Pacific Northwest Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

I think that's a relatively fair analysis.

quote:

Also to be honest, biking for commuting is only going to be useful in certain neighborhoods simply based on the distance.

That's true for biking by itself, but biking can also be a useful complement to transit for first-mile/last-mile. In particular, it helps lower-density suburban areas for getting people to light rail stations, extending the effective radius of the station for people who don't have or want to bother with cars, and now that Portland is finally rolling out bike share, it should be useful for biking from stops downtown to your final destination. But you'll never get that many people doing it as long as most bike infrastructure is unprotected and thus perceptually unsafe.

quote:

(Oh btw, and in order to promote density, developers get out of providing their own. Oops)

In the long run this is good though. To the extent that people are willing to pay market rates for parking, developers will provide it, because they like money no matter where it comes from. Most of the people complaining about parking don't want to pay market rates, though, they want free or at least subsidized parking.

# ? Sep 28, 2015 20:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 12:54

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Cicero posted:

Most of the people complaining about parking don't want to pay market rates, though, they want free or at least subsidized parking.

First off, what are you defining as a "market rate", and secondly do you have something to back this up?

# ? Sep 28, 2015 22:27

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Solkanar512 posted:

First off, what are you defining as a "market rate"

This is a good question. I think that for parking, 'market rate' would be whatever yields a profit per sq ft comparable to profit per sq ft for other types of development, since that would have to be the prevailing rate to get developers to build parking of their own accord. Well, maybe slightly less since initial construction costs for parking garages are going to be less than for office or residential development.

quote:

and secondly do you have something to back this up?

Not really other than having read a lot of message board/news site comment posts from people who really hate paid parking, who say things like, "I can't drive into the city for my work, it costs $200/month for parking!" or things along those lines. It's an educated guess on my part. I'm willing to look into it though.

edit: I mean, my reasoning goes like this: if people were willing to pay market rate, then developers will build parking for them, because they like money. If, as a city develops, developers mostly choose to build other things instead, you can either believe that developers are irrationally biased against motorists, or you can believe that people are unwilling to pay enough for parking to make that a desirable option for new development over other types of new construction (or has the city banned parking garages?).

Cicero fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Sep 28, 2015

# ? Sep 28, 2015 22:33

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Cicero posted:

edit: I mean, my reasoning goes like this: if people were willing to pay market rate, then developers will build parking for them. If, as a city develops, developers mostly choose to build other things instead, you can either believe that developers are irrationally biased against motorists, or you can believe that people are unwilling to pay enough for parking to make that a desirable option for new development over other types of new construction (or has the city banned parking garages?).

Or perhaps developers convince tenants that there's plenty of street parking and thus spend their money making more units? I don't have a source for this either, but I've seen this in a few neighborhoods when visiting friends who live in Seattle. One set of friends actually moved away because they couldn't ever have friends come over.

Maybe this is an edge case, who knows. At least for me I don't mind paying, I mind not having an option to go into Seattle when I'm doing the "smart/ecological" thing of living near work in Everett.

# ? Sep 28, 2015 22:47

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Solkanar512 posted:

Or perhaps developers convince tenants that there's plenty of street parking and thus spend their money making more units?

Right, but this would only be a rational thing to do if making more units is more profitable than providing more parking. Otherwise, if that was a lie and there's not enough street parking to accommodate demand, you could charge enough for on-site parking stalls to make it equally as good for the developer as building more housing.

Solkanar512 posted:

Maybe this is an edge case, who knows. At least for me I don't mind paying, I mind not having an option to go into Seattle when I'm doing the "smart/ecological" thing of living near work in Everett.

Sometimes the problem here is that street parking is underpriced by the city, so it's near-constantly full, but the nominally low/free price discourages any developer from providing paid parking, because who's going to pay for parking when you can get it cheap/free on the street?

Although, from what I've read, SDOT seems to be doing a reasonable job of managing parking based on market-ish principles:

quote:

SDOT manages paid parking in 16 neighborhoods and 29 subareas across Seattle. In total, 11,890 parking spaces are part of the paid parking program. The City doesn't typically mark parking spaces, but does take an inventory of how many theoretical spaces are available on each blockface. This is done by estimating standard on-street parking sizes and accounting for right-of-way constraints (e.g. distances from stop signs and fire hydrants). Paid parking is managed by charging hourly rates and enforcing strict time limit regulations. Hourly parking rates range anywhere from $1.00 to $4.00 per hour while parking time limits vary from 2 hours to 10 hours. Most areas where paid parking is enforced only have paid parking from 8am to 5pm Monday through Saturday. Although, in recent years, SDOT has extended paid parking until 8pm in certain neighborhoods.
...
The paid parking program is managed on the basic principles of supply and demand. With a limited number of available parking spaces and inconsistent demand throughout areas and time, SDOT uses price and time limits to manage how consumers choose to occupy space and smooth out utilization. There are a number of practical reasons for managing parking in this way:

* Help users find parking easily within a close walking distance of their intended destination(s);
* Turnover of spaces so that other users can access an area for business and boost economic activity;
* Reduce traffic congestion, wear and tear, and noise resulting from vehicles circling for parking spaces; and
* Conserve fuel and reduce vehicle emissions in the search for parking.

With this in mind, SDOT's primary goal of the paid parking program is to maintain an average of one to two open parking spaces per blockface throughout the day. This typically translates to 70% to 85% parking utilization, a key metric for SDOT.

http://www.theurbanist.org/2015/07/...nd-regulations/

Cicero fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Sep 28, 2015

# ? Sep 28, 2015 22:53

Drunk Tomato: Apr 23, 2010; If God wanted us sober,
He'd knock the glass over.

Read Donald Shoup's "The High Cost of Free Parking" for a great study on why free parking is bad for everyone, and why cities should charge more for on-street parking.

Hint: free/cheap parking is actually subsidized to everyone instead of the end user. Reserving a piece of concrete for a car to sit on in a dense city with high real estate value should be as expensive as the free market dictates.

# ? Sep 28, 2015 23:53

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Cicero posted:

Right, but this would only be a rational thing to do if making more units is more profitable than providing more parking. Otherwise, if that was a lie and there's not enough street parking to accommodate demand, you could charge enough for on-site parking stalls to make it equally as good for the developer as building more housing.

Sometimes the problem here is that street parking is underpriced by the city, so it's near-constantly full, but the nominally low/free price discourages any developer from providing paid parking, because who's going to pay for parking when you can get it cheap/free on the street?

Although, from what I've read, SDOT seems to be doing a reasonable job of managing parking based on market-ish principles:

http://www.theurbanist.org/2015/07/...nd-regulations/

That's strange, because in this particular neighborhood (it was Capital Hillish), all the street parking was free, and the pay lot (that had plenty of spots!) was removed.

And again, if it isn't clear for folks, I don't mind paying for parking. It's the "there's no spot because all the developers have street parking" thing that really pissed me off.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 00:02

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

If you want something less than an entire book to digest on the topic, you can also look at these:

Apartment Blockers - Parking rules raise your rent: http://daily.sightline.org/2013/08/22/apartment-blockers/
Free Parking Comes at a Price: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html

Solkanar512 posted:

That's strange, because in this particular neighborhood (it was Capital Hillish), all the street parking was free, and the pay lot (that had plenty of spots!) was removed.

And again, if it isn't clear for folks, I don't mind paying for parking. It's the "there's no spot because all the developers have street parking" thing that really pissed me off.

If free street parking in an area is constantly full, it should be changed to paid street parking. It sounds like the pay lot couldn't compete with nominally free spots. That does suck. I'm not against car parking, I still drive frequently, I'm just against having tons of subsidized car parking everywhere.

Cicero fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Sep 29, 2015

# ? Sep 29, 2015 00:03

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

i prefer solving traffic problems by demolishing the city of portland and rebuilding it from scratch as a cluster of energy efficient and environmentally friendly arcologies

# ? Sep 29, 2015 00:22

Error 404: Jul 17, 2009; MAGE CURES PLOT

Ernie Muppari posted:

i prefer solving traffic problems by demolishing the city of portland and rebuilding it from scratch as a cluster of energy efficient and environmentally friendly arcologies

It would never get off the ground. NIMBYs in the West Hills would whine about their view being spoiled and "donate" as much as it took to make it go away.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 00:40

glowing-fish: Feb 18, 2013; Keep grinding,
I hope you level up!

Ernie Muppari posted:

i prefer solving traffic problems by demolishing the city of portland and rebuilding it from scratch as a cluster of energy efficient and environmentally friendly arcologies

That would be a reminder to the next ten generations that some favors come at too high a price.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 01:43

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

glowing-fish posted:

That would be a reminder to the next ten generations that some favors come at too high a price.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 02:21

Crimson Harvest: Jul 14, 2004; I'm a GENERAL, not some opera floozy!

Error 404 posted:

It would never get off the ground. NIMBYs in the West Hills would whine about their view being spoiled and "donate" as much as it took to make it go away.

Nope, because their properties would also need to be bulldozed to install all the solar and wind generators to power the arcos.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 02:26

Error 404: Jul 17, 2009; MAGE CURES PLOT

Crimson Harvest posted:

Nope, because their properties would also need to be bulldozed to install all the solar and wind generators to power the arcos.

Then skip the part about whining and go right to the ~~bribes~~ donations.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 02:32

Wraith of J.O.I.: Jan 25, 2012

Ex-Wisconsinite here. I thought y'all only disliked Californians, what gives?

# ? Sep 29, 2015 03:26

silicone thrills: Jan 9, 2008; I paint things

We dislike anyone that crowds our area. I don't know if i 'm allowed to say that yet though because I moved here 10 years ago for art school and to be a socialist with out getting rocks thrown at me so I feel like maybe i'm supposed to be here?

# ? Sep 29, 2015 03:40

Die Sexmonster!: Nov 30, 2005

Wraith of J.O.I. posted:

Ex-Wisconsinite here. I thought y'all only disliked Californians, what gives?

We lightly mock everything east of Colorado, but don't take it personally!

As someone who's lived in many places, sometimes I really wish Washington drivers would spend a couple months in California. Passive, overly polite idiots fill our streets.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 03:41

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

Tigntink posted:

We dislike anyone that crowds our area. I don't know if i 'm allowed to say that yet though because I moved here 10 years ago for art school and to be a socialist with out getting rocks thrown at me so I feel like maybe i'm supposed to be here?

are any of us really supposed to be here?

no

# ? Sep 29, 2015 04:04

Error 404: Jul 17, 2009; MAGE CURES PLOT

Ernie Muppari posted:

are any of us really supposed to be here?

no

1/16th of me is! :v:

# ? Sep 29, 2015 04:26

reading: Jul 27, 2013

I heard the city spent $100,000 on each of the rainbow sidewalk paintjobs in Cap Hill. If that's true it makes their refusal to spend chump change putting in cement barriers on the Aurora bridge all the more damning.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 04:54

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

Error 404 posted:

1/16th of me is!

Listen, the megafauna of the Americas had a good thing going until y'all waltzed over ice and killed them. :colbert:

Give America back to the Volkswagen-sized armadillos!

# ? Sep 29, 2015 04:57

Peztopiary: Mar 16, 2009; by exmarx

Them and the woolly mammoths tasted terrible though. New rule, Europeans have to leave, but the cattle and chickens can stay.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 05:08

Ernie Muppari: Aug 4, 2012; Keep this up G'Bert, and soon you won't have a pigeon to protect!

All was well in the before times, the long long ago, when the Hive Queens ruled The Great Bays, when the waters were warm, the fish plentiful, and the ancient coral cities glittered in the dancing light of the sun. But all was lost, all died in The Calamity, so long ago, so long, but one day we shall return and take our rightful place as rulers of this world from you soft ones.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 05:29

SousaphoneColossus: Feb 16, 2004; There are a million reasons to ruin things.

reading posted:

I heard the city spent $100,000 on each of the rainbow sidewalk paintjobs in Cap Hill. If that's true it makes their refusal to spend chump change putting in cement barriers on the Aurora bridge all the more damning.

Isn't the bridge a state highway? I don't know if the city could do that even if they wanted to.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 05:36

A Bag of Milk: Jul 3, 2007; I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.

reading posted:

I heard the city spent $100,000 on each of the rainbow sidewalk paintjobs in Cap Hill. If that's true it makes their refusal to spend chump change putting in cement barriers on the Aurora bridge all the more damning.

$66,000 for 11 crosswalks at $6,000 each. This article mentions a $29 million dollar plan to fix Aurora that was never pursued, so we're talking orders of magnitudes more expensive.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 05:45

No Pants: Dec 10, 2000

reading posted:

I heard the city spent $100,000 on each of the rainbow sidewalk paintjobs in Cap Hill. If that's true it makes their refusal to spend chump change putting in cement barriers on the Aurora bridge all the more damning.

The money came from fees paid by new private developers in Capitol Hill.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 07:40

DR FRASIER KRANG: Feb 4, 2005; "Are you forgetting that just this afternoon I was punched in the face by a turtle now dead?

reading posted:

I heard the city spent $100,000 on each of the rainbow sidewalk paintjobs in Cap Hill. If that's true it makes their refusal to spend chump change putting in cement barriers on the Aurora bridge all the more damning.

This sort of fundamental misunderstanding of how infrastructure is funded: A Huge loving Problem For Intelligent Discourse.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 15:53

Drunk Tomato: Apr 23, 2010; If God wanted us sober,
He'd knock the glass over.

reading posted:

I heard the city spent $100,000 on each of the rainbow sidewalk paintjobs in Cap Hill. If that's true it makes their refusal to spend chump change putting in cement barriers on the Aurora bridge all the more damning.

Stop listening to Dory Monson

# ? Sep 29, 2015 16:36

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

So back to traffic/parking chat. I keep seeing motorcycle enthusiasts talk about how encouraging motorcycle use would reduce congestion, need for parking space, pollution and so on. Is this actually true or is it just a bunch of fanboys looking to make lane splitting legal? It's obviously not going to be a panacea, but they do take up a whole lot less space.

That being said, I really don't have a problem with lane-splitting in heavy traffic. I went to school in southern CA, and I really didn't have a problem with motorcycles going 20-30 in between cars stopped in traffic.

EDIT: poo poo, I didn't hear about the fatal crash until just now.

Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 29, 2015

# ? Sep 29, 2015 17:24

silicone thrills: Jan 9, 2008; I paint things

I think it is actually, motorcycles take up less space and are lower emission with the right engines. But they face the same problem as bikes - people in cars don't pay enough attention and smear them across the road way and motorcycles can go way faster.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 17:42

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Solkanar512 posted:

So back to traffic/parking chat. I keep seeing motorcycle enthusiasts talk about how encouraging motorcycle use would reduce congestion, need for parking space, pollution and so on. Is this actually true or is it just a bunch of fanboys looking to make lane splitting legal?

Well motorcycles are obviously smaller than cars, so I guess yeah they could help with congestion and pollution a little bit. I don't think you could really apply the same treatment I'm proposing for bikes for them; separate infrastructure probably wouldn't make much sense since they have roughly the same acceleration and speed as cars (and are also much closer in weight).

# ? Sep 29, 2015 18:56

Drunk Tomato: Apr 23, 2010; If God wanted us sober,
He'd knock the glass over.

Motorcycles are the same size as people so if you developed cities and infrastructure around them, everything would be human-scale instead of the current car-scale we currently have. That on top of the environmental aspect means a huge push for motorcycles would be insanely good.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 19:20

DR FRASIER KRANG: Feb 4, 2005; "Are you forgetting that just this afternoon I was punched in the face by a turtle now dead?

Holy poo poo the deets of that motorcycle crash on I-5 are hosed up.

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/seattle/2015/09/29/northbound--5-closed-seattle-due-fatal-crash/73019472/

# ? Sep 29, 2015 19:24

Cicero: Dec 17, 2003; Jumpjet, melta, jumpjet. Repeat for ten minutes or until victory is assured.

Tigntink posted:

But they face the same problem as bikes - people in cars don't pay enough attention and smear them across the road way and motorcycles can go way faster.

Right, but you can mostly solve this for bikes with protected bike lanes, protected intersections, bike trails, etc. and some cities have done this effectively. I don't see an equivalent solution for motorcycles being feasible. Although are we only talking about 'real' motorcycles, or also scooters?

That said, I'd be fine with more motorcycle parking being built.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 19:51

silicone thrills: Jan 9, 2008; I paint things

My building actually lets bikes and motorcycles park completely for free and lets people who register together for carpools only pay like 30$ a month for parking. Bike people get like a 60$ a year stipend for like bike maintenance to encourage it.

We've got like 3000 people on our campus and only about a floor per 5 story building for parking and we still have open spots so the whole thing seems to work pretty well. Give people a reason to bike/carpool/ride more efficient vehicles and they will.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 20:18

glowing-fish: Feb 18, 2013; Keep grinding,
I hope you level up!

I don't know if people have been paying attention to the mess up in Clatskanie, but apparently there is a recall petition against the mayor.

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/09/23/recall-effort-aims-oust-clatskanie-mayor/72676518/

My own guess is that the mayor and the police knew about the accusations against her husband (two years is a long time), and that they were protecting each other. I think that the state police investigation is going to pull out quite a few people, and the entire recall effort might be unimportant because she is going to go to court for obstruction of justice. But that is just my guess.

(If you don't know this story, it has quite a bit of backstory)

# ? Sep 29, 2015 20:20

Son of Thunderbeast: Sep 21, 2002

One of my team members wasn't able to come in because the traffic on I-5 was insane, she said. I didn't think much of it til I heard it was a total NB closure, but god daaaaaaaaaaaamn

I came to post this, but it just seems like small potatoes by comparison.
http://mynorthwest.com/992/2817998/Rantz-WSDOT-creates-traffic-then-charges-you-for-relief

Son of Thunderbeast fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Sep 29, 2015

# ? Sep 29, 2015 20:20

oxbrain: Aug 18, 2005; Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip and come on up to the mothership.

Drunk Tomato posted:

Stop listening to Dory Monson

Stop listening to anything on the radio that isn't music.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 20:31

mod sassinator: Dec 13, 2006; I came here to Kick Ass and Chew Bubblegum,
and I'm All out of Ass

oxbrain posted:

Stop listening to anything on the radio that isn't KEXP.

# ? Sep 29, 2015 20:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 12:54

SeaborneClink: Aug 27, 2010; MAWP... MAWP!

HEY NONG MAN posted:

Holy poo poo the deets of that motorcycle crash on I-5 are hosed up.

http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/seattle/2015/09/29/northbound--5-closed-seattle-due-fatal-crash/73019472/

God drat hoons :argh:

# ? Sep 29, 2015 20:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Pacific Northwest Thread

«‹›258 »