Study: Solving Atlanta’s traffic woes could hinge on better parking practices (Alpharetta: real estate)

[jsvh]

Study: Solving Atlanta’s traffic woes could hinge on better parking practices | Curbed Atlanta

...But a new study conducted by consulting firm PwC’s Strategy& suggests there’s one lens that many experts aren’t looking through to solve traffic problems: parking.

Sure, building bike lanes and expanding mass transit can encourage people to ditch their automobile-obsessed lifestyles, but the creation of abundant parking options, the theory goes, acts as a counterweight.

Others, however, posit that, unless cities overhaul their entire transportation infrastructures, curbing traffic congestion is a lost cause; people can only opt to avoid it by using non-car options.

But a new study conducted by consulting firm PwC’s Strategy& suggests there’s one lens that many experts aren’t looking through to solve traffic problems: parking.

Sure, building bike lanes and expanding mass transit can encourage people to ditch their automobile-obsessed lifestyles, but the creation of abundant parking options, the theory goes, acts as a counterweight.

If people have the option of taking a train or driving, cheap, easy access to parking will usually be the deciding factor.

And with expenses associated with congestion climbing—it costs the U.S. $230 to $300 billion each year, due to “direct costs, such as lost time, and indirect costs, such as increased cost of goods and services”—PwC’s Strategy& suggested it’s time to look to parking reform or else let pricey traffic issues run rampant.
...

https://cdn.ymaws.com/weareparking.o..._study_exe.pdf

Here are a few examples of parking-related levers cities can use to reduce congestion:

• Repurpose or reprice on-street parking. The space could be reused to add an additional traffic lane or create a drop-off point for TNCs or delivery companies, which should reduce circling.
• Reduce or eliminate parking minimums. Allow market demand to determine the appropriate supply of parking. This will reduce the cost of development and result in a better balance of parking supply and expected demand for the specific real estate application.
• Explore new smart parking technologies. These can make payments easier, improve navigation, and make prices more transparent, all of which may reduce congestion and emissions.
• Reconsider or reprice double parking fines. Reconsider any arrangements made with delivery services providers and others that allow them to reduce or avoid fines for certain parking violations. Enforce current regulations.
• Leveraging parking as a “curb extension” or mobility hub. Parking could potentially be used in new innovative ways to mitigate congestion, mainly at the curb. A few ways that parking can be leveraged as a “curb extension” include serving as short term parking for TNCs [that’s “Transportation Network Company” such as Uber and Lyft], dynamic, taxi or ride-hail stands, drop-off or pick-up points for packages, or mobility hubs for shared bikes, scooters, and vehicles.

Good points from PwC that letting more market influences control parking will benefit traffic congestion.

[ATLTJL]

Wow. I wonder who paid for that. A bit of a stretch to call it "research" when it probably cost 6-figures and all someone did was consult the Census, a UN report and INRIX. Did PWC get one of their summer interns to put this together?

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just flabbergasted by how not thorough it is. Of course, this is just the executive summary, hopefully there's a lot more research there we're not seeing.

I think my biggest question would be with this point:

If people have the option of taking a train or driving, cheap, easy access to parking will usually be the deciding factor.

The question is, what constitutes the "option of taking a train?" I need a metric. Does that mean being within half a mile of a trains station? Or would they count a train as an option for someone who lives in Alpharetta since they can drive to the North Springs MARTA station?

That's really the biggest question here. Because of course, we can probably curb some traffic by eliminating parking. But that doesn't necessarily mean more people will come by train. It could, in fact, mean fewer people will come period. Naturally, that eases traffic, but at what cost?

We all know this is the missing piece, making alternate forms of transit more available. It comes down to a chicken and egg. Do you suppose getting rid of some parking will create the demand that spurs MARTA expansion? If so, how long will that take? And how bad will the fallout be in the meantime?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

Wow. I wonder who paid for that. A bit of a stretch to call it "research" when it probably cost 6-figures and all someone did was consult the Census, a UN report and INRIX. Did PWC get one of their summer interns to put this together?

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just flabbergasted by how not thorough it is. Of course, this is just the executive summary, hopefully there's a lot more research there we're not seeing.

It is silly to complain about an executive summary being an executive summary. They make their money from people paying for the full study.

Or, If you want more details, PwC is not the first to look at this topic either. There are chapters on it with hundreds of sources and studies referenced here: https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Fre.../dp/193236496X

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

The question is, what constitutes the "option of taking a train?" I need a metric. Does that mean being within half a mile of a trains station? Or would they count a train as an option for someone who lives in Alpharetta since they can drive to the North Springs MARTA station?

You do not need to define an arbitrary boundary for how far away is an option, because there is not one.

Just look at parking at the airport as an example. People driving in from Greenville, SC will even take MARTA because it saves them money over parking at the airport. Do you really think they would still do that if we started using tax dollars to make parking free at the airport? Nope.

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

We all know this is the missing piece, making alternate forms of transit more available. It comes down to a chicken and egg. Do you suppose getting rid of some parking will create the demand that spurs MARTA expansion? If so, how long will that take? And how bad will the fallout be in the meantime?

People should be paying market prices for parking regardless. There are many alternatives besides MARTA. And it is not like getting rid of all parking minimums now means your exurban McDonalds is going to start to charging you for parking tomorrow. It will take decades for development patterns to adjust, all the more reason to make the changes now. The subsidized, 90%+ car-only, sprawled out network we have not is simply not sustainable in the long run.

[turkeydance]

"People should be paying market prices for parking regardless."
if so, Hospital parking would quadruple at minimum.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by turkeydance

"People should be paying market prices for parking regardless."
if so, Hospital parking would quadruple at minimum.

Healthcare is known for it's low prices in the US! /s

Charge $200 for an Aspirin but heaven forbid they get charged $10 for parking!!

Healthcare is not a right but parking is?

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Healthcare is known for it's low prices in the US! /s

Charge $200 for an Aspirin but heaven forbid they get charged $10 for parking!!

Healthcare is not a right but parking is?

....kind of missed his point.

Not saying it's their right, but hospitals, being life-or-death centers for many occasions would be able to use the same strategy they use to charge you $200 for that aspirin to charge you and your visitors out the wazoo for parking there. Basically just taking you at your worst time and trying to pilfer even more from you. Awful, awful people.