Remember, Tyler Cowen is a libertarian idiot, albeit useful at times. And he is fundamentally anti-urban. He wants cities to be playgrounds for the rich and young, and real innovation to occur at the outer suburbs, where things are cheap and immigrants can thrive.

When he takes up your case against "free parking" and the crusade against street parking, be careful.

by charlie on Aug 16, 2010 9:41 am • link • report

Nothing on Falls Church eliminating the GEORGE?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081502823.html

by DK on Aug 16, 2010 9:43 am • link • report

Although I agree that parking structures are often very unnecessary, I'd argue that additional parking at East Falls Church will likely fill to capacity, as the people who (already) use the station aren't going to be interested in TOD.

(But that doesn't mean we shouldn't build TOD around the station, and hide the parking underground. Different strokes for different folks)

Also: What if DDOT installed QR codes on parking meters that would allow smartphone users to instantly access a URL or phone number to pay for that particular meter. Instant gratification.

by andrew on Aug 16, 2010 10:21 am • link • report

@charlie

What crusade against street parking?

by Alex B. on Aug 16, 2010 10:31 am • link • report

College Park's garage will allow fee in lieu parking for dense, infill projects downtown that are within a quarter mile. it took the place of two blighted rental properties right next to CP's main retail area. One developer is examining a 1000-bed mixed use complex basically right across the street where the book exchange is. The city is also attempting to move their suburban style city hall which will make further use of the garage. It also leaves the potential for the redevelopment of the downtown cp strip mall, which currently gives the city the locational charm of a highway rest stop. Finally, there is a very large restaurant opening in the ground floor of the garage in 2 weeks. The space will get use. The city's only mistake (if you can call it that) was pushing the garage through when they had the deal together.

by David Daddio on Aug 16, 2010 10:34 am • link • report

While railing on the city officials for claiming that the college park garage is a success because it is used slightly more than before, this blog make an even worse implication- the garage is a failure because of the average percent of capacity used. My metric for success is- is the garage being used a lot at peak times? this means that people that normally would have skipped patronizing all the establishments nearby because of lack of parking are choosing to do so because it is now convenient. it's a win for bentley's

by RD on Aug 16, 2010 10:38 am • link • report

For what it's worth, the new College Park parking garage may begin filling more once classes begin at UMD, and when/if the East Campus redevelopment (http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/library/east-campus-development/) occurs (although it is a good half-mile walk from the garage to the new development.

by Scott on Aug 16, 2010 10:58 am • link • report

@Alex; the crusade against street parking is the crusade to make street parking expensive. Some of the known conspirators:

1. Transit-Oriented-Density planners who hate cars and want to drive cars out of cities -- by making street parking more expensive.
2. Parking consultants and meter companies -- who want to get cities to buy new and innovation (and expensive!) new meters
3. City Councils who look at street parking as a revenue source
4. Hedge funds and investment banks who know that privatizing street parking (like in Chicago) can be a lucrative investment
5. Anti-urbanists (like Cowen) who would rather see cities because playgrounds rather than places where people live, work and shop.

Maybe I'm upset because I had to run out at 6:58 this morning to move my car out of the 16th st rush hour lanes -- alarm clock didn't work -- and maybe it is because nobody talks about the benefits of street parkings, particularly to pedestrians. Street parking seems to be a really good road furniture to keep speeds down.

by charlie on Aug 16, 2010 12:48 pm • link • report

David Daddio, RD and Scott: Thank you for the richer context re: the College Park garage. While the merits of subsidizing the garage are still debatable, I should have taken a broader perspective in the links text.

by Stephen Miller on Aug 16, 2010 12:59 pm • link • report

Charlie,

I'm not sure why you're equating the pricing of on-street spaces with the removal of on-street spaces. Nobody has ever said the actual parking spaces are bad; instead it is a question of using market prices to allocate a scarce resource.

by Alex B. on Aug 16, 2010 1:02 pm • link • report

Charlie is making a false equivalence. And it's this false conflation that ties people like him in knots: parking on the street is too expensive! I can't find parking on the street!

by Reid on Aug 16, 2010 1:14 pm • link • report

@Alex; if in this day and age you think the "market" is still the best way to allocate resources, you need a refresher course.

by charlie on Aug 16, 2010 1:16 pm • link • report

@charlie

Nice non-sequitir. Regardless of how you allocate those parking spaces, you are still allocating existing spaces. No one has suggested that they be allocated out of existence except you.

by Alex B. on Aug 16, 2010 1:23 pm • link • report

He wants cities to be playgrounds for the rich and young, and real innovation to occur at the outer suburbs, where things are cheap and immigrants can thrive. /i>

Well doesn't it make sense then for innovation to occur there, since as you already put it, immigrants have more thriving communities and things are cheaper?

by MPC on Aug 16, 2010 1:40 pm • link • report

@charlie - I am fairly confident I remember reading that NYC is trying to use street parking as a tool to keep speeds down. Or maybe NYC is using street-parked cars as a barrier between road traffic and bike traffic, i.e. a way to create a segregated bike lane. Or maybe I'm misremembering all of this.

by Andy Peters on Aug 16, 2010 4:06 pm • link • report

$100,000 figure is per annum, not monthly.

by Foobar on Aug 16, 2010 9:14 pm • link • report