A Dissent with Donald Shoup on Curb Parking Use
By Paul C. Box
As a longstanding and vocal pro- ponent of mandatory off-street parking supply and discour-
agement of curb parking, I have suppressed my strong disagree- ment with Donald Shoup, UCLAProfessor of Urban Plan- ning, until reading his “Free Parking or Free Markets” arti- cle [Footnote 1] in the Spring 2011 issue of Access maga- zine, a publication of the Uni- versity of California Trans- portation Center (UCTC). While l share his distaste
for excessive zoning require- ments, Shoup apparently fails to appreciate the public preference for convenient “next-to-store” retail parking, an adequate office and industrial site parking supply, and min- imum residential street curb parking con- gestion. Also, why no consideration in his article of the problems produced by curb parking (congestion and accidents)? First is the issue of over-supply. I have done about 700 traffic
Parking Street On
impact/site development projects in some 25 states. In only a few cases have local agencies demanded an excessive parking supply. The only one that readily comes to mind was an Iowa city asking for 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet for a community-size shopping center – more than twice the actual need. Certainly Shoup and I can agree that something like this hin-
ders development; adds costs to the public (since the developer is going to recoup his outlay); wastes natural resources; and increas- es water runoff and utility consumption (lighting). The Institute of Transporta-
tion Engineers has developed extensive data on appropriate parking supply for various land uses [Footnote 2], a good part of which I have supplied. Next is the “convenience”
factor. It is true that customers and workers will readily accept a curb space directly in front of a store or office, but rather than seek a curb space a block or so away, they willingly will take one in an adjacent parking lot or (more reluctantly) a garage. At the grocery store, for example, the lot with its shopping
cart accessibility is clearly preferable to the curb. If street spaces are metered or time-regulated (as they generally should be), the off-street space is superior. Finally, the “free” lot provided by the site owner, while ulti-
16
Shoup apparently fails to appreciate the public preference for convenient “next-to-store” retail parking.
mately paid for by the customer, is preferable to the parking meter, as is a commercial parking lot in a busi- ness district.
The Case Against Curb Parking The available rights-of-
way for streets in our cities is limited. Expansion is usual- ly prohibitively expensive. To use precious available space for storage of vehicles, instead of movement of vehi- cles and pedestrians, is a wasteful and inefficient use of public resources. Parking at the curb typically
removes a traffic lane or narrows a sidewalk, or both. By causing unnec-
essary congestion and vehicular delay [Footnotes 3, 4], it increases pollution and
fuel use. Another significant adverse effect of curb parking
is accidents – not only parked cars being hit, and sideswipes and rear-end collisions caused by lane changes to avoid a parked vehicle or street-side door opening, but also right-angle types due to sight obstructions blocking the view of drivers exiting from driveways and side streets. In one year, the city of Chicago reported one-third of all sur-
face street accidents were curb parking related. In Skokie, IL, a five-year study based on professional review of more than 12,000 accident reports found 18% traceable to curb parking [Footnote 5]. While Skokie had inherited a “tradition” of curb rather than off-street parking supply, in the 1950s and 1960s, an enlight- ened municipal government began pressuring all commer- cial and new residential devel- opment to provide adequate off-street parking. While data from numer-
ous other reports [Footnotes 6, 7, 8] could be cited, my remarks to then-Rep. Charles
Farnsley, D-KY, as published in the Congressional Record back in 1966 [Footnote 9], that curb parking is a “disease” still remain ger- mane.
My remarks to Farnsley 45 years ago included “10 Princi-
ples” that I stand by today: • 1: The function of a major traffic route is to provide for safe and efficient movement, plus access to abutting property.
Continued on Page 18 Parking Today
www.parkingtoday.com
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