Houston's Downtown Is, Like, Nothing But A Sea Of Parking Lots...

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

OK, so does that mean alternate side snow parking on some northern city streets is really just flex lanes?

ETA: I'd be interested in seeing any reference you might find to flex lanes on downtown Houston streets. I've never heard them called that.

ETA again: But I do see reference to "flex lanes" in Austin.

I don’t know of a single example of this in Austin. I do know they’re common in Denver.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I don’t know of a single example of this in Austin. I do know they’re common in Denver.

When I googled "flex lane" some new plan for Congress Ave popped up. All other references were to highways or freeways.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

When I googled "flex lane" some new plan for Congress Ave popped up. All other references were to highways or freeways.

A flex lane is one of either two types:

• a lane on a surface street that alternates between parking (off peak) and travel (peak);
• a lane on a highway that alternates between a shoulder (off peak) and travel (peak);

The latter type is, in my experience, most common in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Denver has a good number of the first type.

[bilbao58]

Does it really matter what they are called? Doady mentioned the apparent lack of street parking on the two streets he used as examples and I pointed out that there IS parking on this streets. OK, it's not permanent parking that would always buffer pedestrians from traffic. But his idea that not having on-street parking creates the need for off-street parking ignores the fact that there aren't enough streets in Downtown Houston for all the cars that need to be parked there every day. It's the GAZILLIONS of cars in car-dependent Houston that create the need for off-street parking.

ETA: He did a quick look at Google streetview and decided that Downtown Houston is suburban because there were no cars parked on the street at the moment that Google photographed those streets.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

Does it really matter what they are called? Doady mentioned the apparent lack of street parking on the two streets he used as examples and I pointed out that there IS parking on this streets. OK, it's not permanent parking that would always buffer pedestrians from traffic. But his idea that not having on-street parking creates the need for off-street parking ignores the fact that there aren't enough streets in Downtown Houston for all the cars that need to be parked there every day. It's the GAZILLIONS of cars in car-dependent Houston that create the need for off-street parking.

I pointed it out because I think overlooking (on purpose or accident) the fact that these lanes can accommodate parking is reasonable. I wouldn’t have noticed the meters unless someone pointed them out.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I pointed it out because I think overlooking (on purpose or accident) the fact that these lanes can accommodate parking is reasonable. I wouldn’t have noticed the meters unless someone pointed them out.

Yes, it was reasonable but it was also mistaken. I pointed out the mistake. End of story or so I thought.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

Yes, it was reasonable but it was also mistaken. I pointed out the mistake. End of story or so I thought.

Yeah, but the way you did could easily mislead someone to believe that these are genuine all-purpose parking lanes, when in reality their functionality is substantially impaired by the fact that you have to move your car at some point so that it can become a drive lane. In practice, lanes like this do not receive heavy use for parking because of that inconvenience—people will generally prefer finding other parking where they don’t have to worry. Not only is it only sometimes parking, but it is really only sometimes parking in name only.

From a public policy perspective, these lanes are also a disaster and expensive to enforce due to the towing and ticketing regime that is needed to give it “teeth.”

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yeah, but the way you did could easily mislead someone to believe that these are genuine all-purpose parking lanes...

I specifically wrote "restricted parking hours" in my response and the signs seen in the linked streetviews also indicate restricted hours so, again...

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

From a public policy perspective, these lanes are also a disaster and expensive to enforce due to the towing and ticketing regime that is needed to give it “teeth.”

Apparently the City of Houston thinks it's worth the trouble on certain streets used to move traffic quickly. On other streets where facilitated movement is not so important, CoH has reduced the number of lanes and added protected parking (which is usually if not always limited in duration). See streetviews:

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7637...5410&entry=ttu

Or

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7599...5410&entry=ttu

[Mad_Nick]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yeah, but the way you did could easily mislead someone to believe that these are genuine all-purpose parking lanes, when in reality their functionality is substantially impaired by the fact that you have to move your car at some point so that it can become a drive lane. In practice, lanes like this do not receive heavy use for parking because of that inconvenience—people will generally prefer finding other parking where they don’t have to worry. Not only is it only sometimes parking, but it is really only sometimes parking in name only.

From a public policy perspective, these lanes are also a disaster and expensive to enforce due to the towing and ticketing regime that is needed to give it “teeth.”

It also just looks a bit dangerous to me. There is nothing to indicate to the driver that this is not just another driving lane, then all of the sudden a parked car pops up. I can see this being especially dangerous in the dark.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by Mad_Nick

It also just looks a bit dangerous to me. There is nothing to indicate to the driver that this is not just another driving lane, then all of the sudden a parked car pops up. I can see this being especially dangerous in the dark.

Anyone who can't avoid a parked car on a street like this shouldn't be driving.


Street view Houston downtown at night - HOUSTON, TEXAS - NOVEMBER 02, 2022 — Photo by 4kclips

People generally don't drive in the outside lanes except for turning. And maybe during rush hour. Cars are not allowed to park within a certain distance of the corners. The blocks are not long enough for people to chug along oblivious and then... POW!... plow into a parked car that "just pops up." Except maybe drunk people. But streets aren't designed to cater to drunk people.

[Doady]

Uh.. sorry. I didn't mean to derail the thread. My bad.

[SIGSEGV]

Pssh cars parked in travel lanes is just a standard thing. Better than blocking bike or bus lanes (which sadly also happens all the time).

Weirdly, in Chicago, the flex lane concept seems to mostly be used.fir Sunday church parking.

[dave8721]

I can only think of one spot in South Florida that I know of with a flex parking/travel lane and its actually in a suburban downtown and its for 2 blocks.
Is that a common thing in other cities? Its just not a thing here.

[Chico Loco]

Originally Posted by The North One

Houston's issue isn't just parking. The downtown is basically just a glorified office park.

Detroit's largest parking lot is currently a construction site for the UMich campus so they're at least slowly being eaten away.

Problem, not "issue."

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by cabasse

the chosen boundaries seem somewhat arbitrary. NYC's uses a small square somewhere in midtown, for example. (not even "downtown" manhattan)

https://parkingreform.org/resources/parking-lot-map/

If they wanted to choose the epicenter of "downtown" for NYC I think that the box they chose is accurate. But the line between downtown and non-downtown is very blurry in New York, so it's hard to make a like comparison between it and other US cities where the lines are typically more well defined.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by craigs

And the reason is it easy to forget that the Inland Empire is a separate metro is because it really isn't. I mean, the government has officially split it off based on commuting patterns, but the IE doesn't have skyscrapers or a populous central city because it is merely the eastern end of the metropolis which also includes Los Angeles and Orange counties.

Riverside is a decent downtown even if it doesn't have tall skyscrapers.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Riverside is a decent downtown. Certainly more interesting that Houston even if it doesn't have tall skyscrapers.

Riverside's downtown is not more interesting than Houston, because at the end of the day Houston has been one of the largest US cities for decades and for most of that time downtown was the activity center. The immediate neighborhoods right next to it show that (too bad freeways dissect some of it but they're coming down) and the connectivity is coming back. It could be much better, Riverside even with the Mission Inn isn't better IMO.

But Riverside does have a good downtown for a city it's size, especially during the winter. Redlands also has a good downtown. Rancho has a good fake downtown since it is one of those mixed-used developments. Ontario and Upland also have good downtowns. The rest are nothing to write about but do have some cool places here and there.

Culturally Pomona and Claremont are apart of the IE so I'd throw them in also, and they'd rank right next to Redlands and Riverside as the four best. San Bernardino could be something if 70% of it wasn't boarded up.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Riverside is a decent downtown even if it doesn't have tall skyscrapers.

Yea, its just a massive extension like you'd see in other cities. Its just that the Inland Empire is so much bigger than outer Chicagoland, NOVA, Dallas, Atlanta, etc.
There surely arent many walkable "town centers" in NOVA once you get past the beltway. Its the same thing as the IE.

Fairfax City would be like Claremont or Upland, Leesburg/Manassas like Riverside/Pomona (kinda).

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Trae

Riverside's downtown is not more interesting than Houston, because at the end of the day Houston has been one of the largest US cities for decades and for most of that time downtown was the activity center. The immediate neighborhoods right next to it show that (too bad freeways dissect some of it but they're coming down) and the connectivity is coming back. It could be much better, Riverside even with the Mission Inn isn't better IMO.

But Riverside does have a good downtown for a city it's size, especially during the winter. Redlands also has a good downtown. Rancho has a good fake downtown since it is one of those mixed-used developments. Ontario and Upland also have good downtowns. The rest are nothing to write about but do have some cool places here and there.

Culturally Pomona and Claremont are apart of the IE so I'd throw them in also, and they'd rank right next to Redlands and Riverside as the four best. San Bernardino could be something if 70% of it wasn't boarded up.

I dunno. I drove between Palm Springs and LA recently, and got off the 10/215 to see downtown Riverside since it's gotten a bit of attention on this forum. I was pleasantly surprised. I definitely saw more pedestrians in downtown Riverside in that afternoon than I ever have on any street in Houston. Not to mention, the surrounding residential neighborhoods in Riverside felt very old California to me. I thought it was quite charming.