AN OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES


U.S. Parking Policies I


Editor’s note: This is the Executive Summary of “U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies,” published by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Its authors are RachelWeinberger, John Kaehny and Matthew Rufo.


BY RACHELWEINBERGER, JOHN KAEHNY AND MATTHEWRUFO


N THE LAST 5 TO 10 YEARS, U.S. transportation planners have become much more aware of the impact of parking on con- gestion, air quality, economic development and the pedestrian environment. Historical-


ly, the “parking problem” has been identified as the problem of too little supply; increasingly, the prob- lem is now seen as the poor management of existing supply and, in cases where cities have instituted park- ing maximums, the problem is understood to be of too much supply.


There is a growing realization that the dysfunction caused by


poorly conceived parking policies is a major impediment to cre- ating an effective and balanced urban transportation system; it also is a significant cause of traffic and air pollution. Transportation planners seeking to learn from the United


States should take note of how traditional U.S. parking policies have had significant unintended consequences. By and large, these policies have produced excess parking supply. The excess has served to keep the price of parking down—99% of driving trips end in free parking—and consequently reduced the cost of car use. By reducing the cost of driving and by consuming large amounts of space, traditional policies have promoted automobile use and dispersed land uses, thus undermining public transit, walking and bicycling. There is a growing movement to employ parking policies


that encourage balanced transportation systems and reinforce central cities. These newer approaches emphasize measures that manage parking demand through pricing, shared parking and reduced off-street requirements. These “demand management” oriented policies are most often found in dense downtown areas or central business districts served by public transit. In the U.S., decisions about off-street parking and land use


aremade by planning departments within cities, towns and coun- ties.These groups base traditional parking practices on a number of assumptions—themost fundamental ofwhich are the notions that the automobile is always the preferred mode of travel, demand for parking is independent of price, parking should be or will be free, and there is no transit or other travel alternative. Park- ing policy decisions are typically made without reference to the rest of the transportation system. This has lead to cities being designed around parking.


Builders are required to provide minimum amounts of parking with most new developments—a costly requirement. These “minimum parking requirements” have contributed to a cycle of automobile dependence that is especially damaging to city centers. More parking reduces the cost of car use, which leads to more car use and more demand for parking. The walking


26 MAY 2010 • PARKING TODAY • www.parkingtoday.com


environment is undermined, and the distance between destina- tions increases. Ultimately, this leads to lowered densities within cities to a


point where transit becomes inefficient. Street life and public spaces cease to function. This indeed is what we see in suburban office parks, “big box store” developments and dead downtowns. In contrast, some cities are beginning to set parking policies that promote city centers and balanced transportation systems. Curbside parking, on the other hand, is frequently managed


under the jurisdiction of city streets or public works departments, which also have some responsibility for transportation planning. The parking and transportation dysfunction caused by the land use planners setting off-street requirements and public works departmentsmanaging curbside supply can be reduced by having clear planning objectives and one entity setting coordinated poli- cy in both realms.


Basic principles of sustainable parking policy and planning •Minimumparking requirements subsidize driving by shifting


the costs of car use onto development and the nondriving public. • Required parking imposes significant direct and indirect


costs; parkers should bear this cost, not the general public. • Good access is easily impeded by abundant parking. Con-


servative parking requirements allow better accommodation for public transit, walking and bicycling. • Increasing supply lowers prices and stimulates increased


parking demand. • The demand for parking is influenced by price and trav-


el alternatives • The supply and price of curbside and off-street parking


influence each other. While these principles are well understood, they are infre-


quently invoked.Ahandful of cities in theUnited States are using them to develop new policies that support broader sustainability and economic development goals. The parking innovations underway in seven of those cities are profiled in this report.


Off-street parking practice and best practices in the United States The majority of off-street parking is “accessory” to the pri-


mary land use and is regulated by landuse zoning codes written by city planning agencies and commissions. Commercial off- street parking is provided by profit seeking firms, primarily in dense downtowns.Municipal off-street parking is provided by the public sector, typically as a low cost, downtown amenity. By the 1950s, most city planning commissions required a


specified amount of accessory parking as part of most new resi- dential and workplace construction. These “minimum parking


Continued on Page 29


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76