Making parking scarce and expensive is the best way to encourage people to walk, take transit and ride bicycles (Atlanta: 2014, how much)

[jsvh]

Making parking scarce and expensive is the best way to encourage people to walk, take transit and ride bicycles | SaportaReport

As I talk to Atlantans about transit, walkability, and parking – especially parking – I am often confronted with what I have come to call the “Tipping Point Theory of Transit.”

The theory, often summarized with a simple “We’re not there yet”, goes like this:

MARTA is a bare bones system that doesn’t go anywhere, and where it does go, it goes slowly. If we keep building the BeltLine, expanding the Streetcar, and growing MARTA, one day there will come a Tipping Point, when people will begin abandoning their cars for our finally completed system. Until we get there, however, we need to recognize reality and continue to build for cars, especially via parking.

It’s a great theory, and even better politics. We can support transit while pushing the difficult decisions off to the future. Unfortunately, it’s not true. As long as we keep building our city for cars, no matter how much transit or BeltLine we overlay on the city, we will continue to drive for the vast majority of trips.

At some point we will need to choose to make driving more costly. The easiest and most efficient way to do so, with the most benefits, is to dramatically reduce the amount of parking while increasing its cost.

The biggest mistake in the “Tipping Point Theory” is that the key to getting people out of their cars is to make riding transit easier. Easier than what, though? To be appealing to most “choice riders” – those who have access to a car – transit or walking do not need to be easier than they currently are; they need to be easier than driving a car.

...

So what can be done?

Quite simply we need to make parking scarcer and more expensive. To begin with, we need to remove surface parking lots as a permitted use. No, this does not mean we send crews out to be begin depaving existing lots. It simply means no new ones can be constructed and existing lots will be phased out as their lifecycle expires. The prohibition against surface parking lots is not as radical as it sounds; the city’s own Comprehensive Development Plan of 2011 recommends it.

Second, remove minimum parking requirements. It makes no sense to recognize the harmful impacts of parking while at the same time requiring their construction. Remember that the original variance requested for the Jeff Fuqua big box store along the BeltLine was for a reduction in the required minimum number of spaces. That property along our investment for a walkable future had parking requirements higher than what a big box would need is absurd. These minimums also impact the ability of smaller stores that may wish to open in mixed use neighborhoods and developments.

Third, increase the price of business fees for park for hire lots in the city. These fees, lower than $3 a space in most cases, allow institutions to bank land for far lower than the cost to the community of having a sea of parking lots.

...

None of this is to say that automobile use will or should be phased out entirely. Cars will be a fundamental part of our transportation for the foreseeable future. This is not just about raising the price of parking or transferring people from cars to transit. Changing the way we park our cars has additional benefits that are crucial to our becoming a more walkable city.

Parking causes sprawl. The vast amounts of parking required at locations push businesses and other uses further and further apart. Free parking encourages us to drive to the grocery store, and we insist on having ample amounts of parking.

As the amount and size of our parking lots decreases, our businesses can move closer together. A business that couldn’t previously open in a neighborhood as a corner grocery because of required parking minimums could now open to serve walk-up customers.

Parking increases the prices of everything. Donald Shoup’s “The High Cost of Free Parking” is the definitive work on how the cost of parking is transferred to everything we buy from our groceries to our toiletries.

But perhaps most of all, parking dramatically increases the price of housing. The Transit Oriented Development proposed at the King Station will cost approximately $28 million to build. The parking deck will eat up $7.5 million of that. Fully 25 percent of the cost of development is dedicated to parking that must be recouped through rents. This people this hurts the most are those who don’t have cars and actually intend to use transit, because their rents will still be higher. This scenario is repeated across the BeltLine and anywhere medium- to high-density housing is built.

As a city we have committed to building the BeltLine and the Streetcar – a testament to our desire to become a more walkable and transit-oriented city.

But these carrots are not sufficient to change our behavior or, ultimately, to change the shape of our city to become more walkable and transit-oriented.

We can’t wait until these projects are done. Wishful thinking won’t change anything. We need to start now to change our environment and reducing the amount of parking in our city is a good place to begin.

Preach it!

"Free Parking" is not really free. We need to stop subsidizing sprawl and forcing businesses and communities to space out too make things easier for cars. You want to drive, great, but you should be the one paying for your parking spot.

[MattCW]

Great idea, but currently impossible. This isn't some elusive chicken and egg problem, the cause and effect are very real and known here. You can't just eliminate parking, free or otherwise, and tell people to deal with it, you have to provide the option of other transportation first, then make the regulatory changes. Otherwise that "free market" of yours will rear its ugly head and the people and businesses will leave for other cities. Simply put, we need the transit infrastructure first, we need to build it to accommodate cars, then as people leave their cars for the system, we can implement the parking changes.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Great idea, but currently impossible. This isn't some elusive chicken and egg problem, the cause and effect are very real and known here. You can't just eliminate parking, free or otherwise, and tell people to deal with it, you have to provide the option of other transportation first, then make the regulatory changes. Otherwise that "free market" of yours will rear its ugly head and the people and businesses will leave for other cities. Simply put, we need the transit infrastructure first, we need to build it to accommodate cars, then as people leave their cars for the system, we can implement the parking changes.

Reading Mr. Garbett's article, most of what he's proposing is not exactly "out there" and could be easily implemented without adverse effects to the city's business climate. He's not calling for the immediate elimination of parking spaces, but over time seeing surface lots and large decks get phased out. With 93,000 parking spaces in the CBD alone, car commuters shouldn't have to worry too much about finding a place to park.

[jsvh]

Matt, you seem stuck in exactly what the author is saying is a "tipping point" mind-set.

This is not a radical idea. Just saying that you should force a home or business owner to build parking if they don't want that lifestyle.

[No2Monsanto]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Great idea, but currently impossible. This isn't some elusive chicken and egg problem, the cause and effect are very real and known here. You can't just eliminate parking, free or otherwise, and tell people to deal with it, you have to provide the option of other transportation first, then make the regulatory changes. Otherwise that "free market" of yours will rear its ugly head and the people and businesses will leave for other cities. Simply put, we need the transit infrastructure first, we need to build it to accommodate cars, then as people leave their cars for the system, we can implement the parking changes.

Yeah, now if we could just get rid of the corrupt, racists, good 'ol boys Atlanta politics we might get somewhere with transportation infrastructure!

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Matt, you seem stuck in exactly what the author is saying is a "tipping point" mind-set.

Yes, and the "tipping point mind-set" just happens to also be the "reality of things" mindset.

This is not a radical idea. Just saying that you should force a home or business owner to build parking if they don't want that lifestyle.

Perhaps in theory, but practically, by letting one place not build for cars, you're burdening the other places. Sure, in theory you can say "well they can just have the vehicles towed!" and it works well in isolation, but how well will it work en masse? Are you really willing to tell someone from Cobb or Rockdale or Clayton "sorry you can't park in the city today to go to work, all the spaces are full because no more are being built?" Once again, you're putting the good of the individual ahead of the good of the community, and not wanting to work toward a solution that satisfies both.

[netdragon]

I dunno. The parking situation in Vinings area is horrible. Most restaurants don't have enough parking and a good number of restaurants require valet. Buckhead is the same way. Yet, there aren't enough people riding bicycles and using transit. Transit, specifically, because none is being built (the only "transit" near Vinings is a bus on Cumberland Pkwy.

I think in an area like Atlanta, the way you get people to walk and use bicycles is mixed-use nodal developments connected by trails, and trails to the workplace, because the roads are just unfriendly to pedestrians (even with sidewalks) and bicyclists. The way you get people in metro Atlanta to use transit is to build it between the similar types of areas.

E.g. - it takes planning, not just inconvenience. People and their cars will fare a lot of torment before finally leaving it at home.

[bhammaster]

This isn't freaking Tokyo.

If you were to just make all parking dispear tommorow in the Atlanta area millions of people would literally be unable to get anywhere they needed to. Even if they decided to walk or bike.

We don't have the infrastructure to support everyone riding the train or walking yet. Getting rid of parking without improving transit connections and walkable density is just dumb.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Matt, you seem stuck in exactly what the author is saying is a "tipping point" mind-set.

This is not a radical idea. Just saying that you should force a home or business owner to build parking if they don't want that lifestyle.

Hmmm. My Publix "bought" parking for me to use when I shop. Yes, I understand it costs me in grocery prices. But why take that off Kroger's P&L and add it to mine? I'm not sure I'm understNding the economic difference in the two.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Yes, and the "tipping point mind-set" just happens to also be the "reality of things" mindset.

Perhaps in theory, but practically, by letting one place not build for cars, you're burdening the other places. Sure, in theory you can say "well they can just have the vehicles towed!" and it works well in isolation, but how well will it work en masse? Are you really willing to tell someone from Cobb or Rockdale or Clayton "sorry you can't park in the city today to go to work, all the spaces are full because no more are being built?" Once again, you're putting the good of the individual ahead of the good of the community, and not wanting to work toward a solution that satisfies both.

No kidding. Without transit in place, who in heck is going to come to Atlanta to work, shop and play?