|
<br />Excessive parking standards contribute
<br />to the self-reinforcing cycle of increased au-
<br />tomobile dependency and sprawled land use
<br />iHustrated in Figure 2. This imposes indirect
<br />costs such as' increased impervious suiface
<br />and associated stormwater management costs,
<br />reduced green space, and reduced accessibil-
<br />ity. This tends to be inequitable since it re-
<br />duces accessibility for physically, economically,
<br />and socially disadvantaged people and forces
<br />people to pay for parking regardless of whether
<br />or not they own a vehicle. Although some lower
<br />income people benefit directly from subsidized
<br />
<br />al transport systems, and help reduce various
<br />transport problems including congestion, facil-
<br />ity costs, consumer transportation costs, traf-
<br />fic accidents, energy consumption, pollution
<br />emissions, and stormwater management costs,
<br />typically by 15 to 25 percent. To the degree that
<br />such programs are rational (total incremental
<br />benefits exceed total incremental costs), they
<br />tend to improve economic efficiency. They
<br />also tend to achieve social equity objectives
<br />by improving accessibility for disadvantaged
<br />people and by reducing cost burdens on lower
<br />incomeresidents.
<br />
<br />FIGURE 2. CYCLE OF AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCY AND SPRAWL
<br />
<br />Increased Vehicle
<br />Ownership
<br />
<br />Generous
<br />Parking
<br />Supply
<br />
<br />
<br />Dispersed
<br />Development
<br />Patterns
<br />
<br />Automobile-
<br />Oriented
<br />Transport
<br />Planning
<br />
<br />
<br />Reduced
<br />Travel
<br />Options
<br />
<br />Cycle of
<br />Automobile
<br />Dependency
<br />
<br />Alternative
<br />Modes
<br />stigmatized
<br />
<br />Suburbanization and
<br />Degraded Cities
<br />
<br />
<br />parking, they would generally benefit more
<br />from flexible subsidies that can be used for
<br />other modes and nontransportation goods.
<br />Where parking is efficiently managed with
<br />flexible standards, efficient pricing, and parking
<br />subsidies shifted to cost-effective alternative
<br />management strategies, people tend to own
<br />five to 10 percent fewer vehicles and make 15 to
<br />25 percent fewer vehicle trips, at least in urban
<br />and growing suburban conditions. This suggests
<br />that a significant portion of current transporta-
<br />tion problems result from inefficient parking
<br />management.
<br />Described more positively, improved
<br />parking management can help create more ac-
<br />cessible land-use patterns and more multi,mod-
<br />
<br />CONCLUSIONS
<br />Current parking planning practices are inef-
<br />ficient and result in economically excessive
<br />parking supply, increased vehicle ownership
<br />and use, and more dispersed land-use devel-
<br />opment patterns that contribute to various eco-
<br />nomic, social; and environmental problems. As
<br />a result, planners increasingly emphasize man-
<br />agement solutions to solve parking problems
<br />rather than continually increasing supply.
<br />This article describes more than a dozen
<br />management strategies that result in more
<br />etficient use of parking resources. These strate-
<br />gies are technically feasible and cost-effective,
<br />and can provide many benefits to users and
<br />communities. A comprebensive parking man-
<br />
<br />a'gement program that includes an appropriate
<br />combination of cost-effective strategies can
<br />usually reduce the amount of parking required
<br />at a destination by 20 to 50 percent and pro-
<br />vide a variety of economic, social, and environ-
<br />mental benefits.
<br />Although all these strategies have been
<br />implemented successfully in some situations,
<br />they are not being implemented as much as is
<br />economically justified. Implementing parking
<br />management requires overcoming substantial
<br />obstacles. Motorists have become accustomed
<br />to having abundant, free parking at most des-
<br />tinations and tend to oppose shifts to more
<br />rational management. Parking management
<br />implementation requires changing the way we
<br />think about parking problems and expanding
<br />the range of options i;lnd impacts considered
<br />during planning. It requires educating officials
<br />and the general public concerning the benefits
<br />of parking management, and reforming plan-
<br />ning and funding institutions so resourceS
<br />currently devoted to pi;lrkingfacilities can be
<br />used for parkingmanagement.
<br />
<br />
<br />VOL.-26, NO.6
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the
<br />American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br />available for $75 (U.S.) and $100 (foreign). W. Paul
<br />Farmer, FAICP, Executive Director; William R. Klein,
<br />AICP, Director of Research
<br />
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced at
<br />APA. Jim S,hwab, AICP, and David Morley, Editors;
<br />Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton,
<br />Design and Production.
<br />
<br />Copyright (92009 by American Planning
<br />Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite
<br />1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American
<br />Planning Association also has offices at 1776
<br />Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
<br />20036; www.planning.org.
<br />
<br />At! rights reserved. No part of this publication
<br />may be reproduced or utilized in any form
<br />or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
<br />including photocopying, recording, Dr by any
<br />information storage and retrieval system,without
<br />permission in writing from the American Planning
<br />Association.
<br />
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70%
<br />recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 6.09
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 7
<br />71
<br />
|