|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 9, 2012 11:12:05 GMT -8
Does sound pretty good. Let's not rush to judgment on the 1500 parking space. We don't know how many residential units is planned yet so that may turn out to be a reasonable amount given the likely use pattern.
If Expo line ridership turns out to exceed projection as many of us here believe, we are going to need all that parking space.
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Feb 9, 2012 12:23:16 GMT -8
The issue with the parking is all about cost. The point is that there are other really good ways you could use $75,000,000 other than storing cars for commuters. You could build more transit-oriented housing; you could build an entire network of high-quality bike infrastructure in Culver City; you could operate a series of circulator shuttles for several years. And each of those would support alternatives to driving. Sure some park-and-ride parking is fine -- assuming commuters are asked to pay its market price. But I don't think we should be in the business of supporting cities subsidizing parking at TODs.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 9, 2012 13:13:34 GMT -8
The issue with the parking is all about cost. The point is that there are other really good ways you could use $75,000,000 other than storing cars for commuters. You could build more transit-oriented housing; you could build an entire network of high-quality bike infrastructure in Culver City; you could operate a series of circulator shuttles for several years. And each of those would support alternatives to driving. Sure some park-and-ride parking is fine -- assuming commuters are asked to pay its market price. But I don't think we should be in the business of supporting cities subsidizing parking at TODs. Perfect analysis carter. It just becomes a never-ending cycle. We build more parking --> more car convenience --> more driving --> more traffic --> more left turn signals --> wider roads --> more parking, etc...... How do you get people to "go green" when you build parking? It's hypocritical building more parking or widen roads to "reduce congestion". |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 9, 2012 16:11:20 GMT -8
there's no reason why road and rail should be antagonistic.
remember, even Tokyo, with its miles and miles of subway and commuter trains criss-crossing the city and spreading out to the suburbs, has plenty of parking, mostly hidden so it doesn't disrupt what is undeniably a very pedestrian and transit-oriented city.
and Los Angeles is still a long way from Tokyo. the reality is that while Metro Rail has reduced the need for auto use and parking, there's still a lot of places that Metro — either rail or buses — doesn't reach, or certainly not with service more frequent than hourly. until we see less of a skeleton and more of a transit net, that parking is going to be a necessary evil.
and I do think that a lot of this parking will be for park-and-ride, which means that it will contribute to transit use.
if it were up to me, I would install a typical parking attendant booth and gate setup, with a market rate parking charge, and free parking for TAP card holders.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 9, 2012 16:54:23 GMT -8
Does sound pretty good. Let's not rush to judgment on the 1500 parking space. We don't know how many residential units is planned yet so that may turn out to be a reasonable amount given the likely use pattern. If Expo line ridership turns out to exceed projection as many of us here believe, we are going to need all that parking space. Did you notice the most used stations in the system have the least amount of parking compared to stations with significant parking? There was an analysis done on Streetsblog once. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Feb 9, 2012 18:12:03 GMT -8
Does sound pretty good. Let's not rush to judgment on the 1500 parking space. We don't know how many residential units is planned yet so that may turn out to be a reasonable amount given the likely use pattern. If Expo line ridership turns out to exceed projection as many of us here believe, we are going to need all that parking space. Did you notice the most used stations in the system have the least amount of parking compared to stations with significant parking? There was an analysis done on Streetsblog once. And it's not like there's a shortage of parking in Culver City. They have a couple very large municipal lots that probably sit half-empty for most of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 9, 2012 19:28:48 GMT -8
And it's not like there's a shortage of parking in Culver City. They have a couple very large municipal lots that probably sit half-empty for most of the day. I'm sure you understand the nature of Southern Californian drivers well enough to know that those parking lots are totally irrelevant unless they are next to the station or the TOD. (They aren't) |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 10, 2012 3:03:43 GMT -8
And it's not like there's a shortage of parking in Culver City. They have a couple very large municipal lots that probably sit half-empty for most of the day. I'm sure you understand the nature of Southern Californian drivers well enough to know that those parking lots are totally irrelevant unless they are next to the station or the TOD. (They aren't) It's not like there aren't other stations on the line that are more oriented towards park and ride. La Cienega has a big parking garage just one stop away. I really think pedestrian access is more important for this station. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 10, 2012 7:24:12 GMT -8
It's not like there aren't other stations on the line that are more oriented towards park and ride. La Cienega has a big parking garage just one stop away. I really think pedestrian access is more important for this station. I understand the need for park-n-rides at some instances, but 1,500 spaces near downtown Culver City is ridiculous. Park-n-rides are best suited for Norwalk, Sierra Madre, North Hollywood, etc... which are gateways to South Bay, San Gabriel and the Valley, respectively. Culver City is a huge destination and the amount of money to be spent on this underground structure would go a long way to fund feeder shuttles, bikeways, or pedestrian walkways. Then you start building the infrastructure for alternative transportation. Building a parking structure is just adhering to the same old mantra. A 500 parking space would have been more suitable for the area...but not 1,500. At least $50M could have been saved for something else. This is not rail v. car. The car has been winning hands down since 1920...when was the arguement then in the 20th century? Right now, we still fund 80% roads/20% transit, so we have to pick our battles. The people who should complain about roads v. transit are transit fans, b/c we've been screwed since the 1920s in this arguement. What happens when gas rises to $6/gallon? $7/gallon? Do people not think about the consequences of CONTINUING to adhere to driver convenience? And no, there is no way this will be market rate for parking, though I wish, just like you. At best, $2 a parking spot like Hollywood/Highland. LA subsidizes parking WAY MORE than transit. Ever notice the least used rail lines in our system has more parking than the ones with less parking? Let's work on building housing/office developments near transit stations, that will build a sustainable system. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 10, 2012 11:22:31 GMT -8
Does sound pretty good. Let's not rush to judgment on the 1500 parking space. We don't know how many residential units is planned yet so that may turn out to be a reasonable amount given the likely use pattern. If Expo line ridership turns out to exceed projection as many of us here believe, we are going to need all that parking space. Did you notice the most used stations in the system have the least amount of parking compared to stations with significant parking? There was an analysis done on Streetsblog once. The Streetblog story said the station with lots of parking have low walk score. That analysis didn't draw any conclusion on parking vs. "most used". Culver City is not 7th Street Metro Center. It is not even Wilshire/Western. Some of you here have allergic reaction to the word "parking" and offer knee jeck commentary. 1,500 space in a mixed used development near Downtown Culver City doesn't struck me as excessive. We don't even know how many residential units are proposed so it's premature to draw any conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Feb 10, 2012 12:01:04 GMT -8
And it's not like there's a shortage of parking in Culver City. They have a couple very large municipal lots that probably sit half-empty for most of the day. I'm sure you understand the nature of Southern Californian drivers well enough to know that those parking lots are totally irrelevant unless they are next to the station or the TOD. (They aren't) I do get the psyche of the average driving Angeleno when it comes to parking. I've lived in SoCal my whole life. But as a matter of public policy, I don't think it's a good idea to spend immense amounts of money to hopefully attract drivers to the line -- to subsidize a form of access that undermines the very transit system itself. And with an expected ridership of 60,000+ when fully open, even 1,500 parking spaces isn't even going to "buy" you very much ridership. As this post, when you gear your transit stations to parking, it undermines attempts to make cities more urban, walkable and sustainable in a host of other ways. capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/02/people-in-cars-tend-to-stay-in-cars.html |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 10, 2012 16:29:12 GMT -8
I think that blog loses some of its bite when you realize that its written from a New York state of mind.
I have nothing against New York City, but we aren't them. We aren't Japan, either although I want to see Los Angeles become more like that.
We aren't at the level where we can ignore car drivers. We can nudge them in the right direction, but I don't think we should be forcing the issue.
Also, we have to treat each station differently. Most importantly, we have to respect what the community wants. [ EDIT: After all, this is a Culver City project, not a Metro one... ]
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Feb 10, 2012 18:28:18 GMT -8
I think that blog loses some of its bite when you realize that its written from a New York state of mind. I have nothing against New York City, but we aren't them. We aren't Japan, either although I want to see Los Angeles become more like that. We aren't at the level where we can ignore car drivers. We can nudge them in the right direction, but I don't think we should be forcing the issue. Also, we have to treat each station differently. Most importantly, we have to respect what the community wants. [ EDIT: After all, this is a Culver City project, not a Metro one... ] Yeah. I think we're basically on the same page, but it's a matter of degree. Certainly the project needs parking to attract certain customers, but 1500 strikes me as too much. That's the equivalent of three La Cienega station parking structures. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 11, 2012 0:42:45 GMT -8
"A matter of degree" is something I can live with. I would be OK with fewer parking spaces. I would also be OK with the same number of spaces, but with paid parking (and a Metro user discount). The paid parking concept is compelling to me because I think people could provide incentives for people to leave their car and use transit — Free parking with Metro ticket or TAP card, while the other users pay down the cost of building the structure. Unfortunately, most parking lot owners don't think that far outside the box  There may also be other factors we are not considering, such as residential parking space requirements. In the end, it is Culver City, the developer and the citizens of Culver City who should have final say in how many parking spaces they think they need. (In addition to being a transit advocate, I am also a free speech advocate, so I am used to defending things I do not necessarily agree with.) |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 11, 2012 5:38:44 GMT -8
Free parking with Metro ticket or TAP card, while the other users pay down the cost of building the structure. It's not that hard to figure out that it's cheaper to buy a metro ticket than to pay a fair price for that parking. If I wanted to park my car cheaply around that station, I'd just buy a metro ticket and save over "market rate" parking prices. You could offer discounts to metro ticket holders, but that could only be a dollar or so before it would effectively erode the price of the metro ticket. I still think the much better outcome from an urbanist and ridership perspective would be to eliminate parking and to build dense mixed use around the station. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 11, 2012 13:53:52 GMT -8
It would be pointless to try to eliminate parking completely, especially for a mixed-use development.
I really don't want to get into Southern California car ownership statistics or the real estate market. The simple fact is, the housing element of any mixed-use would be a failure without resident parking.
Any developer wants a return on investment, and resident parking would a selling point even if cities didn't have parking requirements.
Sure, free parking with valid Metro ticket would allow for cheating. I honestly don't have a problem with that. The cheater is still walking over to the train station, learning how to operate a ticket machine, and making a donation to Metro.
The smart cheater buys a TAP card, which is fine too. I want to see a TAP card in the pocket of every Angeleno, so that advances that goal.
Meanwhile, the legitimate park-and-ride Metro rider, who still needs a car for other purposes, gets the joy of free parking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 11, 2012 16:44:17 GMT -8
I think James and I are pretty much on the same page here.
Bottom line: Let's focus on getting more people riding Metro (or better yet, *comfortable* riding Metro) before getting people to shed their cars.
The latter will come with time and further expansion.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 13, 2012 14:29:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Feb 13, 2012 16:03:53 GMT -8
To be fair, in that case the developer will have to lease parking from the public lots. But, you know, there are public lots in CC too...hmm. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 13, 2012 16:22:15 GMT -8
To be fair, in that case the developer will have lease parking from the public lots. But, you know, there are public lots in CC too...hmm. Santa Monica let the developer off the hook for parking. The residents can choose to lease parking. That's free market working. That's good policy. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Feb 13, 2012 22:30:53 GMT -8
Every developer would be happy to build without parking requirements. But you're not "letting the market decide" unless you actually prohibit the tenants contractually from having a car - you're just shifting the burden to the neighbors. While Santa Monica probably can attract a significant number of new upper-income "carfree" renters to populate some of these new multifamily buildings, at the rents asked, many will have cars. The city could have excluded residents from eligibility for permit parking - (yes, Virginia, its been done before, though officials like to feign memory loss), but instead accepted a weaselly promise from the developer that he would "seek out residents without cars". You might not think this a big problem, and indeed, it may turn out that way, but in my mind, approving "zero parking" should translate to "zero cars", not 56 units with 10-20 cars seeking off-the-books parking. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 14, 2012 2:45:06 GMT -8
Every developer would be happy to build without parking requirements. But you're not "letting the market decide" unless you actually prohibit the tenants contractually from having a car - you're just shifting the burden to the neighbors. While Santa Monica probably can attract a significant number of new upper-income "carfree" renters to populate some of these new multifamily buildings, at the rents asked, many will have cars. The city could have excluded residents from eligibility for permit parking - (yes, Virginia, its been done before, though officials like to feign memory loss), but instead accepted a weaselly promise from the developer that he would "seek out residents without cars". You might not think this a big problem, and indeed, it may turn out that way, but in my mind, approving "zero parking" should translate to "zero cars", not 56 units with 10-20 cars seeking off-the-books parking. If there's a pool of "off-the-books" parking, it sounds like there's already a problem in the market. The current parking pool isn't being paid for. A better solution to a contractual clause forbidding car ownership would be to take that slush fund of existing street parking and managing that appropriately. If you think it should be reserved for nearby single family housing, institute a permit scheme in which the new development gets no permits. A better solution would be to auction permits to all nearby residents, including any new developments, thereby charging an appropriate market rate for that parking. Another solution would be to keep the parking open to everyone, but to put in meters. If parking in the neighborhood is valued appropriately, there will be appropriate incentives to either build a parking structure, institute some kind of shuttle service, or lobby for improved public transit. |
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Feb 14, 2012 8:36:04 GMT -8
If there's a pool of "off-the-books" parking, it sounds like there's already a problem in the market. The current parking pool isn't being paid for. A better solution to a contractual clause forbidding car ownership would be to take that slush fund of existing street parking and managing that appropriately. If you think it should be reserved for nearby single family housing, institute a permit scheme in which the new development gets no permits. A better solution would be to auction permits to all nearby residents, including any new developments, thereby charging an appropriate market rate for that parking. Another solution would be to keep the parking open to everyone, but to put in meters. If parking in the neighborhood is valued appropriately, there will be appropriate incentives to either build a parking structure, institute some kind of shuttle service, or lobby for improved public transit. The existence of OTB parking doesn't mean a problem in the market. I didn't suggest that parking "should be reserved for nearby single family housing", but why am I not surprised, on this forum, that you would read that in? In fact, how many SFR's adjoin downtown Santa Monica? The driving force behind permit parking, which effectively transfers public property to private use, are the scores of renters, not the R-1 dwellers. Permit districts just compounds on-street parking shortages, and creates a new class of elites entitled to exclusive use. I'd be very much ok with pooled, auctioned parking for all concerned, including on-street spaces, but that's not what we have with the "zero parking" proposal. Those tenants will vie for regulated, below-market Bayside structure permits, not bid for open-market parking. Again, this may not turn out to be a problem with just one 56 unit building, but there are 1000's of units in the pipeline, all of whom will want the same deal. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 14, 2012 10:51:37 GMT -8
Every developer would be happy to build without parking requirements. But you're not "letting the market decide" unless you actually prohibit the tenants contractually from having a car - you're just shifting the burden to the neighbors. While Santa Monica probably can attract a significant number of new upper-income "carfree" renters to populate some of these new multifamily buildings, at the rents asked, many will have cars. The city could have excluded residents from eligibility for permit parking - (yes, Virginia, its been done before, though officials like to feign memory loss), but instead accepted a weaselly promise from the developer that he would "seek out residents without cars". You might not think this a big problem, and indeed, it may turn out that way, but in my mind, approving "zero parking" should translate to "zero cars", not 56 units with 10-20 cars seeking off-the-books parking. Obviously, in a free society you can't completely dictate whether someone is going to drive a car or not. Also, remember, by not requiring parking, the cost of the apartments will be much less to build. By demanding developers build several $50k parking spaces for each unit, we ensure only high-end developments get built if anything at all, which raises the cost of housing. The status quo in LA is to require parking for residents and even guests, but no matter what, the streets are usually still packed with cars. You say the neighbors will be the ones to suffer because the new development won't have parking. However, when we require parking it just encourages more car use, an unfriendly pedestrian environment that is very car oriented and then the roads are even more clogged with traffic, and like I said, it will be doubtful in a crowded neighborhood that there will be significant open parking spaces on the street anyways. This is the standard LA model which has given us an ugly mini mall streetscape with tons of traffic and expensive housing. Other cities have taken a different approach to urban development, I think with better success. LA still hasn't done TOD very well at all. Take a look at some of our subway stations like Vermont/Beverly compared to a quasi suburban area like Arlington VA, which has embraced a progressive urban planning approach around their Orange Line stations. Some of our stations look like they have just been plopped down in the landscape with no planning around them in comparison. Luckily to date, we have built a lot of our transit in areas where streetcars ran and car oriented development never completely took hold (Hollywood, Downtown, etc...). Our transit system has enlivened these areas somewhat back to their former glory. Going forward our real challenge will be how we plan coordination with transit in areas that are really built for the car. Do we just build the same as if the transit stations are not there? My vote is no. Otherwise, I'd expect a lot of the city to look like Vermont/Beverly and we'll have an incompatible city with its transit system. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 14, 2012 15:29:02 GMT -8
Masonite combines two transit-related problems together, and I don't think the two necessarily deserve to be linked.
The first is what do we do with the stations themselves. I agree that there is a lot more that Metro can do with the land that they own. Stations ought to have retail, and Metro could do a better job of placing station entrances, building plazas or not, in such a way that the station flows with a neighborhood.
Note, however that this is land that Metro owns. There's a difference between Metro partnering with a private developer (Hollywood/ Highland, One Santa Fe) and telling a private developer what he can do with his land.
I think we have to be careful to not treat urban and suburban areas alike. That parking requirement serves a very useful purpose in single-family residential neighborhoods — it's a weapon against unwanted, uncharacteristic development. (I'm all for denser development, but I think it makes less sense away from major boulevards.)
We also have to be aware of unintended consequences — if we allow development without parking, that parking has to go somewhere. Sorry, we can't have No Autos Allowed Covenants.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 15, 2012 15:50:08 GMT -8
Masonite combines two transit-related problems together, and I don't think the two necessarily deserve to be linked. The first is what do we do with the stations themselves. I agree that there is a lot more that Metro can do with the land that they own. Stations ought to have retail, and Metro could do a better job of placing station entrances, building plazas or not, in such a way that the station flows with a neighborhood. Note, however that this is land that Metro owns. There's a difference between Metro partnering with a private developer (Hollywood/ Highland, One Santa Fe) and telling a private developer what he can do with his land. I think we have to be careful to not treat urban and suburban areas alike. That parking requirement serves a very useful purpose in single-family residential neighborhoods — it's a weapon against unwanted, uncharacteristic development. (I'm all for denser development, but I think it makes less sense away from major boulevards.) We also have to be aware of unintended consequences — if we allow development without parking, that parking has to go somewhere. Sorry, we can't have No Autos Allowed Covenants. James, you illustrate the problem here. Parking requirements should not be used (and they rarely are) to control development. That is what zoning codes are for. You can't build that 30 story condo building in the middle of a SFR zone, because of parking requirements as they can always put the parking down below. It is the zoning requirements keeping that from becoming a reality. Sure some areas are more suburban than urban and should have different requirements, but what we have now is the suburban parking requirement uniformly applied all over the city. We need more flexible rules that doesn't assume that every single person needs to drive a car to access a building. Not every place is Sylmar or San Pedro. Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire, Downtown and other areas should have different requirements and the requirements should be lower around transit stations. The one place where we did allow an exception, the Historic Core, has been a resounding success story. Before 1999, it was almost all empty buildings and now an interesting, vibrant urban neighborhood that is unique among any other place in SoCal. For those of us who have traveled and spent time in other cities, it is easy to see how not having huge parking requirements for everything can still translate into exciting yet practical and successful development. San Francisco for example is seen as a much more urban, scalable city despite not having a much better rail system than we currently do. Part of this is perception because they have low parking maximums instead of large parking minimums. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 15, 2012 16:19:48 GMT -8
The one place where we did allow an exception, the Historic Core, has been a resounding success story. Before 1999, it was almost all empty buildings and now an interesting, vibrant urban neighborhood that is unique among any other place in SoCal. masonite........fantastic! James, masonite is so right. Adaptive Reuse Ordinance of 1999 said that "no new parking" was required for the conversion of historic core buildings into residential uses. How surprising is it that the most vibrant newest hippest neighborhood in Los Angeles is the Spring St and Main St in downtown LA in the Historic Core? The Artwalk is HUGE. The need for parking is a big misconception. Venice and Hollywood routinely outshine Santa Monica, Westwood and Pasadena with its neighborhood attractions. People there have a higher parking price to pay than the other neighborhoods. Parking DOES NOT bring people. It's the attractions. People will always find a way to commute to an important destination. None of the Historic Core buildings recently coverted added new parking and look at how 24/7 its become. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 15, 2012 16:28:11 GMT -8
Masonite does have a point. Of course, the question then becomes, do we reduce parking requirements in areas such as the historic core, where the denser development we want is already there or on the horizon.
The historic core had the buildings, it just needed a push in the right direction to convert these spaces.
Or, do we reduce requirements in the hopes in inducing transit-oriented development in areas which have not been built up already? I would guess that people would be more willing to accept the first premise but local existing residents may balk at the later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Feb 21, 2012 4:47:40 GMT -8
There’s a train comin’ – light rail changes South L.A. housing market"...In the shadow of USC and close to a new light rail line, property in the northern portion of South L.A. couldn’t be hotter. Older homes and apartment buildings have been refurbished and rented to students at much higher rates than typical long-time working-class South L.A. families can afford. And new development is expected with the introduction of the Expo Line, making buildings like Rolland Curtis Gardens all that more attractive..." (Click for full article)
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 22, 2012 0:17:13 GMT -8
Masonite does have a point. Of course, the question then becomes, do we reduce parking requirements in areas such as the historic core, where the denser development we want is already there or on the horizon. The historic core had the buildings, it just needed a push in the right direction to convert these spaces. Or, do we reduce requirements in the hopes in inducing transit-oriented development in areas which have not been built up already? I would guess that people would be more willing to accept the first premise but local existing residents may balk at the later. It's just good policy to allow dense development around transit stations. The Washington DC metro has high density mixed use developments around their stations, including those in the "suburbs". Vancouver has fewer track miles and fewer stations than LA, but still has higher ridership. This is in part because they allow and encourage highrise development even around the outermost stations. This doesn't reduce quality of life in nearby single family residences, but provides access to employment, shopping, and cultural facilities, and gives an alternative to driving a car on congested roads. It's not a surprise that Vancouver regularly tops worldwide quality of life rankings, while LA languishes in the middle of the pack (generally better than Latin America, Africa, and some cities in Asia, but pretty much universally worse than Europe and Canada). LA is making a multi-billion dollar investment in public infrastructure, and should make the policy choices that support its most efficient use. Urbanism isn't something that just works "over there." If you follow a pretty simple formula, you get the desired result. Every time a project gets a few floors chopped off, every time excessive parking is put in place, and every restrictive court decision initiated by a NIMBY complaint dilutes the ability of the city to work cohesively. A healthy mix of apartments, offices, and shops in the few blocks immediately surrounding a station won't damage neighborhoods. |
|
