The minimum parking space requirement is what existing residents, who rely upon on-street parking, ask so they are not negatively impacted by dense housing proposals. This is especially true in areas where it's still near impossible to operate without a car. There is a mitigating factor of these larger housing units: mixed zoning with commercial space on the ground floor helps reduce the need for a cars in the first place.
Some guidelines assume two working adults per unit, each with their own car. However, we're finding less spots are needed. With local commercial development, one car per unit is turning out to be more the norm for some areas and even less with greater density, since public transit is often better. Having satellite parking /w shuttle might also be a solution for those who only "need" a car for weekend travel.
I think 2 per residential unit is quite high. Probably too high, but on other hand 0 or lot less than 1 isn't generally working out too great in many places yet. People will find places to park their cars first filling the legal assigned and then moving to what is available and eventually even breaking rules.
It’s understandable that current residents demand that concession. However, minimum parking space rules subsidize and devalue parking spaces below their real value by essentially placing an artificial price cap on them.
People don’t want to pay for parking even though that land has inherent value, and American city planners for years have been overproducing unproductive land just to park vehicles, and it’s literally bankrupting them.
In California, it is illegal for cities to establish combination resident-preference and paid parking, and it is also illegal to charge more for residential parking permits than it costs to administer the program. It is probably also illegal, based on the opinion of the state AG but never tried in court, to discriminate between "existing residents" and everyone else when handing out parking permits. I would add that it's also totally unethical.
Mostly what the people in my California city who "rely" on street parking need to do is stop hoarding and clean out their garage, and stop collecting used Volvos to store in their driveways.
It's intense that the goal has to be implementing changes while also not negatively impacting car owners at all, and is a significant factor in why change on this front is so rare and so small in the US.
The fact is that yes, people who want to live in city cores and own cars there are going to have compromises. Parking needs to be less common and more expensive. Driving will become a slower, less appealing option as speed limits are reduced and more space given to other forms of transit.
These are necessary to reduce the negative impacts already experienced by people trying to use other forms of transit, or even just safely move around their neighborhood on foot. These changes will also benefit car owners! I assume y'all walk sometimes and want to have useful places to go, want to be able to cross the street without stress?
It would be a socially good will step to instead adequately compensate car owners for their respective losses under legislation -- random eg: Maybe offer to buy their car off them for a lifetime of free bus passes, or whatever makes them not lose while society wins.
Some guidelines assume two working adults per unit, each with their own car. However, we're finding less spots are needed. With local commercial development, one car per unit is turning out to be more the norm for some areas and even less with greater density, since public transit is often better. Having satellite parking /w shuttle might also be a solution for those who only "need" a car for weekend travel.