DR FRASIER KRANG posted:

we just had someone visit us who rented a car through Turo which is apparently like Airbnb for cars.

and, just like Airbnb, there are folks who just own dozens of cars strictly for the purpose of renting them on Turo (where they expect you to clean and wash it before returning it?)

I wonder why stock of new cars is so low.

Stereotype posted:

there's a big debate in honolulu about this because apparently people bought dozens of cars to rent on turo and park them all on the street in their neighborhood and their neighbors are pissed because now there's no street parking

DaysBefore posted:

Lmao of course city planners were just kinda guessing when they made the rules during suburbanisation. That explains a lot

The High Cost of Free Parking, Donald Shoup posted:

[...]

Planning education provides no instruction on how practicing planners should set parking requirements, and textbooks offer no help. Consider the four editions of Urban Land Use Planning by F. Stuart Chapin and his coauthors.12 This distinguished text is the bible of urban land-use planning, yet no edition mentions parking. Most texts in regional science, transportation planning, and urban economics also ignore parking.13 I have asked many professors of urban planning if their departments offer any instruction on how planners set parking requirements, and the answer is always no. Perhaps planning students learn almost nothing about parking requirements because their professors know almost nothing to teach them. Somehow, the urban land use with the biggest footprint and a profound effect on the transportation system has been invisible to scholars in every discipline.

[...]

Despite their lack of professional training, practicing planners in every city must set the parking requirements for every land use. Zoning codes throughout the country contain thousands of different parking requirements—the Ten Thousand Commandments for off-street parking. Planners set parking requirements almost as if they were physicians prescribing drugs, but they have no theory, no training, and often no data to help them. No textbook explains the theory of parking requirements because there is none. Professors cannot teach their students how to set parking requirements because no one has carried out research on how to do it.

Without clairvoyance, how do practicing planners predict how much parking every land use needs? To find out, Richard Willson surveyed planning directors and senior planners, and asked, What sources of information do you normally use to set minimum parking requirements for workplaces? Forty-five percent of the respondents ranked “Survey nearby cities” as most important, and “Institute of Transportation Engineers handbooks” came in second place at 15 percent. More planners responded “Don’t know” (5 percent) than responded that they commissioned parking studies (3 percent).18 According to Robert Dunphy of the Urban Land Institute, “Local codes typically are based on either someone else’s requirements or on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking data.”19 I will explore these two strategies—copy other cities, and consult ITE data—and the problems they cause.

[...]

Although ITE’s parking generation rates are hardly scientific and can seriously overestimate even the peak demand for free parking, planners who consult Parking Generation act like frightened supplicants bowing before a powerful totem. ITE’s stamp of authority relieves planners from the obligation to think for themselves because simple answers are right there in the book. ITE offers a precise, off-the-shelf number without addressing difficult public policy questions, although it does warn, “Users of this report should exercise extreme caution when utilizing data that is based on a small number of studies.”53 This sounds suspiciously like the Surgeon General’s warning on a pack of cigarettes. Users have an obligation to be cautious, but planners nevertheless rely on ITE’s parking generation rates to set the minimum requirements for their communities. For example, the median parking requirement for fast-food restaurants in the U.S. is 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area—almost identical to ITE’s reported parking generation rate of 9.95 spaces per 1,000 square feet.54 Because parking lots occupy about 330 square feet of land per parking space, a parking requirement of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area leads to a parking lot over three times the size of the restaurant itself.55 Planners expect minimum parking requirements to meet the peak demand for free parking, and parking generation rates predict this peak demand precisely! When ITE speaks, urban planners listen.

[...]

Cities require parking spaces during the permit application process when planners, developers, and tenants know the least about the future demand for parking. The inevitable uncertainty about parking demand helps explain why cities often require more than enough spaces to meet the peak demand. An office building, for example, may first be used by a corporate headquarters with 300-square-foot offices for executives, and then by a telemarketing firm with 30-square-foot cubicles for sales personnel. Squeezing more workers into a building can greatly increase parking demand. In a survey of 57 employment centers, Robert Cervero found that the building occupancy rates ranged from 0.5 to 6 persons per 1,000 square feet (a ratio of 12 to 1).56 In a similar survey of 33 low-rise office buildings, Gruen Associates found occupancies ranging from 1.6 to 17 persons per 1,000 square feet (a ratio of 11 to 1).57 And in the Seattle region, a survey of 36 employment sites found densities ranging from 0.5 to 5.6 persons per 1,000 square feet (a ratio of 11 to 1).58 Given this broad range of possible building occupancy, no one can accurately predict the demand for parking at an office building throughout its useful life.

ITE’s format for presenting data helps explain why cities require too much parking in response to uncertainty. Figure 2-2 shows the report for nonconvention hotels in the second edition of Parking Generation. (The parking generation rates for the four observations have been added to the data plot.) Four observations may seem too few to estimate a parking generation rate, but half the ITE parking generation rates are based on four or fewer observations.

Given the variation in observed peak demand (ranging from 0.29 to 0.68 parking spaces per room), what is a planner to say when asked to set the parking requirement for a hotel? ITE reports that average peak parking occupancy is 0.52 spaces per room. Transportation engineer Steven Smith points out that if a city requires only enough parking spaces to satisfy the average parking generation rate, about half of all sites will have a peak parking demand higher than this average, and the required parking supply may be inadequate.59

To be safe in the case of a hotel, why not require 0.68 spaces per room, the highest demand observed? Maybe 0.75 spaces per room would appear less arbitrary. One space per room also seems plausible. PAS reports eight cities’ parking requirements for hotels: two cities require 0.75 spaces per room, two require 0.9 spaces per room, and four require 1 space per room. When they set parking requirements, planners appear to take the arbitrary and uncertain estimate of the maximum parking demand and then revise it upward to set the minimum parking requirement.

[...]

Hubbert posted:

here's some fun reading that i've carefully excerpted from the best book on this topic

it's a 750 page tome but it's probably the best critical perspective on north american parking and land use available

Hubbert posted:

here's some fun reading that i've carefully excerpted from the best book on this topic

it's a 750 page tome but it's probably the best critical perspective on north american parking and land use available

DaysBefore posted:

drat Shoup ftw. My library doesn't have his parking bible sadly but it does have both of Charles Marohn's books

Maed posted:

time for some vigilante bollards, the best kind of bollards

Horace posted:

passive aggressive bollards are also a good genre of bollard.

https://twitter.com/JCBelfast/status/1681626892082769920?s=20

Horace posted:

passive aggressive bollards are also a good genre of bollard.

https://twitter.com/JCBelfast/status/1681626892082769920?s=20

Horace posted:

passive aggressive bollards are also a good genre of bollard.

https://twitter.com/JCBelfast/status/1681626892082769920?s=20

teethgrinder posted:

.

Horace posted:

passive aggressive bollards are also a good genre of bollard.

https://twitter.com/JCBelfast/status/1681626892082769920?s=20

teethgrinder posted:

.

Real hurthling! posted:

the bumpy curb cut for the blind? oh thats just my new driveway bitch

croup coughfield posted:

Hubbert posted:

i can't believe you don't support the leftist approach of screaming "READ THEORY" while palm-slamming down a massive academic tome in front of your victims with the expectation they read it front to back smh

teethgrinder posted:

CW: cyclist seems okay, but is violently driven into for some perceived sleight:

https://twitter.com/alexchaealex/status/1681758655702614016?s=46&t=IHGiP0BxsMUqB_wBkrqGQw

poo poo-for-brain reply:

https://twitter.com/66Stang/status/1681776644975894529

Longer video clip showing "the preceding 10 seconds" (mostly an extra minute of slow traffic):

https://twitter.com/andrewe/status/1681858535540310016

teethgrinder posted:

CW: cyclist seems okay, but is violently driven into for some perceived sleight:

https://twitter.com/alexchaealex/status/1681758655702614016?s=46&t=IHGiP0BxsMUqB_wBkrqGQw

poo poo-for-brain reply:

https://twitter.com/66Stang/status/1681776644975894529

Longer video clip showing "the preceding 10 seconds" (mostly an extra minute of slow traffic):

https://twitter.com/andrewe/status/1681858535540310016

Real hurthling! posted:

look just bike with a spike strip dragging behind you on chains so they have to go around
its called adaptation.

Grassy Knowles posted:

i actually only propel forward anymore from the recoil of my rearward suppressing fire

teethgrinder posted:

CW: cyclist seems okay, but is violently driven into for some perceived sleight:

https://twitter.com/alexchaealex/status/1681758655702614016?s=46&t=IHGiP0BxsMUqB_wBkrqGQw

poo poo-for-brain reply:

https://twitter.com/66Stang/status/1681776644975894529

actionjackson posted:

jesus, how is he not dead? it looks like his head got run over

Grassy Knowles posted:

i actually only propel forward anymore from the recoil of my rearward suppressing fire

Grassy Knowles posted:

i actually only propel forward anymore from the recoil of my rearward suppressing fire

go for a stroll posted:

what is the thread stance on drunk biking?

i assume most people have had one experience where they thought they were good to drive a few hours after a drink or two, then half a mile down the road realized they were wrong. everything about it feels awful.

drunk biking on quiet roads is like the complete opposite in my experience, it feels loving great. i bike to bars mostly for the fun of biking home after. i'm talking buzzed here; too drunk to drive but just fine for 15 mph.

imo common sense serves you well - don't endanger pedestrians or ride in a way that makes drivers even worse. i just wonder how many people take the same zero tolerance policy they would in a car

e: also a big fan of open carry biking, but never together obviously