[Summit] Fwd: Parking again!

[Connie Chesebrough]

If we were to permit on-street parking, and gain back the hospital  parking
lots for residential housing, you would have a considerable problem from
Miriam employees parking in front of residents' homes night and day. There
would be a lot more litter, (currently picked up occasionally by hospital
maintenance), noise from employees talking all hours of day and night as
they enter and exit their vehicles and slam their car doors, and many no
doubt would park so close to driveways that residents would have difficulty
exiting, if not actually blocked. As much as many in Summit  would love
to reclaim the parking lots back for residential housing, it will never
happen realistically. Personally I like having a ban on on-street parking
and hope it remains in place for years in Summit.
I live in Pawtucket now, where on-street parking is allowed, and let me tell
you there is a disgusting amount of litter from drivers who think they are
entitled to dump their trash out their car door on the street when they
park, and night-time noise from ignorant late-night chatter as other people
sleep near by.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Nosal <andy at mapcenter.com> wrote:

>  Thank you Coryndon, for the links to Rational Analysis.
>
> Does anyone else see the great, neighborly breakthrough possible here?
>  There can be a new on-street parking scheme that does not inconvenience
> residents and also allows hospital employees' cars to occupy otherwise idle
> pavement - in exchange for replacing the horrible parking lots with good
> stuff like houses or shops!  ( Just no "garage front" houses please)
>
>   On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Coryndon Luxmoore wrote:
>
>  Andrew you might enjoy this report commissioned by San Francisco MTA
>
>
> http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/upload1/SFMTAPresentationonExtendingParkingMeterHours101309.pdf
>
> http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/13/mta-releases-parking-meter-study-that-proposes-extending-hours/
>
> http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/10/15/donald-shoup-calls-san-francisco-parking-meter-study-pathbreaking/
>
> As a resident nearby the hospital I agree that there is an over
> compensation by the meter maids and the hospital to prevent employees
> parking on the street but as long as they insist on the horrible parking
> lots it is appropriate. The biggest issue as I see it is the really poorly
> maintained parking signage in the area which does not make the rules clear.
>
> --C
>
>
>  --------------------------------------------
> Coryndon Luxmoore
> Interaction Designer
>
> coryndon (at) luxmoore (dot) com
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>  On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Andrew Nosal wrote:
>
>  Raising some money through parking enforcement is a fine idea.  The
> disgrace is how pointless and victimless are the most ruthlessly enforced
> parking regulations: the overnight ban, and time limits on out of the way
> blocks.  I would like to see more enforcement of laws that actually impact
> safety and well being, like speeding, red light running and failure to
> yield.
>
> There has been an absurd over-reaction to the problem of  ** OMG hospital
> employees are parking all day.* *  Why is it best that hundreds of perfectly
> good curbside spaces remain vacant, all day, every day, while the hospital
> is compelled to maintain big ugly parking lots that could be developed as
> housing or other useful things?  If we want residents to be priveleged to
> park on their own streets, give them permit stickers and enough reserved
> space on every block.  The rest of the spaces could then be used by whoever.
>  The no-turnover problem that all-day parkers create in busy commercial
> areas and adjacent to the hospital itself is best solved by meters.
>
> Parking policies today are not the result of any systematic thinking or
> rational analysis.  However, as long as the city is collecting lots of $,
> and the loudest complainers in the neighborhoods are relatively quiet, the
> policies can be considered a big success!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>
> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>
> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20100128/32fe3c94/attachment.htm>