I keep reading comments where the main opposition to totally eliminating parking or going car-free is the need to buy bulky items. I agree that carrying a 48-pack of toilet paper on the bus or metro would be a hassle. But how is it done in cities with density and lower car ownership than in our city? How does the NYC dweller who needs to buy some bulky items get them home? Perhaps there are some other lessons out there that would be useful as we try to evolve here in DC.

by Rick on Oct 1, 2008 5:57 pm • link • report

Here are some of the ways people manage to procure bulky items in NYC:

1) Folding ("granny") shopping carts

2) Delivery (lots of places in NYC offer it)

3) Walk to the store, taxi home

4) Zipcar

by David Alpert on Oct 1, 2008 6:00 pm • link • report

Keep fighting the good fight.

by NikolasM on Oct 1, 2008 7:25 pm • link • report

@Rick. Have you ever tried buying those items in some place like Manhatten? You'll pay 3 times as much ... for something 1/3 the size. That's what you get when you can't take advantage of the current state of transportation. Ever watch the Safeway trucks try to operate around DC? There's a reason Safeway charges more here than its stores elsewhere ... They've even gone to the point of using a separate brandname "Townhouse" for some stores to make the higher prices --- driven by higher transportation costs --- more palatable. Yes, reducing parking will make a place more "exclusive" ... think Manhattan ... which where the rubber hits the road means "more expensive". Take parking away and force people to use 19th century transportation modes, and expect to pay more for less.

by Lance on Oct 1, 2008 7:41 pm • link • report

@Lance - I'm sure their land values, their absurd property tax situation, their straightjacketted zoning, their $1 million median price apartments, their higher commuter-percentage, and their socialized rent-control system, have nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Nope, the problem is that they don't have statutes requiring a certain number of mandatory 20'x8' parking spaces, and so their big-rigs are left with nowhere to drop their loads, requiring unionized workers to ferry 93%/7% ground chuck in on hand-pushed ice-carts down the sidewalks of the Lincoln Tunnel from Weehawken, New Jersey. That's why it costs 9 times as much to buy diapers.

But wait... Pampers Cruisers Economy Plus Pack is $42 shipped to northern DC, $42 shipper to Loading Bay, Iowa, $42 shipped to Manhattan, and $30 at my grocery store! *Head explodes*

by Squalish on Oct 1, 2008 8:46 pm • link • report

@squalish, That's right. It's not just the parking. My point is that Manhattan is stuck with a late 19th century transportation system. Due to our far lower density, the enlightened parking garage rules we've had in effect for the last 30 years have been able to help turn around what was a similar bad situation here previously.

by Lance on Oct 1, 2008 10:08 pm • link • report

Lance, your argument misses the point and is 20th-century in theory and practice. The amount of parking available has NOTHING to do with store costs. Big rigs, when they unload, unload onto dedicated docks. Additionally, if people stop trying to drive to DC since the number of spaces has gone down relative to density (this has already happened), then there will be more street space available to trucks. Moreover, the vast majority of deliveries are made late at night and really early in the morning, when I can easily get from Dupont to Chevy Chase in 10 minutes at illegal but "real world" speeds.

The real problem with shipping to Manhattan, and frankly this is the least of the issues there, is that products have to be switched from trains and 18-wheelers into box trucks in New Jersey to go through tunnels with high tolls. It adds middlemen, extra labor, and just plain old up-front costs. There is a proposal to build a tunnel from Jersey City to Brooklyn to ameliorate this problem, but at $7B for the system, it's only going to happen come $10/gallon gas.

Thus the issue is not about parking but about the cost of land and the size of stores. Walmart, Safeway, and Home Depot benefit from not having to switch modes, since 18-wheelers can unload right into the store. Smaller storefronts, the kind that architects, planners, and sustainable design folks like simply can't take deliveries from larger trucks, can't stock massive containers, and require more overhead, and also tend to pay higher rents. There are causes for those issues, one of which is the exorbitant cost of building large underground garages.

by The King of Spain on Oct 2, 2008 1:12 am • link • report

When I buy from a local store I don't mind paying more because I don't have to pay for the very real costs of a car (gas, wear and tear, pain in the ass factor, etc).

by kenf on Oct 2, 2008 6:47 am • link • report

@Spain and Squalish, "Smaller storefronts, the kind that architects, planners, and sustainable design folks like simply can't take deliveries from larger trucks, can't stock massive containers, and require more overhead, and also tend to pay higher rents. There are causes for those issues, one of which is the exorbitant cost of building large underground garages."

And THAT is the point I was trying to get across. Yes, lack of parking is just part of the problem with trying to live a 21st century "more efficient" life within a 19th century infrastructure ... And yes, retrofitting large underground parking garages into that infrastructure is just part of the solution in updating this infrastructure. In the 50s they also wanted to detroy whole neighborhoods to retrofit large freeways into the city core. Is that good? Where do you draw the line between retrofitting what you can to modernize and just "paying the costs" of living with the older, out-moded infrastructure? IMHO, when you've gotten to the point of destroying the very neighborhoods you're claiming to help, you've crossed that line. For example, having been that inner-loop beltway in DC would have destroyed DC for its residents ... and only benefited the suburbanites needing/wanting quick and easy access in and out. Does Manhattan bulldoze rows of buildings to allow easier access by the 18 wheelers? No, of course not. Luckily we are not in such an "overbuilt" position as to be such constrained ... and little things such as ensuring sufficient parking is constructed to make it free to users (or nearly free) will in this city go a long ways toward providing us the efficient infrastructure which newer cities enjoy having had that 20th/21st century efficient infrastructure built into them from the beginning.

by Lance on Oct 2, 2008 8:48 am • link • report

So you want more parking so people can drive to larger stores? How will they get there? More highways? How will we get trucks in at all? 18 wheelers have no problem navigating most streets at night, the problem is just the loading docks but they sue have problems getting to the Georgetown Safeway during rush hour. Then there is the cost of gas. Even in the dreamiest solutions to the energy crisis, fuel will stay very expensive, and it won't be beneficial to compound the increased cost of food with the cost of gas.

Additionally, the small floor area ratio is liked for a reason. Large FAR stores tend to kill street life and are built with limited density, so what's the benefit besides the occasional great buy?

by The King of Spain on Oct 2, 2008 10:35 am • link • report