Okay,

I mentioned this in the Baltimore Develpment News thread. The Transit Riders Action Council of Metropolitan Baltimore (TRAC) will be pushing for study at the Transit Steering Committee hearings in Annapolis (probably not in bill form) of taxation of surface parking as one mean to generate money for transit.

The concept would basically goes like this:

1. All new retail and commercial developments would be requirement to pay fees for construction and use of surface parking lots.

2. This charge would be passed on to the consumers and clients in some fashion.

3. The extent of the fee would depend on the size of the establishment and the size of the parking based on an analysis of existing establishments.

4. Currently existing parking lots tied to retail and commercial would be temporarily "grandfathered" so that the first 2 or so years, there would be no fee for them. After that, there fees would rise over an 8 to 10 year period to match any new construction.

5. Very small parking lots and pads might be exempted (like rear parking in City blocks).

6. Street parking and structured parking would be exempt (as would non-retail/commercial [for now]).

7. The money would go into the Transportation Trust Fund for capital and operating costs.

Support for this bill would show SERIOUS support for curbing suburban sprawl and environmental protection SMART GROWTH. Parking lots are land eaters and detrimental to the health of the bay for upteen reasons.

This could seriously level the playing field for urban business. No longer is the penalty on downtown. Businesses usually have garages or street parking. Parking is less relevant to consumers because of the transit available. Even those with surface parking would have less surface parking relative to their business footage than comparable suburban locations.

In practice for a consumer, it might go like so (no inflation):

Businessman "A" in parking lot suburbia charges $5.00 for his widget. New state tax/fee policy is instituted. After the elapsed time, he passes the cost to the consumer. The widget is now $5.25.

Businessman "B" on Main Street always charged $5.00 for his widgets, now with new law, it's still $5.00.

The concept of parking as a free good is oft discussed in planning and architecture circles, but not often in the business world. It's just assumed to be free. Why? You pay to check your coat at a nightclub? You pay Verizon 75 cents to use a pay phone. But you don't have to pay to keep your multi-thousand pound vehicle on 100+ sq. foot plot for hours or days.

Some may say this proposal is anti-suburb more than pro-transit. But the Free Good of Parking has dictated urban form for years now and still does so in cities. Take parking out of the picture, we'd have our dream transit system by now and it would be well operated.

I'd like to hear other, thoughtful opinions on the matter. I'd like to the discussion to resemble some level of civility (unlike many discussions since the NFL playoffs started ;) ). Please, let's leave the ad hominem attacks off the keyboards as well as criticisms of unsaid opinions. :D

Let's talk.

Then we'll have a drink. :cheers:

Nate

Great idea. However, I fear this will only add to Maryland's anti-business mentality.

Are you refering to perception of Maryland by outsiders looking to create business or your belief in state policy makers in that they don't like business?

Nate

Are you refering to perception of Maryland by outsiders looking to create business or your belief in state policy makers in that they don't like business?


The former.

-Alex

I like it. Big surface parking lots are serving no good.

Okay,

I mentioned this in the Baltimore Develpment News thread. The Transit Riders Action Council of Metropolitan Baltimore (TRAC) will be pushing for study at the Transit Steering Committee hearings in Annapolis (probably not in bill form) of taxation of surface parking as one mean to generate money for transit.

The concept would basically goes like this:

1. All new retail and commercial developments would be requirement to pay fees for construction and use of surface parking lots.

2. This charge would be passed on to the consumers and clients in some fashion.

3. The extent of the fee would depend on the size of the establishment and the size of the parking based on an analysis of existing establishments.

4. Currently existing parking lots tied to retail and commercial would be temporarily "grandfathered" so that the first 2 or so years, there would be no fee for them. After that, there fees would rise over an 8 to 10 year period to match any new construction.

5. Very small parking lots and pads might be exempted (like rear parking in City blocks).

6. Street parking and structured parking would be exempt (as would non-retail/commercial [for now]).

7. The money would go into the Transportation Trust Fund for capital and operating costs.

Support for this bill would show SERIOUS support for curbing suburban sprawl and environmental protection SMART GROWTH. Parking lots are land eaters and detrimental to the health of the bay for upteen reasons.

This could seriously level the playing field for urban business. No longer is the penalty on downtown. Businesses usually have garages or street parking. Parking is less relevant to consumers because of the transit available. Even those with surface parking would have less surface parking relative to their business footage than comparable suburban locations.

In practice for a consumer, it might go like so (no inflation):

Businessman "A" in parking lot suburbia charges $5.00 for his widget. New state tax/fee policy is instituted. After the elapsed time, he passes the cost to the consumer. The widget is now $5.25.

Businessman "B" on Main Street always charged $5.00 for his widgets, now with new law, it's still $5.00.

The concept of parking as a free good is oft discussed in planning and architecture circles, but not often in the business world. It's just assumed to be free. Why? You pay to check your coat at a nightclub? You pay Verizon 75 cents to use a pay phone. But you don't have to pay to keep your multi-thousand pound vehicle on 100+ sq. foot plot for hours or days.

Some may say this proposal is anti-suburb more than pro-transit. But the Free Good of Parking has dictated urban form for years now and still does so in cities. Take parking out of the picture, we'd have our dream transit system by now and it would be well operated.

I'd like to hear other, thoughtful opinions on the matter. I'd like to the discussion to resemble some level of civility (unlike many discussions since the NFL playoffs started ;) ). Please, let's leave the ad hominem attacks off the keyboards as well as criticisms of unsaid opinions. :D

Let's talk.

Then we'll have a drink. :cheers:

Nate

How does Virginia continue to get it right but Maryland continues to screw up.

I guess thats what happens when Marylanders put their trust inrto anti-progressive Democrats and left wing extremist anti-growth special interest groups that will do anything to sabatoge any form of Business/Economic/Revenue Growth for Baltimore and Maryland.

Great idea. However, I fear this will only add to Maryland's anti-business mentality.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!

And it further proves that they do not want Maryland to stay competative against Busines/Economic/Revenue Rich Northern Virginia.

Are you refering to perception of Maryland by outsiders looking to create business or your belief in state policy makers in that they don't like business?

Nate

More like outsiders(posibbly from Virginia but most Definately support Business Growth in Virginia) trying to Dictate and use communist/obstructionist schemes to Restrict Biusiness/Economic/Revenue from Growing in Maryland while Virginia continues to TRIPLE the amount of Business/Economic/Revenue Growth.

I like it. Big surface parking lots are serving no good.

Stack the parking lots or bury them; Problem Solved.

But you people would not want that because that will give Developers more room to build more Office Towers, Expand retail indoor malls, and other forms of upscale Development that will bring more Business/Economic/Revenue Growth for Maryland.

FWIW, an early presentation by the Transit Steering Committee revealed that to satisfy our $13.8 billion projected shortfall over the next 20 years, a 23.5 cent increase in the gas tax could cover it.

Of course "it" refered to "mid-range" (really meaning, not enough) costs for the Balitmore Red and Green Lines, the DC Purple and the Corridor Cities Transitway. This didn't include WMATA Green Line extension. Nor, IIRC, O&M and replacement captial on highways.

Now, formulas haven't been calculated for the parking tax idea, but this gives one an idea of the options and what we're up against.

We're going to pay more, no matter what, it seems.

Nate

FWIW, an early presentation by the Transit Steering Committee revealed that to satisfy our $13.8 billion projected shortfall over the next 20 years, a 23.5 cent increase in the gas tax could cover it.

Of course "it" refered to "mid-range" (really meaning, not enough) costs for the Balitmore Red and Green Lines, the DC Purple and the Corridor Cities Transitway. This didn't include WMATA Green Line extension. Nor, IIRC, O&M and replacement captial on highways.

Now, formulas haven't been calculated for the parking tax idea, but this gives one an idea of the options and what we're up against.

We're going to pay more, no matter what, it seems.

Nate

Why this doesn't effect Virginia and they continue to build Major Highway/Transit Projects along with building Massive Office Buildings and expanding Upscale Retail Malls.

Why this doesn't effect Virginia and they continue to build Major Highway/Transit Projects along with building Massive Office Buildings and expanding Upscale Retail Malls.

Oh it affects Va. Right now, Va. is dipping heavly into its general budget to pay for transportation projects. They do not have nearly enough funds for future growth (some estimates but an ANNUAL transportation deficit at $2 billion starting in 2010) Virginia has been very lackadasical in setting up dedicated transit funding they only have $800 million for 2010. Va. is facing a real crisis. Because of in-fighting in the House they have let the problem grow.

Unless the House of delegates does something in the next 3 years VDOT will only have enough money for maintaince only and no new construction.

The solutions presented by the House of Delegates and the govener are an increase in gas taxes, fines and toll roads and letting local jurisdictions kill an development that will tax the transportation network.

http://jlarc.state.va.us/Summary/Rpt272/Equity.HTM

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=93652&ran=5075

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=97010&ran=23559

Who would pay this tax, the developer, the owner of the lot? Is it an yearly fee?

^Presumably the developer would pay a fee. Then the owner would pay a yearly tax. The company occupying the site would pay taxes based on revenue generated. How much they would be taxed could depend on the ratio of parking to building space and the absolute sizes of each. Admittedly, I don't know that much about tax accounting and the like, but I think this is one feasible scenario.

Perhaps in the first few years, those who don't create surface parking could receive a tax break (might one already exist?). This could get the ball rolling on New Urban developments to show that they are viable.

True, as others have not directly mentioned, where two states with over lapping populations centers and job markets exist, as in MD and NoVA, there could be some flow of businesses to the path of least resistance. That's why this issue is important on a national level. One of the reasons there is so much housing development in Harford Co. and York Co., PA is a result of Baltimore Co. strict urban zoning. But the aforementioned juristitions are within commuting distance so the "sprawl" problem just leapfroged over Balto. Co. (Though northern Balto. Co. is still the better for it!)

Nate

Interesting, Nate. It's clear that we need a dedicated source of transit funding and I wouldn't be surprised if people came out strongly to support a tax increase of some sort if it were put to a referendum. I wish our gov't would end the honeymoon, get down to business, and balance the budget, but it doesn't seem like it's happening this year, so hopefully we'll hear about funding for transportation next year. I'd be afraid something like this might push sprawl out of state into PA, DE, WV, and VA, though I suppose the goal is to level the playing field between city and suburbs (or even inner suburbs and exurbs) and promote growing in and up instead of out, which of course is good. I'd say it's better to grow steadily and smart than fast and stupid. Something like this on a national or regional level could be very effective and great for cities and older communities. It would be a wonderful day if the federal government started promoting smart growth.

Interesting, Nate. It's clear that we need a dedicated source of transit funding and I wouldn't be surprised if people came out strongly to support a tax increase of some sort if it were put to a referendum. I wish our gov't would end the honeymoon, get down to business, and balance the budget, but it doesn't seem like it's happening this year, so hopefully we'll hear about funding for transportation next year. I'd be afraid something like this might push sprawl out of state into PA, DE, WV, and VA, though I suppose the goal is to level the playing field between city and suburbs (or even inner suburbs and exurbs) and promote growing in and up instead of out, which of course is good. I'd say it's better to grow steadily and smart than fast and stupid. Something like this on a national or regional level could be very effective and great for cities and older communities. It would be a wonderful day if the federal government started promoting smart growth.

It would be a wonderful Day if the Maryland haters would stop trying to push Business/Economic/Revenue Growth away from Maryland in the name of Supporting/Promoting more Business/Economic/Revenue Growth in Virginia.

The General Assembly's Transit Funding Steering Committee released their report today.
I have to say it talks more than it says, and rehashes issues brought forth at the beginning hearings.

BUT, it did mention the tax on surface parking as a possible revenue avenue. :D

Nate

For those interested, contact me if you want like an electronic copy of the report. I don't know if it's available online yet. It's about 66 pages.

The General Assembly's Transit Funding Steering Committee released their report today.
I have to say it talks more than it says, and rehashes issues brought forth at the beginning hearings.

BUT, it did mention the tax on surface parking as a possible revenue avenue. :D

Nate

For those interested, contact me if you want like an electronic copy of the report. I don't know if it's available online yet. It's about 66 pages.

Possible Revenue Avenue??????????????????

They must be talking about keeping the money for themselves and the people who work as their secretaries.

....you can almost 'feel' it coming...... :runaway: