Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[GRDadof3]

I don't see it like that.  developers are trying to get away from providing parking and the city seems to be ok with that, but until there is a actual shortage of parking, I don't see what the problem.  While "letting the market decide" isn't always the best way to get things done, in this instance I would allow it.  a developer isn't going to have a very marketable property if parking isn't taken into consideration.  Existing properties, relying on other parking solutions will have the lack of parking built into their pricing.  Additionally, there are plenty of places to build parking garages if they are needed.  Sure it will cost money for parking downtown but how much is a much shorter commute and less traffic hassles worth to you.  I would say a lot.  

 

I wasn't really talking about downtown, which has a lot of ramp spaces that can pick up overflow. I was talking about development in residential areas that aren't building in their own parking. It then gets hoisted onto to the surrounding neighborhood to provide on street parking. Add in some breweries and restaurants not providing their own parking and you have a pretty bad situation, especially in the winter months when streets and driveways are already constricted. I've seriously heard of people being blocked into their driveways, on more than a few occasions, and didn't know who the owners of the vehicles were. When on street parking begins to fill up, people get very creative with their parking skills, and the homeowners pay the price. 

 

If you build condos, you have to provide parking or people won't buy. But for apartments, developers feel like they don't have to provide parking because.... they're tenants (this is seriously the mindset). Not because apartment dwellers have fewer cars, but they're tenants who aren't making long term investments. Take it or leave it. 

[Quercus]

I wasn't really talking about downtown, which has a lot of ramp spaces that can pick up overflow. I was talking about development in residential areas that aren't building in their own parking. It then gets hoisted onto to the surrounding neighborhood to provide on street parking. Add in some breweries and restaurants not providing their own parking and you have a pretty bad situation, especially in the winter months when streets and driveways are already constricted. I've seriously heard of people being blocked into their driveways, on more than a few occasions, and didn't know who the owners of the vehicles were. When on street parking begins to fill up, people get very creative with their parking skills, and the homeowners pay the price. 

 

If you build condos, you have to provide parking or people won't buy. But for apartments, developers feel like they don't have to provide parking because.... they're tenants (this is seriously the mindset). Not because apartment dwellers have fewer cars, but they're tenants who aren't making long term investments. Take it or leave it. 

 

 

To a certain extent homeowners near business districts should expect some overflow parking in front of their property. It is public domain, after all, and the spaces are up for grabs. I can see how it might be annoying if you're used to always having access to the space in front of your house, but to me the benefits of having an active business district nearby outweigh the negatives. If someone blocks your driveway call a towing company and if the problem persists work with the GRPD and the neighborhood association to come up with a solution. Requiring every single residential development to meet a minimum parking standard seems like an overkill solution to a sporadic problem and a waste of existing parking infrastructure.

I don't know if anyone on here has any numbers, but I'd be willing to bet apartment tenants do in fact have fewer cars than condo owners. Parking quantity and quality definitely factor into the cost to rent a place, in my experience. All else being equal, an apartment with covered parking is going to fetch more than one with driveway or surface lot parking.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Quercus

[GRDadof3]

To a certain extent homeowners near business districts should expect some overflow parking in front of their property. It is public domain, after all, and the spaces are up for grabs. I can see how it might be annoying if you're used to always having access to the space in front of your house, but to me the benefits of having an active business district nearby outweigh the negatives. If someone blocks your driveway call a towing company and if the problem persists work with the GRPD and the neighborhood association to come up with a solution. Requiring every single residential development to meet a minimum parking standard seems like an overkill solution to a sporadic problem and a waste of existing parking infrastructure.

I don't know if anyone on here has any numbers, but I'd be willing to bet apartment tenants do in fact have fewer cars than condo owners. The availability of parking quantity and quality definitely factor into the cost to rent a place, in my experience. All else being equal, an apartment with covered parking is going to fetch more than one with driveway or surface lot parking.

 

I think the difference between apartment dwellers having cars vs condo dwellers having cars is miniscule, if there even is a difference. Look at all of the apartment complexes across the metro area and they're all surrounded by huge parking lots, full of cars. I know that's anecdotal but instinctively, I don't see why there would be a difference, especially when the monthly payments for both are about the same now.  

 

"Work with the neighborhood to come up with a solution." Why not come up with the solution before there's a problem? Why be reactive instead of being proactive? If you know that this problem happens in neighborhoods that don't require businesses to provide at least "some" of their own parking, why would you then think that it wouldn't happen again? And why wouldn't you do a neighborhood inventory of parking (at least a study) before you approved a request to get a variance on parking requirements? 

 

There is a cost to park cars, it is not free. Someone will pay. We're willing to let the developers not pay so that the neighborhood can pay? 

[x99]

 If you build condos, you have to provide parking or people won't buy. But for apartments, developers feel like they don't have to provide parking because.... they're tenants (this is seriously the mindset). Not because apartment dwellers have fewer cars, but they're tenants who aren't making long term investments. Take it or leave it. 

[Next Post]

There is a cost to park cars, it is not free. Someone will pay. We're willing to let the developers not pay so that the neighborhood can pay? 

 

Both very accurate points.  Rockford is currently testing the "don't provide parking, and ignore the issue" concept downtown with the Morton Apartments.  It should be an interesting test case since there is not a lot of available space near it.  If they pack out the Pearl/Ionia ramp (which they could), filling office space in that area, bringing in retail, or bringing additional residential units in then becomes virtually impossible.  It doesn't take much.  Once the parking space is gone, the "Mobility" Department's marking efforts fail, and 10-25% transit turns out to have been pie-in-the-sky, growth hits a hard wall.  Right now, that wall appears to be less than a couple thousand people away. 

 

It is so easy for us to say, "people should use transit."  And maybe they should.  But what if they won't?  What then?  Oh, nevermind.  I'm going to the mall.  I'm tired of worrying about parking.   

[GRDadof3]

Both very accurate points.  Rockford is currently testing the "don't provide parking, and ignore the issue" concept downtown with the Morton Apartments.  It should be an interesting test case since there is not a lot of available space near it.  If they pack out the Pearl/Ionia ramp (which they could), filling office space in that area, bringing in retail, or bringing additional residential units in then becomes virtually impossible.  It doesn't take much.  Once the parking space is gone, the "Mobility" Department's marking efforts fail, and 10-25% transit turns out to have been pie-in-the-sky, growth hits a hard wall.  Right now, that wall appears to be less than a couple thousand people away. 

 

It is so easy for us to say, "people should use transit."  And maybe they should.  But what if they won't?  What then?  Oh, nevermind.  I'm going to the mall.  I'm tired of worrying about parking. 

 

 

People will migrate to where there is less pain. I seriously would never live within walking distance of Green Well if it meant people blocked in my driveway constantly and guests could never park by my house. Guess I'm just not hipster (sucker) enough.  Oh wait, East Hills is looking at a parking permit program for residents for this very reason. Those hipsters ARE smart.

[Quercus]

 

I think the difference between apartment dwellers having cars vs condo dwellers having cars is miniscule, if there even is a difference. Look at all of the apartment complexes across the metro area and they're all surrounded by huge parking lots, full of cars. I know that's anecdotal but instinctively, I don't see why there would be a difference, especially when the monthly payments for both are about the same now.

 

Across the metro area, yes, apartment tenant car ownership is probably fairly similar to condos. Get into the city, though, and I think it's a different story. A large apartment complex surrounded by parking stands out like a sore thumb; I've noticed them too. A Heritage Hill home divided into a dozen apartments, however, is less noticeable. I can only offer anecdotal evidence as well, but having worked in property management I can tell you there are a lot of car-free apartment dwellers such as the elderly, students, disabled, and kids working minimum wage. Most condo residents I run into, though, have cars.

 

 

Why not come up with the solution before there's a problem? Why be reactive instead of being proactive? If you know that this problem happens in neighborhoods that don't require businesses to provide at least "some" of their own parking, why would you then think that it wouldn't happen again? And why wouldn't you do a neighborhood inventory of parking (at least a study) before you approved a request to get a variance on parking requirements? 

 

There is a cost to park cars, it is not free. Someone will pay. We're willing to let the developers not pay so that the neighborhood can pay? 

 

 

It's hard to provide a solution when you don't know the extent of the problem. This, I believe, is why automobile infrastructure is overbuilt in so many places. Over-engineer the design and play it safe, right? We've been down that road before and it's neither affordable or attractive.

The City should absolutely be doing parking inventories before approving a variance request. And they should absolutely include in the inventory the surrounding on-street parking that they build and maintain. I'm not advocating for the City to rubber stamp parking variances. Developers should be able to clearly state how they're going to meet the transportation needs of their clients. But if we hold them all to a minimum automobile parking standard we're going to miss out on some great infill opportunities.

 

 

Rockford is currently testing the "don't provide parking, and ignore the issue" concept downtown with the Morton Apartments.

 

What was the Morton building previously?

 

 

It is so easy for us to say, "people should use transit."  And maybe they should.  But what if they won't?  What then? 

 

I think the way this thought is worded gets at the heart of the GR transportation debate. We're not trying to decide on a single mode of transportation that every resident must utilize all the time. The City is not issuing a decree that everyone must commute on a scooter. People have primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. modes of transportation and GR is simply trying to be a place that accommodates them all. I commend that.

 

 

People will migrate to where there is less pain. I seriously would never live within walking distance of Green Well if it meant people blocked in my driveway constantly and guests could never park by my house. Guess I'm just not hipster (sucker) enough.   Oh wait, East Hills is looking at a parking permit program for residents for this very reason. Those hipsters ARE smart. 

 

Yeah, no one goes to East Hills anymore. There're too many people there. Property values are plummeting. Your definition of "walking distance" must be pretty conservative if you think it's really that bad. East Hills has built an awesome community and business district and now they have to deal with demand. That's great, and desirable. If parking permits will solve the problems a few neighbors are experiencing, great. The fact that they're needed is a sign that that neighborhood has come a long way. I for one am happy they opted for infill development over parking lots. Your smiley faces don't mask your hate for people with different lifestyle choices, Jeff.

[GRDadof3]

 

 

 

 

Across the metro area, yes, apartment tenant car ownership is probably fairly similar to condos. Get into the city, though, and I think it's a different story. A large apartment complex surrounded by parking stands out like a sore thumb; I've noticed them too. A Heritage Hill home divided into a dozen apartments, however, is less noticeable. I can only offer anecdotal evidence as well, but having worked in property management I can tell you there are a lot of car-free apartment dwellers such as the elderly, students, disabled, and kids working minimum wage. Most condo residents I run into, though, have cars.

 

 

 

 

It's hard to provide a solution when you don't know the extent of the problem. This, I believe, is why automobile infrastructure is overbuilt in so many places. Over-engineer the design and play it safe, right? We've been down that road before and it's neither affordable or attractive.

The City should absolutely be doing parking inventories before approving a variance request. And they should absolutely include in the inventory the surrounding on-street parking that they build and maintain. I'm not advocating for the City to rubber stamp parking variances. Developers should be able to clearly state how they're going to meet the transportation needs of their clients. But if we hold them all to a minimum automobile parking standard we're going to miss out on some great infill opportunities.

 

 

 

 

What was the Morton building previously?

 

 

 

 

I think the way this thought is worded gets at the heart of the GR transportation debate. We're not trying to decide on a single mode of transportation that every resident must utilize all the time. The City is not issuing a decree that everyone must commute on a scooter. People have primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. modes of transportation and GR is simply trying to be a place that accommodates them all. I commend that.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, no one goes to East Hills anymore. There're too many people there. Property values are plummeting. Your definition of "walking distance" must be pretty conservative if you think it's really that bad. East Hills has built an awesome community and business district and now they have to deal with demand. That's great, and desirable. If parking permits will solve the problems a few neighbors are experiencing, great. The fact that they're needed is a sign that that neighborhood has come a long way. I for one am happy they opted for infill development over parking lots. Your smiley faces don't mask your hate for people with different lifestyle choices, Jeff.

 

 

Don't shoot the messenger.  (that smiley = evil hatred)

 

I'm only reacting to things that I've heard and experienced, and raising awareness. If you want more details I'd be happy to share them offline.

 

Right now the current zoning is 1 space per residential unit, no matter how many people are living in said unit or how many bedrooms it has. I hardly think that's "overbuilding." 

 

The city did approve a huge parking variance in Creston and denied requests to do a parking study. 

[x99]

Across the metro area, yes, apartment tenant car ownership is probably fairly similar to condos. Get into the city, though, and I think it's a different story. A large apartment complex surrounded by parking stands out like a sore thumb; I've noticed them too. A Heritage Hill home divided into a dozen apartments, however, is less noticeable. I can only offer anecdotal evidence as well, but having worked in property management I can tell you there are a lot of car-free apartment dwellers such as the elderly, students, disabled, and kids working minimum wage. Most condo residents I run into, though, have cars.

 

But how many of those people in those "person types" could afford a car?  Fact is, people who can afford cars in Grand Rapids, have them because they need them.  Those who can afford a car and choose not to are an extremely small minority. 

 

 

What was the Morton building previously?

 

Extremely low income housing.  At a nearly $2000 per month rental rate, the new tenants will almost certainly have cars.  The gamble is that they will all leave by 8PM and not return until after 5PM, therefore resulting in minimal additional parking load.  We'll see about that, I suppose.

 

I'm all for multi-modal, but accommodating vehicles still has to be job one until there is sufficient critical mass where people will choose to stay in the city and select an alternative mode because the benefit of being in the city outweigh the inconvenience.  Right now, living downtown loses its shine rather quickly since you have to drive to Cascade or Alpine to buy anything.  If you doom retail (i.e. groceries and other staples) because of expensive parking and congested traffic that scares off high-income residents (particularly when you congest it on purpose), I fear you create long-term problems with the allure of being downtown.  Does being able to ride a bike with less risk outweigh having to live in an office park with no yard and no stores?  It's a big gamble.

Edited June 3, 2015 by x99

[GRDadof3]

But how many of those people in those "person types" could afford a car?  Fact is, people who can afford cars in Grand Rapids, have them because they need them.  Those who can afford a car and choose not to are an extremely small minority. 

 

 

 

Extremely low income housing.  At a nearly $2000 per month rental rate, the new tenants will almost certainly have cars.  The gamble is that they will all leave by 8PM and not return until after 5PM, therefore resulting in minimal additional parking load.  We'll see about that, I suppose.

 

I'm all for multi-modal, but accommodating vehicles still has to be job one until there is sufficient critical mass where people will choose to stay in the city and select an alternative mode because the benefit of being in the city outweigh the inconvenience.  Right now, living downtown loses its shine rather quickly since you have to drive to Cascade or Alpine to buy anything.  If you doom retail (i.e. groceries and other staples) because of expensive parking and congested traffic that scares off high-income residents (particularly when you congest it on purpose), I fear you create long-term problems with the allure of being downtown.  Does being able to ride a bike with less risk outweigh having to live in an office park with no yard and no stores?  It's a big gamble.

 

People also have to drive to Cascade or Alpine to work, seeing as how the great majority of our employment base in the region resides outside our urban core (reverse commute). I know a lot of people who live downtown who don't work downtown, or if they're a couple one works downtown and the other does not. 

 

Have we beaten this dead horse enough? (evil hate-filled smiley)

[Allison Slater]

The city did approve a huge parking variance in Creston and denied requests to do a parking study. 

That's the biggest thing right there, I think.  If there was a study that said "yes this will work" then by all means, grant a variance.  But outright refusing a study is akin to saying "we could check to see if there's oil here, but science be damned, let's build an oil rig and see what we get, because I BELIEVE."

[jas49503]

People will migrate to where there is less pain. I seriously would never live within walking distance of Green Well if it meant people blocked in my driveway constantly and guests could never park by my house. Guess I'm just not hipster (sucker) enough.  Oh wait, East Hills is looking at a parking permit program for residents for this very reason. Those hipsters ARE smart.

The neighborhood parking issues are hugely overstated. I live across the street from GRCC and my street is filled with people parking there every day. I have ne ver had my driveway blocked, nor to my knowledge, has my neighbors. There is a parking ordinance that requires you to be at least 2 feet from a driveway. There isn't too much more room to develop east hills; I don't see parking ever becoming an issue.

That's the biggest thing right there, I think.  If there was a study that said "yes this will work" then by all means, grant a variance.  But outright refusing a study is akin to saying "we could check to see if there's oil here, but science be damned, let's build an oil rig and see what we get, because I BELIEVE."

Maybe it was so far from being a problem that it would be like commissioning a study to see if I could throw a rock to the moon.

[jas49503]

People keep talking about the money that we, as tax payers spend to subsidize parking. What goes unrealized is that we already spent the money. The parking spot on the side street has been zoned, developed, paved, maintained. To not use it as it was intended; for parking, would be a huge waste of tax dollars. We COULD say that due to our emphasis on public transportation and alternative means of transportation that we only use 10% of available parking spots.

[GRDadof3]

That's the biggest thing right there, I think.  If there was a study that said "yes this will work" then by all means, grant a variance.  But outright refusing a study is akin to saying "we could check to see if there's oil here, but science be damned, let's build an oil rig and see what we get, because I BELIEVE."

 

Exactly. Skip the science, we believe in psuedo-science! (Because it works in Prague!)

[Ted]

http://therapidian.org/placematters-keep-gr-moving-modern-mobility-strategy-build-stronger-city

[GR_Urbanist]

I read that 3 times, and it basically is the usual clap-trap of non-solutions patched over with utterly insulting phrases like "promote transportation equity" as if the tiny number of bike riders and bus riders are somehow being discriminated against because the hundreds of thousands of cars just aren't being fair and getting out of the way!

 

And every person walking, biking or on the bus is one less car competing for space on the streets and in the garages.

 

 

sigh

 

Everything in it is just "ride the bus", "get on a bike", and "why dont you walk". Are these people this tone-deaf? Yes, you are obsessed with attracting these gods known as "young professionals" that think cars are the most evil invention ever except between the months of November and April, and think that stuff like "long boarding" to work is so ironic that it is cool, but these people's fantasy transportation system do not come before the people that are already here just because they look hip. The people that are professionals or not, that get around the way the majority of people in Grand Rapids do need a better system for dealing with what we have today. We are the ones that are today's economy and what these people in city government constantly keep demonstrating is that we dont count anymore, or that they will do so little in hopes that the traffic issue becomes so bad that they can social engineer people onto a bus or a bike.

 

And the dirty secret is that the solution to traffic snarls isn't that hard to solve. The biggest problem is that no part of out traffic system has any brains. We still rely far too much on traffic lights with nothing but dummy timers. 30 seconds for one way, and sometimes absurd times as short as 10 seconds at others. It is all based on bad statistics that dont take any variables into account and just assumes that traffic flows the same rate all day.

 

If the city "invests" (because they really like using that word) in a traffic system where the lights during peak times are controlled by actual people monitoring them from a central location using cameras and senors that will show them where traffic is backed up, and allow them to time the lights so that cars are shuttled through without needless backup, then this problem will be mitigated severely.

 

But who cares about actually moving traffic along more efficiently when we are too busy taking out lanes, ban travel in others, make traffic on still another street drive at each other so we can have two lanes for bikes, and even contemplate blocking off whole major roads after certain times of day?

Edited June 11, 2015 by GR_Urbanist

[Jippy]

Once upon a time, the typical Urban Planet GR patron was championing more urban development and transit. In the last year, the sentiment has suddenly shifted, or perhaps the policies of the city have shifted. Now the City is advocating for more urbane policies than the average Urban Planet GR patrons. It is now the norm that the folks commenting on the GR forum are advocating for more and cheaper parking, less transit, and more space reserved for the traveling automobile. 

 

Are we all getting old and cranky and like things just the way they are? As one who travels across the country and looks at urban policies, the things GR is doing are not out of the norm for progressive urban policies. 

[organsnyder]

"young professionals" that think cars are the most evil invention ever except between the months of November and April, and think that stuff like "long boarding" to work is so ironic that it is cool, but these people's fantasy transportation system do not come before the people that are already here just because they look hip.

 

You're describing the urban hipster—but that's a fairly small segment of the "young professional" population. The shift we're experiencing is not due to the need to look "cool"—in fact, it's the exact opposite of what you describe. Many young people no longer see vehicle ownership as a necessary status symbol—instead, they see it as a necessary means to get from points AB.

 

When all costs are taken into account—not just the obvious such as gas and insurance, but subjective values such as being able to use a smartphone while riding the bus, spending more time outside, getting some exercise during the commute—the non-single-occupancy-vehicle choice often wins. The city's decision to replace "parking" with "mobility" reflects this: after all, their ultimate goal is to get people to their destination as efficiently as possible—not to support people who measure their worth in horsepower.

 

Another thing that seems to be ignored by parking lot proponents: With autonomous vehicles, we really are on the cusp of a revolution in transportation, probably the most dramatic shift in a century. With all vehicles able to be their own valets, parking locations simply won't matter. This is going to happen much sooner than many people realize—in fact, car/ride-sharing services (ZipCar, Uber, etc.) are already starting to make an impact. Why should we focus on building infrastructure that we know will soon be unneeded?

 

 

Are we all getting old and cranky and like things just the way they are? As one who travels across the country and looks at urban policies, the things GR is doing are not out of the norm for progressive urban policies. 

 

I think that most of the progressives (myself included) now spend the majority of their time on discussions in the Salon group.

[wingbert]

http://therapidian.org/placematters-keep-gr-moving-modern-mobility-strategy-build-stronger-city

 

Apparently the city's heyday was back around 1990 or so when there wasn't much downtown except tumbleweeds and Flanagan's.  It was great.  You could bicycle in the middle of the street, skateboard, walk, jog, whatever because there were so few cars.  And weekends, hoo boy.  It was awesome.  Not a soul to be seen around downtown except perhaps a random homeless person here or there.  Those were the glory days.  Now, we've got all these new bars, restaurants, hotels, businesses, apartments, condos, etc. coming in and with them come those awful, horrid, terrible automobiles.  I say we encourage all these businesses to take their employees and their patrons and their danged cars back out to the suburbs where they belong.  Let's take downtown back to the way it was with the empty streets, empty storefronts, empty buses running from one empty bus stop to the next.  Then people can bicycle up and down Monroe, Division, Pearl, etc. without having to share the road with some jerk who wanted to drive a car downtown and spend some money.

[GR_Urbanist]

Once upon a time, the typical Urban Planet GR patron was championing more urban development and transit. In the last year, the sentiment has suddenly shifted, or perhaps the policies of the city have shifted. Now the City is advocating for more urbane policies than the average Urban Planet GR patrons. It is now the norm that the folks commenting on the GR forum are advocating for more and cheaper parking, less transit, and more space reserved for the traveling automobile. 

 

Are we all getting old and cranky and like things just the way they are? As one who travels across the country and looks at urban policies, the things GR is doing are not out of the norm for progressive urban policies. 

 

We still do.

 

We just dont buy into ideas that are poorly conceived, based on shoddy reasoning, or with no thought at all of the consequences just because the term "transit" or "urban" is attached to it.

 

Urbanism and transit only works when it exist in reality and not a fantasy one gets after watching too many presentation videos (been there).

 

 

I've been into this for 20 years, and I want this stuff done. I just want it done right so that it doesn't cause so much unnecessary chaos that people will see it in 30 years the same way we see urban renewal now. Even in a city like Seattle, which I fully expected to be this alternate transportation nirvana  (which it is), the automobile was still the main driver and it actually was easier and cheaper to find parking there than in DTGR. In the central city. They didnt forsake the automobile and pretend like everyone was begging to ditch it. They built an incredible city that acknowledged that while alternatives are important, it wont serve as an excuse to try to make life as hard as possible for those that work/live/visit downtown and want to drive.

 

 

Another thing that seems to be ignored by parking lot proponents: With autonomous vehicles, we really are on the cusp of a revolution in transportation, probably the most dramatic shift in a century. With all vehicles able to be their own valets, parking locations simply won't matter. This is going to happen much sooner than many people realize—in fact, car/ride-sharing services (ZipCar, Uber, etc.) are already starting to make an impact. Why should we focus on building infrastructure that we know will soon be unneeded?

 

I do want to say that I by no means advocate building more surface lots. I despise those things with a passion that goes back a long time. I think they should be hidden in the space behind structures or in contained ramps hidden by liner buildings. That way when these promising new forms of car travel do mature to the point where they obtain mass use, then those parking structures can easily be dismantled and the spaced used for other purposes.

[GRDadof3]

http://therapidian.org/placematters-keep-gr-moving-modern-mobility-strategy-build-stronger-city

 

I find it interesting that DGRI is being given a total platform on an independent (corporate free) news site like the Rapidian. Not surprising the article has only been shared 27 times on social media.

[GRDadof3]

You're describing the urban hipster—but that's a fairly small segment of the "young professional" population. The shift we're experiencing is not due to the need to look "cool"—in fact, it's the exact opposite of what you describe. Many young people no longer see vehicle ownership as a necessary status symbol—instead, they see it as a necessary means to get from points AB.

 

When all costs are taken into account—not just the obvious such as gas and insurance, but subjective values such as being able to use a smartphone while riding the bus, spending more time outside, getting some exercise during the commute—the non-single-occupancy-vehicle choice often wins. The city's decision to replace "parking" with "mobility" reflects this: after all, their ultimate goal is to get people to their destination as efficiently as possible—not to support people who measure their worth in horsepower.

 

Another thing that seems to be ignored by parking lot proponents: With autonomous vehicles, we really are on the cusp of a revolution in transportation, probably the most dramatic shift in a century. With all vehicles able to be their own valets, parking locations simply won't matter. This is going to happen much sooner than many people realize—in fact, car/ride-sharing services (ZipCar, Uber, etc.) are already starting to make an impact. Why should we focus on building infrastructure that we know will soon be unneeded?

 

 

 

I think that most of the progressives (myself included) now spend the majority of their time on discussions in the Salon group.

 

I kicked myself off the Salon. People actually asked me why I bothered to participate on it. I do find it tends to be overwhelmingly "urban elitist" at times (ie urbanists are better than other people). I try not to hang out with any group that thinks it's better than other groups. But that's just me.  

 

 

Once upon a time, the typical Urban Planet GR patron was championing more urban development and transit. In the last year, the sentiment has suddenly shifted, or perhaps the policies of the city have shifted. Now the City is advocating for more urbane policies than the average Urban Planet GR patrons. It is now the norm that the folks commenting on the GR forum are advocating for more and cheaper parking, less transit, and more space reserved for the traveling automobile. 

 

Are we all getting old and cranky and like things just the way they are? As one who travels across the country and looks at urban policies, the things GR is doing are not out of the norm for progressive urban policies. 

 

Who is advocated for more and cheaper parking, less transit, and more space reserved for the traveling automobile? 

[jas49503]

Reading this thread, I must have missed the part where GR was advocating abandoning the automobile as a means of transportation.

It was my understanding that the city was going to look at a comprehensive solution to transportation, including autos and parking as it is needed. Car transportation is not exclusive of mass transit, biking , or walking. It was my impression from reading the article that they are actually complimentary, i.e., the easier it is for people to not use a car, the more likely they are to not use a car, leading to a easier time for people who are using their cars.

The return on investment for something like painting bike lanes in a street seems astronomical compared to building a new parking garage. It obviously doesn't serve as many people, but costs so much less money.

[fotoman311]

I find it interesting that DGRI is being given a total platform on an independent (corporate free) news site like the Rapidian. Not surprising the article has only been shared 27 times on social media.

Any non-profit organization has the this "total platform" "given" to them. That's one of the beautiful things about The Rapidian.

[fotoman311]

 

Who is advocated for more and cheaper parking, less transit, and more space reserved for the traveling automobile? 

 

Are we reading the same "Urban" Planet message board???

[GRDadof3]

Any non-profit organization has the this "total platform" "given" to them. That's one of the beautiful things about The Rapidian.

 

Even though DGRI is technically a "non-profit," it is a quasi governmental agency that is responsible for spending quite a few taxpayer dollars. 

 

No organization, for profit or non profit, should be given a free platform "news site" in my opinion. 

Are we reading the same "Urban" Planet message board???

 

Because people have a difference of opinion means they're advocating for those things? Or completely against them?