To search for model legislation, research, reports, and more, type your area of interest into the search bar above. You can filter your search by state, level of government, document type, and policy area to match the info you need to your unique community’s progressive goals.
As a federally-funded demonstration, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) purposefully and openly shares information about implementing the SFpark pilot project that other cities might find useful as they consider how to manage parking. This book summarizes the SFpark pilot project and documents lessons learned from project planning, implementation, operation, and evaluation. It was written in late spring 2014 after the pilot and its evaluation report were completed.
The goBerkeley Pilot Program was launched in Downtown Berkeley, the Elmwood, and Southside/Telegraph in July 2013 with 3 overarching goals: to support economic vitality, to reduce congestion and emissions and to assess the feasibility of expanding the program beyond the 2-year pilot period. Council authorized the Pilot Program to test the extent to which a combination of free bus passes for employees, carshare discounts for businesses, and demand-based parking management could achieve these goals. The goBerkeley Pilot Program worked closely with businesses and residents, conducted visitors, resident and employee surveys, and collected transit usage and parking data before and during the pilot period. The program also tested automated parking data collection methods to ascertain the most accurate and cost-effective program design going forward.
In cities that are building protected bike lane networks, cycling is increasing and the risk of injury or death is decreasing. Pairing appropriately-scaled bike share with protected bike lanes increases ridership and is essential to equity and mobility efforts.
SFpark was a federally-funded demonstration of a new approach to managing parking. It used better information, including real-time data where parking is available, and demand-responsive parking pricing to help make parking easier to find.
The purpose of this section is to manage vehicular and bicycle parking in a manner consistent with the regulating plan of this Form Based Code. Incremental infill development will enable applicants and the City to strategically accommodate parking needs while not comprising the urban form desired within downtown Muskegon. This code rethought traditional thinking on minimum parking requirements.
A parking benefity district is an area defined by separate ordinace in which a percentage fo the funds collected from a paid parking space within district is used to fund improvements that promote walking, cycling and public transit use within the district.
Transportation is the linchpin that allows us to function in our daily lives. Whether we move by foot, bicycle, car, bus, skateboard, or wheelchair, we all need to travel to meet everyday needs. We use transportation to buy food, find housing, get to school and work, access recreational opportunities, visit friends and family, and obtain health care and government services - as well as get to literally everything else we do outside our homes. But our society suffers from considerable inequity, and transportation is no exception. Low-income people and people of color in the United States face transportation hurdles that can mean that just accessing basic needs is time consuming, dangerous, and sometimes almost impossible. Instead of travel time allowing people to safely and conveniently get the physical activity they need while accomplishing daily objectives, travel is instead a source of stress that undermines health. Without safe and convenient transportation, low-income families can remain trapped in poverty, unable to access the employment and educational opportunities necessary to succeed. Healthy food, safe playgrounds, high-quality schools, health care, and other services - our transportation system allows some to access these with ease, but creates significant impediments for others.
Diversity created the city. But diversity has never been easy. American urbanism has been a process through which communities-diverse in ideology, in interest, in income, in ethnic background and in racial identification-have negotiated space. Some of this evolution has been brutal. Today\'s cities are, among other things, the result of generations of racism and classism and struggles in the face of those discriminations. As decades and centuries have gone by, racial boundaries in the United States have shifted; discrimination has remained. Transportation has been near the heart of that struggle from the start. From housing choice to bus frequency to freeway routing to sidewalk quality, cities have often failed to equitably distribute the costs and benefits of mobility. Today, U.S. cities are using a new tool to help make bike transportation a mainstream part of urban American life: protected bike lanes. As this investment has taken place, city leaders and community activists have asked us for advice on how to make sure their decisions about this infrastructure don\'t continue the cycle of oppression.
Bicycling is on the rise across the U.S. Adults are capitalizing on the health and economic benefits of active transportation, while an increasing number of young people are forgoing drivers' licenses to save money and embrace more walkable, bikeable lifestyles. The new majority that elected a president - youth, women and people of color - is playing a key role in pedaling the country toward a more Bicycle Friendly America. These diverse communities are embracing bicycling at a high rate, redefining the face and trajectory of the bicycle movement and the way the nation addresses transportation. An increasingly powerful and growing constituency, previously underrepresented groups are cultivating new campaigns and bike cultures that address the needs, serve the safety and improve the health of all residents who ride - or want to ride. These new riders, leaders and organizations are making biking accessible and inviting to all Americans - while making the case for a safer and more equitable transportation system in communities nationwide.
Minimum parking requirements create especially severe problems. In The High Cost of Free Parking, I argued that parking requirements subsidize cars, increase traffic congestion and carbon emissions, pollute the air and water, encourage sprawl, raise housing costs, degrade urban design, reduce walkability, damage the economy, and exclude poor people. To my knowledge, no city planner has argued that parking requirements do not have these harmful effects. Instead, a flood of recent research has shown they do have these effects. We are poisoning our cities with too much parking.