100,000 more people in Minneapolis even though a much larger percentage were kids. They could walk/bike to school in their neighborhood and play with kids right in their neighborhood.

Part of growing our population as a city will be to slowly increase household size. That means retaining families with children rather than seeing them move to the burbs. We're already doing much better in this regard than a decade or two ago.

Beyond that, we need to create a framework where couples can live with one car by choice. I think this is the biggest opportunity for us to gain population without gaining cars. Couples are already trying to engineer their lifestyles to work with one car instead of two simply because of the massive cost savings it represents.

[RailBaronYarr]

That is a very good point. The flip side is that since there are more households and daily trips within the city (since 12 year olds don't drive or really go to the bar, movie theater, store, work, etc as often as 21-30 year olds do), there's a huge opportunity for transit and biking to pick up slack. Further, the number of kids per household will be smaller. 1-2 child households need fewer groceries, supplies, etc - typical things cited when justifying a car to haul stuff around.

Honestly, though. Biggest factor for what drives ownership in a first or second car is where the adults work (regardless of how many kids they have). That and the fact that far more females over the age of 20 work permanently means both need daily transportation. If one or both jobs are outside the city limits (even in StP), it's very likely they'll need a car. Transit to the suburbs it not timely or quick, and serves a dwindling share of jobs every mile further you go.

[ECtransplant]

http://freakonomics.com/2014/08/20/park ... nscript-2/

Shoup and "Shoupistas" with Dubner

[MNdible]

I thought that this exchange was particularly relevant for this board:

DUBNER: That’s right. It may be that, for all the care and logic put into an experiment like this, that something as seemingly simple as parking is hard to fix because of, well, because of how people respond to incentives... I asked Mike Manville what he’s learned from watching the best parking ideas from academia get put into play in the real world.

MANVILLE: So I think it probably teaches all of us who are academics is that the real world is complicated and messy, that we come up with these ideas, and they seem entirely valid to us, and I think its very common for us as academics to sort of roll our eyes at policy makers and say oh why don’t they just listen to us. And I think it’s been kind of, it’s been very educational and occasionally humbling to watch ideas that I strongly believe in, you know, sort of get put into practice and see how difficult it is for the folks on the front lines to actually do them. So I think that it’s been a real learning process in both directions.

[mamundsen]

I just got the new copy of the Monitor. There is an interesting news bit about parking on University. I thought this issue was over... I wasn't sure if it should go here or the Green Line thread. (?)

See more info here: http://parkingpossibilitiesmsp.com

[mamundsen]

Stillwater is planning to start charging for parking in historic downtown. Of course business owners are worried people will stop coming.

http://bringmethenews.com/2015/02/17/it ... tillwater/

Personally, this will not change my habit of getting out there a few times a year. In fact last fall I went and parked in a ramp that I was amazed was free for 4 hours! I was expecting to pay a small fee.

[David Greene]

We visit frequently and I am always amazed there isn't metered parking yet.

That friggin' huge bridge is a bigger threat to businesses than pay parking.

[mattaudio]

I was in Stillwater on Sunday, and all I need to say is 2x Mr. Green's post.

[mattaudio]

Reminder that the Planning Commission public hearing regarding proposed reform of minimum parking requirements near transit is Monday at 4:30 PM. https://www.facebook.com/events/1617682418477321/

[twincitizen]

Here's a fun/weird anecdote, not sure where else I could share it. File it under "Weird Behavior & Cheap Underground Parking":

So I moved into my new place in CARAG nearly 6 months ago. It's a 64-unit building with roughly 40 underground spaces. There are additional spaces adjacent to the alley out back - so at least 64 total spaces, and maybe a few more. The surface parking out back is free, while the underground parking is $45/month - very reasonable! When I moved in, I was told there was a waiting list for underground spaces, and there were "2 or 3" people ahead of me, I'd just have to wait for some turnover. As it turns out, there has been very little turnover. I'm still on the waiting list 6 months later, again reportedly with "2 or 3" people ahead of me.

Here's the weird part - I go down to the parking garage (where the trash/recycling is located) a few times a week and it is EMPTY. I'm not talking 9-5, I'm talking weekends & very late at night. The underground parking is never more than 2/3 full, and often roughly half. I found the management here to be a little...disorganized, so I thought maybe they had lost track of which spaces are actually leased, etc. I emailed and got a response that they had just done an audit, and yes, all spaces were accounted for! Well, how can that be? Why would someone pay for a space and not use it? Are there that many people working 3rd shift or something? Lotta nurses in my building maybe? I've been racking my brain trying to rationalize the situation.

So tonight on the elevator, I asked a guy heading up my floor (who I had just seen come in from the garage) how long he had to wait for a space, what his take on the situation was, etc. His response shocked me, and it is the only reasonable explanation: people just park outside in the summer - even though they are paying for an underground space!! I'm sorry, but that is insane. We're talking about a single-level parking garage that is a breeze to get in and out of. Surface parking in back actually requires a longer walk to the nearest building door. Street parking is not exactly abundant either. There's usually "last space availability" and more, except for maybe on weekend nights, but it's no picnic either. Sharp parallel parking skills are needed at the very least. And why you'd park on street when you have off-street parking available is beyond me.

Sorry, I just had to share. Isn't that crazy? It is the only plausible explanation at this point.

[Anondson]

They all have their space ready when winter restrictions hit.

[mulad]

I don't see that as especially unusual -- I recall seeing some similar things happen at my old apartment, though I don't think I ever saw the garage get really empty. I've observed at my new place that the underground parking has a much higher percentage of used spaces during midday than the surface lot does.

But there is something to be said about how paying for a garage space typically means that you're paying for a reserved slot that is never supposed to be used by anyone else. That's really not the most efficient way of doing things, since it's rare for everyone to be there at the same time, even at night. People stay over with SOs, family, or friends, and their spot can go unused. Unreserved paid parking should become more common.

[mister.shoes]

We park both our cars on the street rather than put them in our nice new garage because it's way easier to get the kid out of the back seat and into the house. Humans are lazy

[xandrex]

I'm guessing there's some psychology at play with having to pull up and wait for the garage door to open and then the same when you're leaving. It just seems to take longer. And if you can snag a spot near the building or behind the building in the alley parking, it's not like the weather is crappy out.

It seems it's just the price these people are paying so they can ensure their car is warm come December-February. That doesn't strike me as too outrageous. I'm a little nervous come this winter, as I moved from a SE Minneapolis apartment with off-street parking to a new place in Whittier that lacks any parking. If my building had any spots I'd definitely want one when parking restrictions hit.

[twincitizen]

I'd agree with what I think you're implying - the parking is probably priced so low that these people don't even feel like they're wasting their money - as long as that underground spot is guaranteed over the winter months, it's whatever. For that very reason, I wouldn't mind if they bumped the cost up to $50 or $60/month (from $45), because I would pay it, and I would get a damn spot. I'm not actually going to suggest that of course, I'll simply wait patiently for some turnover to happen.

As for the underground parking being inconvenient or taking longer due to opening the garage door, even that is mostly not true. For the alley-adjacent parking in back, there are 0 doors on the backside of the building, meaning that you're walking around to at least a side door to get in - and then walking toward the main lobby anyways if you need the elevator. As for street parking, it's not quite to the point of total saturation where you have to park a block away, but it's not far off either. There are usually no more than 2 or 3 spaces available on our "half" of the block that is nearest to the building. Parking in the garage is going to be faster probably 90% of the time. There's also the question of why the hell you'd leave your car exposed to the elements, thieves, drunk drivers taking off your mirrors, etc. when you're paying for a secure space. These people are dumb.

EDIT/P.S. It's also a major dick move to take spaces away from people whose only choices are the limited surface parking in back or limited street parking. I mean, obviously they are 100% within their rights to do so, but man that is selfish as hell.

[xandrex]

Yes, that's part of what I'm implying. If the cost is minimal, why not have a space for when you need it? It's effectively an insurance policy. I'm sure if they could, plenty of those people would offload the space in the summer to save some dough.

But I do think some strange psychology could be at play. Even if it is super easy to get in and out of, there could be the perception that it takes longer - a slow garage door, a long elevator wait (or an extra flight of steps), or—and this seems to be a theme of older buildings that have parking—a very tight space that sometimes takes longer than parallel parking. I have a friend at RiverWest with a full-size sedan, which means that getting into the parking spot is a frequently a three or four point parking maneuver. All of that could add up to real or imagined extra time that could make parking on the block (or easily behind the building) and walking to the door a mentally acceptable bet.

Long story short: People are weird.

[mattaudio]

If people think garages around here are bad, you should see the ones I had to maneuver in Brazil... underneath newer buildings... Wow that could be a 5+ point maneuver to get in and out.