No New Downtown Surface Parking

[Townsend]

American Parking needs to be booted from downtown.

Seconded

[erfalf]

First I like the approach they are taking in that they use property rights from the point of view that new parking lots hurt their property value.

Secondly, what can be done long term to fight this? Do building codes downtown still dictate a certain number of parking spaces be constructed for all types of development? If it does, we need to start to address the problem there. If we have way to much parking, then downtown can absorb quit a bit more development without adding any more parking. Of course I understand the vacancy rate downtown to be pretty high but still.

Why should developers be required to provide parking. If they want to that's fine. But why force them too?

From what I understand parking requirements began to fight the problem of downtown workers taking up all the open spaces, leaving no room for patrons of businesses to park. That was then, this is now. Times have changed and the parameters have changed, therefore the rules should change as well. Just because something was a good idea in the past doesn't mean it always will be.

That's my piece for now I guess.

[rdj]

I don't believe developments within CBD zoning have parking requirements.

[sgrizzle]

Seconded

I vote to ouster every downtown lot owner that does no maintenance, and don't darken the doorstep of their lots except on event day or night to charge jacked-up rates.

[JCnOwasso]

I thought it was cracked uneven asphalt, no greenery except weeds, abandoned buildings if available, faded markers, pot holes and an angry American Parking fee troll.

I have had huge issues with AP and their employees.  Stop acting like I am the one that is at fault everytime the pass issued to me by AP does not work.  I don't need your attitude.

[TheArtist]

First I like the approach they are taking in that they use property rights from the point of view that new parking lots hurt their property value.

Secondly, what can be done long term to fight this? Do building codes downtown still dictate a certain number of parking spaces be constructed for all types of development? If it does, we need to start to address the problem there. If we have way to much parking, then downtown can absorb quit a bit more development without adding any more parking. Of course I understand the vacancy rate downtown to be pretty high but still.

Why should developers be required to provide parking. If they want to that's fine. But why force them too?

From what I understand parking requirements began to fight the problem of downtown workers taking up all the open spaces, leaving no room for patrons of businesses to park. That was then, this is now. Times have changed and the parameters have changed, therefore the rules should change as well. Just because something was a good idea in the past doesn't mean it always will be.

That's my piece for now I guess.

Believe it or not, many cities downtowns have "maximum parking requirements".  In other words you CANT have over a certain amount of parking for say a new condo tower.   The max might be say 1.3 parking spaces per unit, or less. 

[carltonplace]

I'm fairly certain that there are no set parking restrictions in the CBD.

[erfalf]

Believe it or not, many cities downtowns have "maximum parking requirements".  In other words you CANT have over a certain amount of parking for say a new condo tower.   The max might be say 1.3 parking spaces per unit, or less. 

While I like the idea and think it is a step Tulsa could and should take, what cities have this policy. Just wondering what the results have been.

Also, thought it was interesting that Steve Lackmayer down in OKC took notice of Tulsa's new temporary parking policy.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/12/can-or-should-okc-follow-tulsas-lead/

While I agree that we have too much parking and I hate seeing buildings being town down to make way for new asphalt, I also understand that parking is a business, and keeping new entrants out helps the current group of parking owners. However, right now we not only make it easy for surface parking operators, we incentivize them (see Lackmayer's piece). In downtown Tulsa I believe the ballpark assessment in addition to another one (can't remember the name) are based on square footage. Well, surface lot's have the least amount of square footage on any given lot. I doubt the ballpark assessment can be changed until it expires. But we could just add an assessment on surface parking because it really does cost downtown. The money could be used for beautification projects or something of that sort, more trees, bike lanes, whatever. Just thinking out load.

[erfalf]

On top of that, it would seem that surface parking is more valuable than some structures. Maybe the county should re-assess their valuation techniques for surface parking because it would seem that they may be off.

That and figure out how to get TCC to build a parking garage so we can do something with those acres of surface parking that isn't taxes one thin dime. I wonder how many square footage of surface parking downtown is not taxed at all.

[TheArtist]

Just some larger cities that have Maximum Parking Requirements...  San Antonio, San Francisco, Portland,,, some smaller cities Redmond Washington, Concord North Carolina, Cambridge Mass, etc.  A LOT of cities in Canada also have maximum parking requirements.  The UK recently enacted a policy requiring every municipality to implement maximum parking requirements for retail stores, office buildings, stadiums etc. that reach sizes above certain thresholds.

Some interesting stuff here...

 http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/archives/agendas/ca020918/Attachment%204%20-%20Final%20Parking%20Paper%208-12-02.htm

some exerpts...
"Parking has been described as a "fertility drug for cars"...  As more parking is provided, more cars take advantage of it... As the number of cars increase, so does road congestion and traffic jams.... The amount of parking also affects public transportation.  As parking availability increases, fewer people use public transportation.  Several reports even indicate that mass transit improvements will not increase ridership unless parking supply is reduced.....  Failing to address the oversupply of parking creates many of the same  problems that minimum parking requirements were supposed to solve (e.g. poor economic environment, loss of investment).  

Another interesting note...   " The business community in Portland would not accept maximum parking requirements until Portland made a greater commitment to mass transit."

"A municipality can also hedge against creating an undersupply of parking with maximum parking requirements by using     Transportation Demand Management  (TDM).   TDM is the term used to describe strategies that result in the, Efficient use of transportation infrastructure, and Incentives for drivers to seek other methods of transportation.  Some strategies include in-lieu parking fees, shared parking, centralized parking, parking freezes, subsidies for transit, transit improvements, pedestrian and bicycle amenties, parking pricing, etc.


Paraphrasing from another site.... Cities with successful parking freezes generally have.. well developed transit systems, and are attractive to tenants, customers and visitors.  Such cities can attract businesses because the benefits/attractiveness of the quality urban location outweigh the potential drawbacks of limited parking, and because transit offers a viable alternative to automobile use.  The quality pedestrian/transit friendly environment also alleviates the burden (for developers) of providing parking for their developments which increases infill opportunities (lessens costs for the developer) in the urban environment.  

[AngieB]

It's just outside the IDL, but BCBSOK has taken out a parking lot and is turning it into a green space.

EDIT: Sorry the pic is gigantic. :/

[Red Arrow]

Another interesting note...   " The business community in Portland would not accept maximum parking requirements until Portland made a greater commitment to mass transit."

Such cities can attract businesses because the benefits/attractiveness of the quality urban location outweigh the potential drawbacks of limited parking, and because transit offers a viable alternative to automobile use.  The quality pedestrian/transit friendly environment also alleviates the burden (for developers) of providing parking for their developments which increases infill opportunities (lessens costs for the developer) in the urban environment.

This is a very important concept.  Just getting rid of parking will not work.  There needs to be an alternative to the automobile. 

[erfalf]

"Parking has been described as a "fertility drug for cars"...  As more parking is provided, more cars take advantage of it... As the number of cars increase, so does road congestion and traffic jams.... The amount of parking also affects public transportation.  As parking availability increases, fewer people use public transportation.  Several reports even indicate that mass transit improvements will not increase ridership unless parking supply is reduced.....  Failing to address the oversupply of parking creates many of the same  problems that minimum parking requirements were supposed to solve (e.g. poor economic environment, loss of investment).  

This is along the lines of what I've heard about adding highway lanes. It rarely actually reduces congestion. Adding lanes usually just adds more traffic which then ends up right back with congestion. Plus it takes away from city streets that generally have businesses fronting them. Traffic counts are still an important part of commercial development.

Another interesting note...   " The business community in Portland would not accept maximum parking requirements until Portland made a greater commitment to mass transit."

"A municipality can also hedge against creating an undersupply of parking with maximum parking requirements by using     Transportation Demand Management  (TDM).   TDM is the term used to describe strategies that result in the, Efficient use of transportation infrastructure, and Incentives for drivers to seek other methods of transportation.  Some strategies include in-lieu parking fees, shared parking, centralized parking, parking freezes, subsidies for transit, transit improvements, pedestrian and bicycle amenties, parking pricing, etc.

All the more reason for Tulsa to get off its butt and get serious about public transportation.

Just wondering your all's opinion. Do you think Tulsa should focus on a regional rail plan (think Dallas DART) or a local rail (urban trams/streetcars). Or neither I guess.

Paraphrasing from another site.... Cities with successful parking freezes generally have.. well developed transit systems, and are attractive to tenants, customers and visitors.  Such cities can attract businesses because the benefits/attractiveness of the quality urban location outweigh the potential drawbacks of limited parking, and because transit offers a viable alternative to automobile use.  The quality pedestrian/transit friendly environment also alleviates the burden (for developers) of providing parking for their developments which increases infill opportunities (lessens costs for the developer) in the urban environment.  

Transportation planners need to consider convenience. Automobiles offer a lot of convenience. Right now Tulsa doesn't offer anything that will ever remotely compete with the auto in terms of convenience. I don't think people inherently want to drive, they view it as more of a necessity. At least I do anyways. I would gladly take an alternate form of transportation if offered one, but as it sits, I live roughly three miles from my office. 2 of those miles have virtually no sidewalks and it is incredibly dangerous to ride a bike in traffic on the main streets. Not having a car when I was in New York was fantastic. I walked all over the place, and took the train from time to time. I honestly never took a bus, not once. The trains always took me within walking distance of where I was going. Now, I understand that we will never has a system as sophisticated as New York, however, we could get started. People that enjoy that type of living will move closer to transit, then we expand from there.

[carltonplace]

It's just outside the IDL, but BCBSOK has taken out a parking lot and is turning it into a green space.

EDIT: Sorry the pic is gigantic. :/

This is 14th and Boston.

I'm glad they are doing this...they've created so much surface parking over the years that is now not needed any longer.

For example: 11th and Cheyenne, 14th and Main.

[TheArtist]

This is 14th and Boston.

I'm glad they are doing this...they've created so much surface parking over the years that is now not needed any longer.

For example: 11th and Cheyenne, 14th and Main.

Goes to the point that I make that we have plenty of parking, but not a way to get people from the parking to where they want to go.

Now if I were to put on my conservative hat I would say the market could fix that situation with entrepreneurs starting more pedicabs, jitneys, scooter or bike rentals, etc.  But you it would be good to be "fully" conservative and also not build city parking garages and gov.funded road widening, highways(that helped gut the core), getting rid of minimum parking requirements and allowing for mixed use in the rest of the city, etc.  So since that won't happen I guess I am forced to holler for transit spending.

Interesting we can tell people what to build (more parking) and what they can't build (mixed use as one example) in order to create a particular type of suburban environment.  But try to tell people what they have to build and can't build downtown in order to create a particular type of urban environment,,, well thats the government telling people what to do with their private property and thats wrong?   Iiiinteresting.