America Has Too Much Parking(wsj.com)
wsj.com
America Has Too Much Parking
https://www.wsj.com/articles/parking-problem-too-much-cities-e94dcecf
52 comments
Meanwhile NYC's tree-planting program plants trees in the narrow sidewalk because nobody is willing to give up even a single parking space in a city where the majority of people (55%) don't own cars.
Oh man, which city? I’m moving back to Aus after almost 20 years away. Any place putting cars last would be top of my list.
All for it, and best of luck, but from decades Living in Melbs I reckon they will struggle to pull that off. Recent shitstorm around bike lane expansion is instructive imo. Those business lobby cats are like something out of Nosferatu.
I was talking about Adelaide although I don’t recommend it. The CBD is improving a lot in this regard but the wider state is still full speed ahead on cars.
I’ve recently moved to Melbourne and found public transport to be massively better. I just don’t have a point of comparison to what it used to be like, like I have for Adelaide.
I’ve recently moved to Melbourne and found public transport to be massively better. I just don’t have a point of comparison to what it used to be like, like I have for Adelaide.
Oh nice, yeah Melbs CBD has always been that way - or at least since the early 90s, which is as far back as my memory of it goes. We spent most of our adolescence in a comparatively car-free utopia and didn’t even appreciate it.
There’s a lot more that could be done, of course - in particular, expanded car-free zones in the ex-CBD inner-city suburbs. Go from the CBD down Punt or Sydney Rd, for example, and the sudden change in air quality is pretty telling. Don’t reckon anything on that score will improve within our lifetimes though.
There’s a lot more that could be done, of course - in particular, expanded car-free zones in the ex-CBD inner-city suburbs. Go from the CBD down Punt or Sydney Rd, for example, and the sudden change in air quality is pretty telling. Don’t reckon anything on that score will improve within our lifetimes though.
Thing is though, when done well, plentiful parking is a resource best over-supplied.
Garages that have 20% empty spaces pretty much all the time ,give me the confidence to rely on them. I plan around it being available (and am happy to pay for it). By contrast if it's full 20% of the time then that feeds me with doubt.
I say "done well" because in many cases it's using basement floors and other hidden spaces. Sure the building costs more, but that value is returned in parking fees, and also the improved "dependabilty" of the building.
Of course the sprawling open land approach is terrible, lacks imagination, is ugly, impractical in bad weather, and likely what you thought of reading the headline. So on that I agree.
Parking, like any architectural feature can be done well, or badly.
Garages that have 20% empty spaces pretty much all the time ,give me the confidence to rely on them. I plan around it being available (and am happy to pay for it). By contrast if it's full 20% of the time then that feeds me with doubt.
I say "done well" because in many cases it's using basement floors and other hidden spaces. Sure the building costs more, but that value is returned in parking fees, and also the improved "dependabilty" of the building.
Of course the sprawling open land approach is terrible, lacks imagination, is ugly, impractical in bad weather, and likely what you thought of reading the headline. So on that I agree.
Parking, like any architectural feature can be done well, or badly.
> Garages that have 20% empty spaces pretty much all the time ,give me the confidence to rely on them. I plan around it being available (and am happy to pay for it). By contrast if it's full 20% of the time then that feeds me with doubt.
My impression the that people who complain about "too much parking," actually don't want to you have the "confidence to rely on" parking being available. They want to "feed you with doubt" until you get rid of your car.
My impression the that people who complain about "too much parking," actually don't want to you have the "confidence to rely on" parking being available. They want to "feed you with doubt" until you get rid of your car.
>> They want to "feed you with doubt" until you get rid of your car.
I guess if I lived in NY or London I might get rid of the car. But to be honest that's never entered my head here. I need the car to get to work. And yeah, there's parking there. But if there was no parking there, I'd still need car for everything else.
I get the point, there are cities where you can work,play, shop, school, all on public transport. Where ironically the streets are full of cars all the time. But alas, I don't live in one of those cities.
I guess if I lived in NY or London I might get rid of the car. But to be honest that's never entered my head here. I need the car to get to work. And yeah, there's parking there. But if there was no parking there, I'd still need car for everything else.
I get the point, there are cities where you can work,play, shop, school, all on public transport. Where ironically the streets are full of cars all the time. But alas, I don't live in one of those cities.
You can love your car all you want, but you really shouldn't look at cities with good transit and call it "ironic" that they still have cars. Of course they still have cars: the fact that so many take transit makes traveling by car a better experience than without. If you saw the same city with everyone taking cars it'd be absolutely miserable.
> I guess if I lived in NY or London I might get rid of the car. But to be honest that's never entered my head here. I need the car to get to work. And yeah, there's parking there. But if there was no parking there, I'd still need car for everything else.
Those types seem to want you to endure whatever hardship is necessary to use public transit and/or a bike for everything, or at least loudly head disdain on the suburbs wish you could join them in some car-less urbanist paradise. They're not really interested in you maintaining whatever lifestyle you have that requires a car, because they disdain cars and the lifestyles that need them.
Those types seem to want you to endure whatever hardship is necessary to use public transit and/or a bike for everything, or at least loudly head disdain on the suburbs wish you could join them in some car-less urbanist paradise. They're not really interested in you maintaining whatever lifestyle you have that requires a car, because they disdain cars and the lifestyles that need them.
> They're not really interested in you maintaining whatever lifestyle you have that requires a car, because they disdain cars and the lifestyles that need them.
Pretty close to correct! I can entertain a lot of nuance about the current necessity of car use given the century or so we've spent prioritizing it above all other forms of transportation. But I have no respect for a vision of the future that seeks to maintain car dominance, or the will to a lifestyle that depends on a frankly suicidal dependence on fossil fuels in the face of climate change.
Pretty close to correct! I can entertain a lot of nuance about the current necessity of car use given the century or so we've spent prioritizing it above all other forms of transportation. But I have no respect for a vision of the future that seeks to maintain car dominance, or the will to a lifestyle that depends on a frankly suicidal dependence on fossil fuels in the face of climate change.
Or... maybe it's not about you! Maybe it's about the fact that people in the US and Canada who do want a suburban lifestyle already have a continent full of car-centric developments to choose from, whereas people who would prefer a "car-less urban paradise", if they could find one, generally can't get it; they have to settle for something they are less happy with, because 20th century urban planning re-engineered almost all cities around the automobile.
> Or... maybe it's not about you! Maybe it's about the fact that people in the US and Canada who do want a suburban lifestyle already have a continent full of car-centric developments to choose from, whereas people who would prefer a "car-less urban paradise", if they could find one
Sorry, not really. If they limited themselves to advocating for areas designed so car ownership wasn't so necessary in accordance with local preferences, and were willing to let others live-and-let-live, that would be fine. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case. Those ideas are frequently coupled with dripping disdain for suburbs and anyone who prefers that lifestyle, and/or an attitude that views personal car ownership as some kind of moral affront that in time must snuffed out, etc.
Sorry, not really. If they limited themselves to advocating for areas designed so car ownership wasn't so necessary in accordance with local preferences, and were willing to let others live-and-let-live, that would be fine. Unfortunately, that's rarely the case. Those ideas are frequently coupled with dripping disdain for suburbs and anyone who prefers that lifestyle, and/or an attitude that views personal car ownership as some kind of moral affront that in time must snuffed out, etc.
> they disdain cars and the lifestyles that need them.
No, I disdain city planning and architecture that requires nearly everyone to have one.
No, I disdain city planning and architecture that requires nearly everyone to have one.
Right. And these types could be called "cyclo-talibans" as they want to impose their will upon unconsenting car owners.
> I get the point, there are cities where you can work,play, shop, school, all on public transport.
Do any of those cities exist in the US (except for NY)?
Do any of those cities exist in the US (except for NY)?
Washington, kind of. I rarely drive to work. I see kids going to school on public transport all the time. I don't exactly play: I run, and needn't drive to good running areas; but there are public tennis courts, a public swimming pool, and athletic fields in easy walking distance.
Shopping is tricky. In theory, we could manage our shopping with walking or transport, in practice it's a lot easier to drive.
Shopping is tricky. In theory, we could manage our shopping with walking or transport, in practice it's a lot easier to drive.
Chicago
Parking garages are the least bad offenders for excess parking. The issue is how much good land is used for single-story parking lots.
The article should really be named “America has too much free parking”.
Because the way it is right now, is that the only way things work is to build everything where land is cheap enough for free surface parking to make sense, the costs of building an underground/multistory garage are not insignificant. There ends up being an inevitable feedback loop wherein all other modes of transportation aren’t practical and everyone is forced into a car whether they want to be or not.
Because the way it is right now, is that the only way things work is to build everything where land is cheap enough for free surface parking to make sense, the costs of building an underground/multistory garage are not insignificant. There ends up being an inevitable feedback loop wherein all other modes of transportation aren’t practical and everyone is forced into a car whether they want to be or not.
Or reduce the cost of building parking garages. Parking is a necessary evil to businesses and developers. Someone seeking to develop land into a strip mall or big box store or rental apartments doesn't want to buy and pay tax on ten acres of land, pay to have it street swept every fall and spring, plowed every winter, seal-coated every 5yr, repainted every 10 and re-paved every 20-30.
Parking garages are pre-engineered kit-buildings (like steel warehouses). The fact that you have to grease all the usual state palms, go through the stupid approval processes, etc, etc as if you're developing a standalone dedicated facility to put them up whereas a parking lot is basically a footnote on whatever you're already trying to develop is why you rarely see them.
Parking garages are pre-engineered kit-buildings (like steel warehouses). The fact that you have to grease all the usual state palms, go through the stupid approval processes, etc, etc as if you're developing a standalone dedicated facility to put them up whereas a parking lot is basically a footnote on whatever you're already trying to develop is why you rarely see them.
Have sources such as this ever once in their history published a good faith article from someone who doesn't share this opinion? As in, publishing the arguments both for and against this issue? Or are they 100% one-sided? Are they even pretending to educate the viewer on such issues? At this point when I see such ridiculously one-sided reporting, to the point where it's basically pure propaganda, I just assume a default opinion of the opposite of what they're promoting. If their ideas were good/correct/right they wouldn't need constant propaganda campaigns to convince people of it.
Laughs in San Francisco
SF, NY, Chicago are not at all representative of 99% of America when it comes to parking. Even in these cities, the second you go 30km out to actual suburbs parking is ample and overwrought.
That being said it’s not really a groundbreaking or even particularly interesting thing to point out that America has a cultural problem with favoring cars, and that too much parking is a simple consequence of that.
That being said it’s not really a groundbreaking or even particularly interesting thing to point out that America has a cultural problem with favoring cars, and that too much parking is a simple consequence of that.
Yeah, it's not even like parking is the cause of the extra spacing, only the effect. In any city where space is extra valuable, this free parking "problem" quickly goes away.
99% of what?
It's nearly 4% of the US population (2021).
It's nearly 4% of the US population (2021).
Land area, since we are talking about things that take up space (parking) and have to take into account that most people in these cities don’t own cars because of adequate (not great) public transportation.
It’s more interesting to have this conversation about a city like Dallas or Houston or St Louis or Tulsa, all of whom have absolutely kowtowed to car culture to create negative externalities like what this article is going on about and for which public transportation probably could not easily be described as “adequate” in comparison to the aforementioned cities of NY, SF, Chicago.
It’s more interesting to have this conversation about a city like Dallas or Houston or St Louis or Tulsa, all of whom have absolutely kowtowed to car culture to create negative externalities like what this article is going on about and for which public transportation probably could not easily be described as “adequate” in comparison to the aforementioned cities of NY, SF, Chicago.
Almost 10% if you include the metro areas. SF, NY, and Chicago account for a significant portion of how Americans experience the world.
Yet having a car isn't a problem. America is really big and things you need to do or places you need to go are rarely just down the block. The country is bigger than any one city, and self-transportation is fundamentally essential for our economy.
The size of America isn't relevant. People aren't driving across five states to get to work or buy groceries.
People used to be able to just go down the block here. That's been made illegal many places by zoning.
People used to be able to just go down the block here. That's been made illegal many places by zoning.
According to the census, 80.7% of americans live in urban areas. We really should be creating spaces where people don't have to have a car to do the basic necessities. When talking about car dependence, it's about creating viable options that are more sustainable and more equitable for getting where you need to go. Kids, elderly, disabled people all have issues driving and if we create a way for them to get around without a car, it makes the city a better place.
The issue isn't cars specifically. The issue is our built environment requires cars. Maybe more things should just be down the block.
The issue isn't cars specifically. The issue is our built environment requires cars. Maybe more things should just be down the block.
> America is really big and things you need to do or places you need to go are rarely just down the block
The continental United States has about 3.5 million square miles of land. By comparison China has about 3.7 million square miles. Roughly the same, give or take a few. Observe the number of public passenger rail lines that China has and the timeframe in which they were built them.
The idea that America is just too geographically big for public rail or any kind of public transportation system and we must be beholden to the car is categorically false.
The continental United States has about 3.5 million square miles of land. By comparison China has about 3.7 million square miles. Roughly the same, give or take a few. Observe the number of public passenger rail lines that China has and the timeframe in which they were built them.
The idea that America is just too geographically big for public rail or any kind of public transportation system and we must be beholden to the car is categorically false.
SF has loads of parking. The only place I really worry about is the Mission. Everywhere else parking is abundant.
> Many municipalities imposed detailed parking requirements for every type of land use. In Los Angeles, for instance, churches must include one spot for every five seats in the pews. Hospitals must have two per bed.
Zoning requirements are why so many businesses are "a box in a parking lot". When you see a sign in a restaurant that says "Maximum Occupancy X" - that occupancy limit is set by how many parking spaces they have.
"Vertical zoning" is the term used to describe zoning that changes based on height. In "older" cities, you can see photos where the ground floor is a store and the upper floors could be residences. That was killed off in the 50s.
Denver came up with an urban zoning called "Main Street" (now called "C-MS" & "E-MS") which is intended to be pedestrian-friendly [0]. The main page for the zoning code is [1].
0 - https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/public/community-plan...
1 - https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Of...
Zoning requirements are why so many businesses are "a box in a parking lot". When you see a sign in a restaurant that says "Maximum Occupancy X" - that occupancy limit is set by how many parking spaces they have.
"Vertical zoning" is the term used to describe zoning that changes based on height. In "older" cities, you can see photos where the ground floor is a store and the upper floors could be residences. That was killed off in the 50s.
Denver came up with an urban zoning called "Main Street" (now called "C-MS" & "E-MS") which is intended to be pedestrian-friendly [0]. The main page for the zoning code is [1].
0 - https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/public/community-plan...
1 - https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Of...
> Zoning requirements are why so many businesses are "a box in a parking lot". When you see a sign in a restaurant that says "Maximum Occupancy X" - that occupancy limit is set by how many parking spaces they have.
That's completely and totally wrong. Maximum Occupancy is set by fire codes, based on how many exists there are and how quickly people can evacuate in case of fire.
https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/08/maximum-occ...
That's completely and totally wrong. Maximum Occupancy is set by fire codes, based on how many exists there are and how quickly people can evacuate in case of fire.
https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/08/maximum-occ...
It’s probably been one of the most successful lobbies, is it not? Destroying any budget that could have been used on public transport.
I love me some empty parking lots for motogymkana
no kidding.
You may as well say that my house has too much space because there's currently no-one in the front room.
I could reduce my CO2 emissions by not having a front room and using shared front rooms like pubs or the library.
I'm not going to, though.
I could reduce my CO2 emissions by not having a front room and using shared front rooms like pubs or the library.
I'm not going to, though.
Im glad WSJ is telling us how to live our lives. Whatever would we do without their hand holding.
We'd do the same regardless of their "hand holding." They just happen to be right on this one.
>They just happen to be right on this one.
"When know what we're doing, this is is the way of the future, it's how we will implement our utopia" is what everyone said back in the 50s-70s when they were cooking up single family zoning, parking minimums and all that crap.
I'm very bearish on the idea that doing the same exact kind of micromanagement of property development but with a different set of values will generate results that of substantially different net value to society over all.
"When know what we're doing, this is is the way of the future, it's how we will implement our utopia" is what everyone said back in the 50s-70s when they were cooking up single family zoning, parking minimums and all that crap.
I'm very bearish on the idea that doing the same exact kind of micromanagement of property development but with a different set of values will generate results that of substantially different net value to society over all.
We? I don't remember choosing to build parking lots.
Wait a minute... You're trying to tell me how to live my life!
Wait a minute... You're trying to tell me how to live my life!
You are free to build your own parking lot, or not. My point is people want to drive to work, run errands, and conduct business. So-called journalists like to play nanny with other people's lives and livelihoods. It is grotesque.
It is the same problem that presents with pushing everyone to electric vehicles, electric cooking, and electric heat. We can barely meet the demand now. Add 140,000,000 more electric vehicles and millions of homes and you crash the whole grid.
NYC has 4.4MM cars moving through it each day. If only a fraction of them were forced to take the MTA or LIRR on top of existing ridership, then everything grinds to a halt.
It is the same problem that presents with pushing everyone to electric vehicles, electric cooking, and electric heat. We can barely meet the demand now. Add 140,000,000 more electric vehicles and millions of homes and you crash the whole grid.
NYC has 4.4MM cars moving through it each day. If only a fraction of them were forced to take the MTA or LIRR on top of existing ridership, then everything grinds to a halt.
> My point is people want to drive to work, run errands, and conduct business
Driving is not a precursor to running errands and conducting business (unless your business is dealing with cars) in any established nation with a robust public transportation network. I have heard the argument that cars are necessary mainly from people who have lived their entire life driving from place to place and cannot fathom using public transit. Either because it is woefully underfunded in their area or it has the perceived notion of only being for the poor folk who cannot afford a vehicle.
> It is the same problem that presents with pushing everyone to electric vehicles, electric cooking, and electric heat. We can barely meet the demand now ... NYC has 4.4MM cars moving through it each day.
This is a strange argument. It doesn't take a genius intellect to see that the energy cost to move a person per unit distance travelled is far greater driving solo than it would be taking a tram, bus, or even cycling.
As a plus, we wouldn't need to use so much space for parking these vehicles and we could use the land for other projects that 1. generate more tax revenue and 2. serve a more useful purpose for the general public; i.e. shops, living quarters, third places[1], etc.
All in all, it would be nice to have the ability to go some place without needing the car. The removal of parking lots and reclaiming that space is the cherry on top. You can thank early automotive lobbyists for shaping the current state of affairs[2][3][4][5]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place
[2] https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562007/streetcar-history-demis...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/25/story-cities-...
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-31/why-is-am...
[5] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-ever-happened-to-pub_b_6...
Driving is not a precursor to running errands and conducting business (unless your business is dealing with cars) in any established nation with a robust public transportation network. I have heard the argument that cars are necessary mainly from people who have lived their entire life driving from place to place and cannot fathom using public transit. Either because it is woefully underfunded in their area or it has the perceived notion of only being for the poor folk who cannot afford a vehicle.
> It is the same problem that presents with pushing everyone to electric vehicles, electric cooking, and electric heat. We can barely meet the demand now ... NYC has 4.4MM cars moving through it each day.
This is a strange argument. It doesn't take a genius intellect to see that the energy cost to move a person per unit distance travelled is far greater driving solo than it would be taking a tram, bus, or even cycling.
As a plus, we wouldn't need to use so much space for parking these vehicles and we could use the land for other projects that 1. generate more tax revenue and 2. serve a more useful purpose for the general public; i.e. shops, living quarters, third places[1], etc.
All in all, it would be nice to have the ability to go some place without needing the car. The removal of parking lots and reclaiming that space is the cherry on top. You can thank early automotive lobbyists for shaping the current state of affairs[2][3][4][5]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place
[2] https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562007/streetcar-history-demis...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/25/story-cities-...
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-08-31/why-is-am...
[5] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-ever-happened-to-pub_b_6...
The Vox headlines are like "why everyone should care about X" and "what you need to know." Recent news on oil price change says "You should care but not worry about what’s happening with oil."
My city in Australia has been removing street side parking to replace it with trees and dining spaces. It’s beautiful.