"Sloppy Nature" of Parking Study Could Hinder Reform
The New York City Department of City Planning wants to place maximums in the Manhattan core, but there's just one problem: its own two-year-old parking study. Noah Kazis reports on the faulty arguments against reform.
"[The Real Estate Board of New York]'s rationale for opposing parking maximums echoes DCP's own studies. Borrowing a line from DCP's 2009 residential parking study, [REBNY Senior Vice President Mike] Slattery argued that car ownership is independent of parking supply and instead determined mainly by household income. The implication is that parking maximums only lead to parking shortages, not to reduced car ownership and driving.
The argument is faulty (more on that below), yet DCP itself continues to perpetuate it."
Published on Wednesday, October 26, 2011 in
- Is There a Perfect Density?
- Six States Considered Laws to Make it Legal to Run Over Protestors This Year
- Aurora Rising
- The Most Effective Way to Reduce Employee Driving
- Corridors Are the Secret to Improving Transit in Small Cities
- When Men Control the Debate About the Future of Cities
- Five Big Ideas About the Future of Transportation and Land Use in Los Angeles
- The 'Steady Decline' of Suburban America
- Housing Construction in Seattle and Vancouver a Study in Contrasts
- Trump's Infrastructure Plan Slow to Materialize Despite New Executive Order, Flow Chart
- Why Replace Successful BRT With Rail?
- Louisville's Infamous Spaghetti Junction to Get Safety Review
- Film Highlights Conservationists' Diversity
- Successfully Engaging With Underrepresented Communities for Comprehensive Plans
- Average Commute Times Won't Change Because of the Hyperloop
- Gentrification and Controversy in the Bronx
- Trafalgar Square Shows How to Reuse Pedestals Where Statues Once Stood
- Copenhagen's Post-Industrial Adaptive Reuse
- The Trump Administration's Assault on Diversity Spreads to Housing Vouchers
- Night Mayors Come to America
