As stated previously, I can’t take climate change seriously as long as people keep putting forward their wacko ideas that they had long before climate was an issue as “the solution.” The latest example is a claim that ending minimum parking requirements is “one solution to fight climate change.” I think the proponents of this idea are just totally confused.
The article credits Donald Shoup with the idea that eliminating minimum parking requirements “could pave the way for cities to build denser housing, increase public transit options, and reduce their carbon emissions.” Shoup is a decent researcher, but he has made parking the focus of his work since 1975, long before almost anyone was talking about global warming. It is one thing to note that minimum parking requirements might not be necessary. It is another to claim that eliminating them will do all the things listed above.
Ironically, this article comes from Texas, which doesn’t allow counties to impose minimum parking requirements or any other kind of zoning. Yet anyone driving through developments outside of Texas city limits will find plenty of parking available. Retailers, office managers, apartment owners, and others know that parking is necessary to attract customers and quality employees.
Beyond that, denser housing and public transit options have almost nothing to do with either parking or climate change. I don’t see any clear mechanism whereby abolishing market minimums would lead to denser housing or more transit. Even if there was one, transit in general, and Texas transit agencies in particular, emit more greenhouse gases per passenger-mile than driving a car. Denser housing means more traffic congestion which means more greenhouse gas emissions.
Shoup’s research found that people are more likely to drive alone to work if they have free parking when they get there. That may be true, but the effects are small and are partly self-selecting: people who want to drive to work will be more likely to accept a job if their employer offers free parking. Even if the effects were large, that doesn’t automatically mean there will be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, especially if less parking means some people drive around and around looking for a parking place.
While I have no particular objections to eliminating minimum parking requirements, this almost never happens. Instead, what city planners do is replace minimum parking requirements with maximum parking limits. The idea is that, if they punish people enough for driving, then maybe some of them will stop.
The fundamental problem is that there are no great alternatives to driving, which is the fastest, most convenient way to travel in urban areas and one that is far less expensive than transit. (Bicycling is less expensive but is neither fast nor convenient.) Rather than make transit better or more competitive, these climate wackos want to make driving slower or more costly. That has never worked and it isn’t going to work now.
People who are truly serious about climate change should find ways that reduce greenhouse gas emissions while allowing people to continue to live their lives as productively and enjoyably as possible, for example by reducing the impacts of the driving we do. When I start hearing about solutions like that, then I will take climate change issues seriously.
It’s COLDER now than previous warm events Minoan, Roman & Medieval warm period were ALL warmer than today. Archaeology, spitting in face so called climate “Science”. Vikings in Greenland, Inuits farming, Medieval Britain growing Grapes
Urbanism is bullschit historical revisionism, that we just bulldozed buildings for parking. when Reality of the matter is they were demolished because no one wanted to live in them anymore, as they were leaving the city in droves.
If we leave it’s “White Flight”
If we come back “Gentrification”
Never happy…. make your minds up. Or admit you can’t run schit in their absense.
When Steve Jobs drafted his proposed plans for his new Campus Headquarters, the “Ring”
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Aerial_view_of_Apple_Park_dllu.jpg/800px-Aerial_view_of_Apple_Park_dllu.jpg
in, Cupertino debated and had demanded parking, he wanted an orchard. So he moved it out of taxable range of city limits. Of course when he died Apple
built parking garages. Cuz after all; with No transit, bus, or biking how else accommodate 14,000 daily employees.
https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/files/styles/public_square_feature_image/public/apple-park-parking.jpg?itok=yCmkThG_
Problem with Parking minimums is they favor larger businesses.
If a small business has wants set up shop, it has to buy land for adjacent utilization. But a parking minimum means they need 2-3x the land just to have 2000 sq feet of retail/services.
Real solution, is simple.
Deduct small business from the mandates.
And reduce overall mandate in Half.
Any one who memes, Black friday images, in face of new competitive retail, most go unused even on busiest shopping day……………
The diminutive size of a bicycle is not a testament to its efficiency. But proportionate to its lack of utility. The contemporary geared bicycle was invented in 1885. But didn’t usurp transportation supremacy from the automobiles predecessor, the horse/buggy
@antiplanner,
Don’t get tricked when they conflate “free parking” and “parking minimums.” Eliminating parking minimums would do nothing to eliminate free parking.
Shoup’s work, at the end of the day, is largely built on the the notion that government can get pricing right. I’m all for parking reforms but we shouldn’t be so naive as to assume government will ever get price right.
To be fair, he seems to have some ideas of mechanisms that could help mitigate some or most of that.
And nothing’s ever perfect. Or to say another way, there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
As for parking minimums, they exist in large part to prevent externalities. I walk past this problem in my neighborhood all the time. A couple handfuls of small business have been allowed to set up without parking. Their customers are constantly parking in neighboring businesses property. When they’re not doing that, they’re parking in the bike lane.
That i
”
Ironically, this article comes from Texas, which doesn’t allow counties to impose minimum parking requirements or any other kind of zoning.
” ~anti-planner
I’m not sure what’s you’re getting at here. As we can see in the case of Azael Seuplveda, cities can. And like in some other states, in Texas cities can and do have some authority beyond their boundaries. I would be cautious to make sure you’re looking at a Walmart or other big box development that while they’re in an unincorporated part of the county, some of a nearby city’s rules may be in play.
Climate change doesn’t care if you take it seriously. They just are. The very title of your publication shows that you don’t understand the issue. The reform of parking lots is only one of a thousand necessary steps.
Ironically, “”eliminating minimum parking requirements “could pave the way for cities to build denser housing, increase public transit options, and reduce their carbon emissions.”” leads to hotter urban heat islands which is the only place temps are increasing overall. Reducing parking requirements is a developer grab. It was never about positive movement in urban planning.
On my very first day of work as an intern in a big city planning department, I heard a Councilmember propose a scheme that would have made traffic downtown much worse. His reasoning was that if it was hard to get out of downtown, people would go out to dinner and drink after work. I later found out he owned a bar downtown. I’m now retired over 45 years later and I’ve heard versions of the “let’s make it so hard to drive people will use transit and live downtown” reasoning more times than I can count. I guess I shouldn’t be astonished at the need for some people to control other’s lives but I always am.