Pitching business taxes to give an incentive to put offices (and jobs) along the Broad St. Line in North Philly and Market St. El, probably is not to terrible an idea, however.

I'd like to add the Chelten Ave. business corridor to that list. And Germantown Ave south of Carpenter Lane, and I'm sure many other places other folks can think of. Would that this were the type of development that was targeted in this city rather than large-scale projects such as casinos and convention centers.

So it's hard for me to really use them as analogies - but here's my quick take on it. One of the advantages of Philly over NY is accessibility. There are many reasons I live in Philly - but if I were making a choice between NY and Philly in some kind of a vacuum - I'd be putting the "more stuff to do in NY" one side of the balance and "it's more convenient to do stuff in Philly" on the other side. In other words, at what point do you risk policies that reduce Philly's "competitive advantage."

Other specifics: It's much easier to get a cab in NY. It has a much better transportation system. If I lived in NY, I'd like to live in Manhattan or some other community where a car isn't needed. I live in Germantown, where of course I could do without a car - but it's not really a neighborhood where that's particularly convenient.

SF also has a better transportation system - and also has neighborhoods around the financial district where I'd be likely to live, and where not using a car would be pretty convenient. When I visit folks in SF, we're much more likely to get around using public transportation than when folks are visiting me here; to some extent, yes, because it is possible to park and drive here, but to some extent also because it's possible to get around by public transportation in SF. And SF has tons of people working very actively in making public policy that increases the use of public transportation.

Also, the demographics in Manhattan and SF are different. There are still people who drive in Manhattan and in SF. They have drivers and limos and use lots and valet parking.

So my point is, again, while I understand the rationale in some theoretical framework - where is the evidence that the theory has been applied to the conditions in Philly in some comprehensive fashion? Or, as we've seen with the library fiasco - is this another example that extensive research is not a precondition for this administration to implement policies?

I tend to be a bit conspiratorial in my thinking.

because lot parking has such demand from people who obviously can afford to pay it and do that lot operators make a killing.

Honestly this sounds like an incentive to tax lot operators more.

One thing I will come back to from before. Philly zoning makes it hard to build the sandwich that works best to make it affordable to build new, large footprint retail in other big cities, particularly on its transit corridors. I.e. Store on bottom, parking between (free for customers, fee for visitors), residential on top. This "sandwich" is a good urban medium high density, just outside the downtown core model for building retail (incuding grocery stores) in the city and Philly should really make it easier to build this way along its transit corridors.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

Sean - whose behavior will be changed by this policy, and how will it be changed?

I think we're talking past each other at this point, so this will probably be my last response, but I just think you're making some assumptions that I'm not sure I buy. I have a different sense of the level of wealth of many folks who drive into CC.

I'm not going to start using lots if they charge so much more than it costs me to use a meter. I'm not going to start using cabs in response to higher meter rates (i.e., I'm sure not going to take a cab from Germantown, and I'm not going to park in neighborhoods closer to CC and then take a cab or public transportation). Unless public transportation is improved, I'm not going to spend the money and time it currently takes me to use public transportation to grab a dinner in Chinatown. I may suck it up and pay a higher meter rate sometimes, but my feeling is that the revenue gain there would be offset by the number of times I will go further out to find un-metered spots.

At what point, using your logic, do you draw the line between the reasoning behind raising meter rates and something like simply banning private autos from CC? I would absolutely love it if all private autos were banned from CC and convenient public transportation alternatives were available. If cheap municipal lots were located on the periphery of CC and cheap loops were run to CC from there - that would be great; in that case, charge $40 per hour to park in CC; I'd be all for it.

But I'm dubious that increasing meter rates in CC will do anything of real value if public transportation isn't improved first. People who can afford lots already probably already park in lots. I just don't see that many people now looping around in CC changing their behaviors; my sense is that either they'll continue to do what they're currently doing, or start looping around in other peripheral neighborhoods, or simply go somewhere else other than CC with their business.

Obviously, it's tricky to generalize from what I would do (fortunately, there aren't all that many folks out there that think like I do). But in order to be convinced otherwise, (you and I could speculate until the cows come home), I'd like to see some comprehensively designed policy proposal that is tailored to Philadelphia, specifically. I think that's pretty much a basic requirement of any good policy initiative. If there's one out there, I'd like to see a link.

Not enough to completely offset manufacturing departing for China and Indonesia but still a good sign for Philly's future

-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

More people won't change anything because there are no more spaces available in my neighborhood. My neighbors know when they can move their cars and when they cannot. My neighbors know that if you take your car out on a Friday or Saturday or any time after 6pm, you're chances of finding a spot when you get back a close to zero.

But that's all beside the point.

This entire discussion is way off base, and not surprisingly DEII is one of the folks who is most guilty in throwing out the proverbial red herrings.

I disagree with the entire premise of Dumpling Eater's argument. Folks should pay for parking and clearly meter rates are way below what the market would charge for those spots.

Contrary to Dumpling Eater's arguments, the City should NOT be in the business of subsidizing on-street parking. For that matter, the City should also not be in the business of subsidizing off-street parking (but that issue is practically a whole nother post and IMO is a better reason for why, in response to Dan's original point, the Nutter administration should feel empowered to smack down private garage operators).

People who drive into Center City are consuming an economic good. They are making use of public streets, they are polluting the air, they are making all sorts of noise and they are also causing all sorts of congestion (IMO, the least costly of all the externalities). All of these externalities cost money and for the most part, the City picks up the tab and apparently DEII want the City to continue to pick up his tab.

To put it in a context familiar to YPP - Instead of expanding library hours, DEII would have the City continue to spend millions paving the roads and dealing with all the other externalities caused by his economic decision to drive to CC.

This debate should be framed by saying "Providing on-street metered parking costs the City $X million dollars. By raising meter rates, we will ultimately save the City $Y million dollars. And those $Y million dollars, instead of going to subsidize Dumpling Eater's taste for dumplings will now go to pay for expanded library hours or keeping City pools open."

Now, we can go ahead and criticize the Nutter administration for whether or not it properly justified this policy to the public. But I think Dumpling Eater's whole premise that the City should be in the business of provided subsidized parking is preposterous.

but it also underlines how building ridership and building revenue go hand in hand. And so lots of little cheap things that can make SEPTA more user-friendly are steps towards building ridership and more revenue. If you ride a bus or streetcar, systems like NextBus so you know when the next one is actually coming would be a huge step forward for riders. I've never heard one local pol mention the idea despite implementation of similar systems in a number of different cities.

Look at all the ways you can keep track/be notified of your next transit arrival in the Bay Area.
http://www.nextbus.com/

When you start combining GPS-based systems like this with the increasing number of cell phone devices accessing the internet, its a brave new world for urban transit riders. There's no reason why SEPTA should miss that metaphorical technological bus.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.