Parking: Upcoming Lecture

Downtown is not a joy or an attraction.
Downtown is an expense and a hassle because of parking.

If you force people to pay more for parking then they will go to greater lengths to avoid it and defeat all the money we are spending to develop downtown as a business, commercial, government and cultural center.

The only option is to use increased parking fees to increase the free convenience of accessing downtown thu trolleys and free light rail park and rides.

As we have learned from the Bed Tax on Hotel Rooms, Casino Revenue and other taxes our government will promise a tax for a purpose and then put it in a general purpose budget which they will only then allocate a fraction if any amount at all.

However, any attempt in my opinion to raise parking costs will result in more avoidance of downtown.

The Beltway must be re-activated.
The Airport Corridor must get built with longterm commitments to Darien Lake and Batavia.
The Amherst corridor must get built perhaps even to Lockport
Perhaps even a trolley for Elmwood

The fate of our city as a regional center depends on making downtown an inexpensive convenience rather than expensive avoidance.

Pop Quiz: When (during what Decade) did the first dtudy conclude that cars were hurting Downtown & needed to be controlled? (Only extreme pressure from car makers kept cities from banning cars from downtowns, btw )

I'm assuming that this would include neighborhood street parking. Are people going to get assigned parking spaces if they are paying for it? Aren't we paying for it in our taxes? It's getting to the point when we have to start asking what are we getting in return for our tax money??? We pay for garbage collection, we pay for water, we rent and pay for sewers and waste treatment. We pay road use taxes every time we buy gas. We pay for toll roads.

Without getting into all the "mini" taxes that we see on just about every bill we get we pay and pay taxes. What do we get in return? Is it I just being a crotchety old man? Hell we even have to pay to get into our national parks; Yellowstone National Park costs $25 per car. I should go lay down for a bit, blood pressure rising

Maybe people with cars should be taxed and parking also be taxed. That way the loosley affiliated grass roots in the minority that support these type of initiatives can enjoy the feeling of being totally crushed by the better organized groups which represent the majority of transportation users who compose the the highest percentage of the tax base.

It isn't the fact that I have to pay for parking that bothers me so much as the blatent disregard for anything BUT parking the a mode of transportation. That is why the author and others talk about this subject.

I understand that most people drive to the mall and that everything I buy there is subsidizing those parking lots, and my taxes and subsidizing the highways to get people there and my taxes are subsidizing the education system that segregates our society... but as soon as you ask for a bus stop or a freaking bike rack you get thrown to the curb and laughed at.

Everyone pays into the system to receive benefits... the problem comes when only a part of the population receives benefits, often at the expense of others.

A perfect example is the plaza debacle in OP. They won't allow buses onto the property to drop off customers and employees near the entrance because the parking lot is not safe for pedestrians... So they are left getting off at the street and WALK through the whole lot.. but it is OK for people to drive to the site and WALK through the parking lot. They probably have to walk longer and traverse that dangerous landscape much further than someone getting dropped off from the bus AT the entrance to the store. All those people pay into the system... but the system is only working for one segment of them.

Because the government made it cheap to do

Socialized parking good
Socialized life saving medicine bad

I think we should charge for bike rack and bike lane usage too. There is no need for everyone to pay for the socialized bike rack system, it is time they pulled their own weight and paid their fair share!

because you can park a dozen or more bikes in the space required for one automobile at a fraction of the cost, making bicycle parking an excellent public investment. you not only encourage exercise but you reduce the pressure to demolish viable buildings for surface parking. you encourage a form of transportation that neither pollutes nor requires foreign oil. you cut down on noise pollution and traffic congestion. sounds like a win/win to me.

a back rack does not represent the irreversible encroachment upon the cityscape and major capital expense of a parking lot or ramp garage. a mouse just doesn't have the same environmental footprint as an elephant. but thanks for trying. it is still hysterical to watch a conservative twist himself this way and that to defend socialized parking.

The city/suburb divide that jimmy and whatever consistently advocate for on this website is nothing more than a cultural narrative. That is, it is a story we tell ourselves. Nothing more. For example, jimmy has mentioned several times that suburbs have various advantages over cities. While his assertions are generally accepted as true, they are not, by definition, "facts." They are opinions. That we confuse them with facts is evidence of the prevailing narrative of suburban superiority. That jimmy never bothered to answer my question is also evidence that most people around here don't feel any need to prove, or even just argue in favor of, suburban superiority. We simply just make conclusory statements and everyone nods in agreement. No facts or evidence is required. Jimmy says the suburbs have more control over their tax money and we all just go, "Of course they do." Nevermind the fact that each suburb is a fairly distinct place. They're all just "better" because they're not "the city." Nobody thinks they have to prove it because everyone just "knows it" and accepts it.

I guess all I really want to say is that it doesn't HAVE to be that way. We all make these places what they are. If you live in a suburb and you think it offers a better quality of life, it is not because this "quality of life" exists independently of you and you just happened to find it. It is BECAUSE you moved there and you hold your community to a certain standard. Places go "downhill" when YOU leave. Not when everyone else does. When YOU do. Similarly, cities revitalize when YOU move there. Not when everyone else does. If more people took responsibility for their own actions and decisions, ALL neighborhoods would be better places. But, in America,the prevailing narrative is that nobody bears any responsibility for their own actions. Everything is someone else's fault. Dozens of people leave one neighborhood and move into another, newer neighborhood. Then they lament how the old neighborhood "went downhill." Nobody admits that the place declined because they left. No - it was all someone else's fault.

This affects cities and suburbs alike. For example, Buffalo is already starting to hear the talk of how Amherst and Tonawanda "ain't what they used to be." Well...guess what...that's on you because you left. And, of course, people instinctively blame "city people" for moving in. There is no such thing as "city people." Nobody "belongs" anywhere. All of these places are just places - their character is determined by the people who inhabit them. Their reputation is also affected by the people who judge them.

Most civilized places around the country are talking about increasing density and increasing transit access. Suburbs WANT to increase their urbanity. Urban and suburban are nothing but jargon - setbacks, land use practices, and density. "Urban" design increases economic efficiency, prosperity and increases wealth generation for residents. "Suburban" design sucks wealth from residents and wastes scarce resources. And yet, these social narratives of urban inferiority are so strong that people whose ideology is entirely based on increasing efficiency and creating wealth still advocate for places that do the exact opposite. It would be comical if it was not so tragic.

People left (and are still leaving) Buffalo and similar cities, because the cities failed the people, not the other way around. For some, it's not worth risking their family's security and safety to try and save the old neighborhood from further decline. We need to hold our elected officials accountable and make Buffalo a more attractive and inviting city to live in. We can do all the Buffalo boosting we want on websites like this, but until the real problems are faced, we're just going to see more of the same. It's all fine and dandy to get excited about new boutiques and winebars opening, but it doesn't change the fact that we have an enormous amount of crime and poverty and real urban problems that must be addressed. Otherwise, we can't blame people for wanting to seek sanctuary in the suburbs.