News   Apr 16, 2026
 655     2 
News   Apr 16, 2026
 409     0 
News   Apr 16, 2026
 550     0 

Cities rethink wisdom of 50s-era parking standards

wyliepoon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
3
Yahoo News

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080920/ap_on_re_us/less_parking

Cities rethink wisdom of 50s-era parking standards



By SARAH KARUSH, Associated Press Writer Sarah Karush, Associated Press Writer – Sat Sep 20, 2:48 pm ET


WASHINGTON – Alice and Jeff Speck didn't have a car and didn't want one. But District of Columbia zoning regulations required them to carve out a place to park one at the house they were building.

It would have eaten up precious space on their odd-shaped lot and marred the aesthetics of their neighborhood, dominated by historic row houses. The Specks succeeded in getting a waiver, even though it took nine months.

Like nearly all U.S. cities, D.C. has requirements for off-street parking. Whenever anything new is built — be it a single-family home, an apartment building, a store or a doctor's office — a minimum number of parking spaces must be included. The spots at the curb don't count: These must be in a garage, a surface lot or a driveway.

D.C. is now considering scrapping those requirements — part of a growing national trend. Officials hope that offering the freedom to forgo parking will lead to denser, more walkable, transit-friendly development.

Opponents say making parking more scarce will only make the city less hospitable. Commuters like Randy Michael of Catharpin, Va., complain they are already forced to circle for hours in some neighborhoods.

"Today I had an 11:30 meeting and I had to plan an extra hour just to park" said Michael, 49. It ended up taking him 40 minutes to find a metered spot.

Advocates counter that parking is about more than drivers' convenience; it can profoundly affect the look and feel of a city.

"Do you want to look like San Francisco or Los Angeles?" asked Donald Shoup, an urban planning professor at UCLA and author of "The High Cost of Free Parking." "New York or Phoenix?" (Shoup prefers San Francisco and New York — hard to park in but highly walkable.)

Parking requirements — known to planners as "parking minimums" — have been around since the 1950s. The theory is that if buildings don't provide their own parking, too many drivers will try to park on neighborhood streets.

In practice, critics say, the requirements create an excess supply of parking, making it artificially cheap. That, the argument goes, encourages unnecessary driving and makes congestion worse. The standards also encourage people to build unsightly surface lots and garages instead of inviting storefronts and residential facades, they say. Walkers must dodge cars pulling in and out of driveways, and curb cuts eat up space that could otherwise be used for trees.

"Half the great buildings in America's great cities would not be legal to build today under current land use codes," said Jeff Speck, a planning consultant. "Every house on my block is illegal by current standards, particularly parking standards."

Opponents also say the standards force developers to devote valuable land to parking, making housing more expensive.

Milwaukee, one of a small group of cities that has eased minimum parking requirements, did so because they were impeding redevelopment of struggling neighborhoods, said John Norquist, the city's mayor from 1988 to 2004.

Norquist, who today heads the Chicago-based Congress for the New Urbanism, described a lot that sat vacant for decades after a historic building burned down. The required parking made it unfeasible to build anything new there, he said. After officials relaxed the parking requirement, a thriving restaurant sprang up.

Some cities have switched directions altogether, replacing the minimum requirement with a cap on the maximum allowable number of parking spaces. London and San Francisco began making the shift decades ago. San Francisco is currently considering extending the new approach to more neighborhoods.

Activists say too much parking is required even in New York City, particularly outside Manhattan. In August, a coalition of environmental groups said existing parking minimums would boost traffic and cancel out much of the expected improvements from the city's green initiatives.

The D.C. proposal would eliminate minimum parking requirements with some exceptions. Caps on parking would also be established.

In old D.C. neighborhoods like Capitol Hill and Georgetown, where parking is scarce, opponents of the change fear that if new homes don't provide off-street spots, competition for on-street parking will worsen.

Ken Jarboe, a neighborhood leader from Capitol Hill, said the way to reduce traffic is to continue improving the transit system and to create incentives for people not to drive.

"Simply saying, 'Let's make it more painful to park — it doesn't get you where you want to be," Jarboe said.

But Harriet Tregoning, director of the D.C. Planning Department, said the city is already easy to navigate without a car. Nine out of 10 residents live within a quarter-mile of transit, and, according to census data, 12 percent of Washingtonians walk to work, Tregoning noted. More than a third of D.C. households don't have a car.

The Specks say they haven't regretted their decision to go car-free even after the birth of their son, Milo, in June. They walk to shops and parks in their neighborhood, and the baby's pediatrician is a short bus ride away. When needed, they can rent vehicles from Zipcar, a car-sharing service.

Adding a garage and a driveway to their house would have forced them to sacrifice the equivalent of a bedroom and their garden. They decided it was worth spending the time to get a variance, especially since they were applying for several other zoning waivers at the same time.

For a developer, however, seeking a variance may not be an option.

"If you're working off borrowed money, you're not going to wait nine months," Jeff Speck said.

As a result, developers of some recent D.C. projects have ended up with more parking than actually gets used, Tregoning said.

"We're forcing people to invest in spaces for automobiles rather than in spaces for people," she said. "There's no way to recover that use."

___

On the Net:

D.C. Zoning Update: http://dczoningupdate.org/

Report on New York City parking requirements: http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/reports/suburbanizing_the_city.pdf

Donald Shoup: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/
 
Great article Wyliepoon. Some very encouraging stats there. 12 % of Washingtonians walk to work & 1/3 of all households don't own a car. Things are looking up.:)

Doesn't DC also have some of the highest poverty rates in the USA?
 
Keeping in mind also that DC proper is a high density, urban centre with pretty much every part of it serviced by higher order transit (with the senseless exception of Georgetown). I'm sure the numbers would look very different if you were to look at things in Arlington or Bethesda.
 
Though Arlington or Bethesda aren't exactly the worst models for suburban planning either. By US standards, the transit oriented development around many of the Virginia and Maryland Metro stations is impressive.

The WAMTA Metro is also second in ridership in the US, after the New York subway. A lot of that ridership comes from the suburbs.
 
Overparked

From www.austincontrarian.com article:

6a00d8341d04dc53ef0120a4d7f7bc970b-pi


There are many reasons "too much" parking is bad for a downtown:

1. Parking raises the cost of new development, which means less of it. This may be no big deal for a city with a built-out downtown, but it is a big deal for Austin, which devotes so many downtown blocks to surface parking or stand-alone garages.

2. Parking not only raises the cost of new development, but it limits their size and density. An on-site garage can only be so big to be practical. A developer who wants to provide enough on-site parking to cover peak demand must first figure out how much parking he can build; only then will he know how much he can build of whatever it is he wants to build.

3. Parking garages and surface lots blight the streetscape, triggering a negative feedback loop: the surface lots and garages make streets less attractive to pedestrians, which drives the pedestrians away, which reduces demand for pedesestrian-oriented retail, which makes the streetscape even less attractive for pedestrians, etc.

4. Subsidized parking -- i.e., parking provided below cost -- distorts the market, encouraging an inefficient mix of driving and transit use.

5. Plopping ever more parking dowtown increases congestion. The amount of land devoted to streets is fixed. The amount of parking is not. Increasing the number of parking spots but not the amount of street space means more cars per square meter of street, which in turns means more congestion. (This very interesting paper (pdf) by Michael Manville and Donald Shoup explores this argument in depth.)

6. Parking garages and surface lots are butt-ugly.

There is one and only one counter-argument, but it should be taken seriously: because we are so car-oriented, having too little parking will simply deflect businesses and shops away from downtown. No matter how nice the sidewalks or inviting the buildings, a street is not pedestrian-friendly if it has no pedestrians.

I'm always willing to consider more evidence, but I don't think this argument holds for Austin. There are good reasons to believe Austin's downtown parking market suffers from market failures.

But an even simpler analysis is to compare Austin's dowtown parking supply to other cities'. If other cities get by with less, perhaps Austin could, too.

And there is evidence that other cities are getting by with less. The Manville and Shoup paper includes a very interesting chart (based on a 1999 study), which I've adapted below. It estimates the number of parking spots per job for various cities. It did not include Austin, but I borrowed the Austin data from Wilbur & Associates' 2000 parking study.

Obviously, many of these cities are oranges to Austin's apple. Foreign cities are not reliable benchmarks. Nor are old, dense American cities with extensive rail or subway networks. But there is no obvious reason why Houston, Los Angeles, Denver or Sacramento need less parking per worker. (And since this chart is based on 1999 data, neither Houston nor Denver's light rail accounts for the difference.)

The Wilbur & Associates study provides another comparative analysis. Again, Austin supplies significantly more parking per downtown worker than other cities (excluding San Antonio, which I suspect has such a high ratio because of job losses downtown).

Again, these are 2000 figures. Austin has added thousands of parking spots since then, excluding the many thousands added by the new condo developments.

The new condo dwellers have increased demand for parking downtown. But that demand has been absorbed (and then some) by on-site parking. I'm flummoxed why downtown needed a few thousand more commercial spaces.

I think this is evidence that Austin's downtown parking market is broken. The cause could be lender-required minimums, underpriced curb parking, the inefficient allocation of taxes to capital rather than land, or all of above and others. With the lull in commercial construction, we have a chance to diagnose the problem and develop a cure before the next wave.

6a00d8341d04dc53ef0120a52f1631970c-500wi


Wonder where Mississauga or Markham fits in?
 
Last edited:
North America needs to learn from Europe and start using parking stackers/lifts to increase parking density. It seems like common sense.
 
Compare Central Business District jobs. Toronto's number as a percentage of populations sucks.
 
Compare Central Business District jobs. Toronto's number as a percentage of populations sucks.

That number must refer to only the very centre of the financial district. According to a 2008 city report there are 424,900 people working downtown. That report puts the borders of this area as roughly Bathurst, Dupont, and the Don.

This makes those figures a bit dubious as differing definitions of downtown would skew the numbers.
 
I look at the numbers in the Parking Spaces Per Job column. That tells me that Toronto (at .11) is just about even with London (at .12) for the number of people who use transit to get to work in downtown. New York (at .06) has more people who use transit than either London or Toronto, most likely because Manhattan is an island.

It tells me also that with transit improvements, the number of parking spaces can be reduced. You still need delivery zones, but parking can be low on the wish list for developers.
 
Considering the population and job density and better transit London has surprising amount compared to Toronto.
 
Considering the population and job density and better transit London has surprising amount compared to Toronto.

Depending on the area being measured, London's figure could include hundreds of streets with on-street parking...there's virtually none in Toronto's CBD, but if we changed the designation of our CBD to include all of, say, the former city of Toronto, we'd end up with half a million or whatever number of jobs but the number of parking spots would go up ten times as much, or more.
 
I look at the numbers in the Parking Spaces Per Job column. That tells me that Toronto (at .11) is just about even with London (at .12) for the number of people who use transit to get to work in downtown. New York (at .06) has more people who use transit than either London or Toronto, most likely because Manhattan is an island.

You can't deduct transit share out of those numbers.

In european cities, more people walk than use mass transit. And this is becoming a trend in downtown Toronto, too. Remember there are more than two travel modes.
 
It tells me also that with transit improvements, the number of parking spaces can be reduced. You still need delivery zones, but parking can be low on the wish list for developers.
I don't think it's wise to actually decrease the existing number of spaces. Population growth and increased density will cause the percentages to go down. As long as transit improvements are made to accommodate this growth, there will be a gradual (and more seamless) shift to more efficient movement of people.

At least by the sorts of numbers being bandied about in this thread.
 

Back
Top