Parking Has Eaten American Cities

[M II A II R II K]

Parking Has Eaten American Cities


JUL 24, 2018

By RICHARD FLORIDA

Read More: https://www.citylab.com/transportati...cities/565715/

PDF Study: https://www.mba.org/Documents/18806_...port%20(1).pdf

Parking eats up an incredible amount of space and costs America’s cities an extraordinary amount of money. That’s the main takeaway of a new study that looks in detail at parking in five U.S. cities: New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, Des Moines, and Jackson, Wyoming.

- The study, by Eric Scharnhorst of the Research Institute for Housing America (which is affiliated with the Mortgage Bankers of America), uses data from satellite images, the U.S. Census, property tax assessment offices, city departments of transportation, parking authorities, and geospatial maps like Google Maps to generate inventories of parking for these five cities. (The inventories include on-street parking spaces, off-street surface parking lots, and off-street parking structures.) — It not only estimates the total number of parking spaces in these cities and their overall estimated replacement costs, but develops interesting metrics such as parking spaces per acre, parking spaces per household, and parking costs per household as well as providing maps of parking densities across these cities.

- Parking takes up a huge amount of space: Jackson has more than 50 parking spaces per acre, 25 times its residential density of just two households per acre. Jackson has a whopping 27 parking spaces for each of its households. — Des Moines has nearly 30 parking spaces per acre, roughly 20 times its residential density (1.5 households per acre). Seattle also has roughly 30 parking spaces per acre, more than five times its residential density (5.7 households per acre). So there are more than 5 parking spaces for every household in Seattle. —Philadelphia has 25 parking spaces per acre, almost four times the city’s household density of 6.8 per acre. New York is the only city in the study that has fewer parking spaces per acre than households: 10 spaces compared to 16 households.

- Parking also sucks up a lot of resources in the five cities. Measured in terms of replacement, it costs more than $35 billion in Seattle, $20 billion in New York, $17.5 billion in Philadelphia, $6 billion in Des Moines, and $711 million in Jackson. — These figures are more staggering when tallied in per-household terms. Parking eats up almost $200,000 per household in Jackson, more than $100,000 in Seattle, and over $75,000 in Des Moines. It is a bit less in Philadelphia and New York: roughly $30,000 in Philly, and a meager $6,570 in New York. — America devotes far too many of its precious resources to parking. This is especially troubling given that driving is in decline. For example, the share of Seattle households with a car has fallen for the first time in at least 40 years, and the percentage of U.S. high school seniors with a driver’s license is at “a record low”

.....

[JManc]

Seriously. Why is Jackson even compared to these other cities? Jackson is a tiny tourist town that largely relies on people getting there by car.

[dc_denizen]

Stupid headline and article

In the real world, parking lots are getting eaten up in Seattle and Philadelphia, and nearly everywhere else.

Thanks, Richard florida, for this dispatch from 1970

Jackson Wyoming?

[Pedestrian]

Shame they didn't do San Francisco:

The most recent public data I obtained shows that there are:

379,898 cars registered in San Francisco
and…
320,000 street parking spaces (including meters) in SF

But wait…there’s more. That number is just cars. There are also 61,755 trucks, 20,144 motorcycles, and 8,536 trailers registered in San Francisco, bringing the total number of registered vehicles in SF to 470,333.

And that’s not all.
Each day there is an increase of approximately +35,400 vehicles in San Francisco during the daytime hours monday through Friday, bringing the grand total to:

505,733 vehicles
and
320,000 street parking spaces

There was a recent UC study showing that approximately 1/3 of all downtown San Francisco traffic is from vehicles circling looking for a parking place . . . .

https://www.7x7.com/parking-quiz-ans...781011859.html

That was in 2011 before Uber/Lyft really took over. The traffic is definitely heavier now--the population has grown to around 880,000--and cars cruising for a parking spot may be a lower proportion of it (or maybe not since Uber/Lyft drivers between pickups take up a lot of spaces). Also, some on-street parking has been removed since then and a number of lots have been developed. With the exception of the remaining large lots in Mission Bay, pending development for the Giants' big project, it's getting hard to think of a sizeable surface lot and even one parking garage is targetted for demo.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Stupid headline and article

In the real world, parking lots are getting eaten up in Seattle and Philadelphia, and nearly everywhere else.

Thanks, Richard florida, for this dispatch from 1970

Jackson Wyoming?

Id agree with this, the real bad culprit is open surface parking. Who cares if there is parking done in garages as long as they are well designed.

Most new garages are built into buildings, underground or have at the very least ground floor interaction to make them less of an eysore.

For example:

This: https://goo.gl/maps/bSsFP7pYiMyoLQy1A


Is now: https://goo.gl/maps/6mdadGET5nQiBC267

Hundreds of more parking spaces but its definately not a negative.

[Chisouthside]

The people who made the study probably wanted a cross section of different built environments in US cities. a little logic goes a long way.

[mhays]

That's a terrible cross-section. NY/PHI are too similar, and Jackson Hole is a wealthy resort town.

Surface parking is the worst, but above-grade garages are density killers, and even below-grade parking still means a hell of a lot of cars are around, including curb cuts.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's a terrible cross-section. NY/PHI are too similar, and Jackson Hole is a wealthy resort town.

Surface parking is the worst, but above-grade garages are density killers, and even below-grade parking still means a hell of a lot of cars are around, including curb cuts.

There are very few cities with the level of transit available to largely eliminate parking.

The best solution (as cars aren't going anywhere and public transit infrastructure is always 10 years behind whats needed at best) is to have well designed and hidden garages within projects or on their own to accommodate the people traveling into and out of city cores for work and to live.

[mhays]

True, but less is better. Many cities have ratcheted down their parking requirements, including large areas with none required. Developers tend to follow suit, enthusiastically in some cases, whether that means no parking or more likely just less.

That's spurred more and better infill in those cities, whether it's curb cuts avoided, small lots being usable that wouldn't have been otherwise, or simply a larger percentage of the residents walking and using transit or car shares.

And yes garages should be hidden...below-grade whenever possible...which is much easier when the quantity is low.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Originally Posted by mhays

True, but less is better. Many cities have ratcheted down their parking requirements, including large areas with none required. Developers tend to follow suit, enthusiastically in some cases, whether that means no parking or more likely just less.

That's spurred more and better infill in those cities, whether it's curb cuts avoided, small lots being usable that wouldn't have been otherwise, or simply a larger percentage of the residents walking and using transit or car shares.

And yes garages should be hidden...below-grade whenever possible...which is much easier when the quantity is low.

In our urban center, there is virtually no attention paid to the amount fo street-level surface parking. Matter of fact, I can't remember the last time the City ever called minimum street level parking in downtown. I'll be interested to see how our new BRT route influences parking habits.

[edale]

Originally Posted by mhays

True, but less is better. Many cities have ratcheted down their parking requirements, including large areas with none required. Developers tend to follow suit, enthusiastically in some cases, whether that means no parking or more likely just less.

That's spurred more and better infill in those cities, whether it's curb cuts avoided, small lots being usable that wouldn't have been otherwise, or simply a larger percentage of the residents walking and using transit or car shares.

And yes garages should be hidden...below-grade whenever possible...which is much easier when the quantity is low.

Cincinnati eliminated parking requirements for its downtown and 'urban basin' neighborhoods, and they've already seen a few projects take advantage. There's a 125 unit apartment building being built with I think 5 parking spaces, a 60 unit rehab with no parking, and a 250 unit rehab with 50 spots. It's making development significantly cheaper and easier. I sincerely hope these projects are successful so that this becomes more or less the norm.

[muppet]

wow at those figures. For comparison Paris has 145,000 spaces, or about 15 people per space. Beijing, although drowning in about 8 million cars has about the same average (15.4).

[Minato Ku]

Note that 145,000 place is only the number of parkings space facing the streets.
It's about 800,000 if you include the total number of parking places (private and public), most are underground.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by muppet

wow at those figures. For comparison Paris has 145,000 spaces, or about 15 people per space. Beijing, although drowning in about 8 million cars has about the same average (15.4).

All over Europe you see cars parked on the sidewalk and otherwise in a manner that would be illegal because not in an actual space and could very well get them towed in the US.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

All over Europe you see cars parked on the sidewalk and otherwise in a manner that would be illegal because not in an actual space and could very well get them towed in the US.

Though on the other hand you also likely see a lot more people just walking in the roads as well - particularly on smaller back roads in urban areas.

[harryc]

The days of the private automobile are numbered, just as the days of horse and carriage. One day the parking garages will be the new found space, the new factory lofts. Already in Chicago some garages are being converted - more are going up - but some sit on land made very valuable by mass transit, with parking made less valuable by people using that same mass transit.

This is 1301 W Fulton - stood as a 1/2 completed parking garage for many years, was then finished as an office building with the back 1/4 (including the ramps) retained for parking.
Fulton Market by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

This is the agent of change - a shiny (literally) new El station.
Chicago | 210 N Carpenter by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by harryc

This is the agent of change - a shiny (literally) new El station.

I think this is way off. Public transit ridership is dropping. Almost nothing gets built nationwide without tons of parking, including your examples. The U.S. has (arguably) never been more car-oriented than right now.

Look at the latest U.S. public transit ridership figures. In Q1 2019, L ridership dropped by nearly 5%, CTA bus ridership dropped by nearly 5%, and Metra ridership dropped by more than 4%. How does that reconcile with your claims of a shift towards transit? Do you really think vehicle miles traveled in Chicagoland dropped by 5% too? I doubt it.

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...hip-APTA-1.pdf

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think this is way off. Public transit ridership is dropping. Almost nothing gets built nationwide without tons of parking, including your examples. The U.S. has (arguably) never been more car-oriented than right now.

Look at the latest U.S. public transit ridership figures. In Q1 2019, L ridership dropped by nearly 5%, CTA bus ridership dropped by nearly 5%, and Metra ridership dropped by more than 4%. How does that reconcile with your claims of a shift towards transit? Do you really think vehicle miles traveled in Chicagoland dropped by 5% too? I doubt it.

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...hip-APTA-1.pdf

Arguably the more important stat is how many people drive alone, rather than transit. A lot of the decline in transit in urban areas has been spurred by more people walking, biking, working from home, or using rideshare apps for evening trips.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Arguably the more important stat is how many people drive alone, rather than transit. A lot of the decline in transit in urban areas has been spurred by more people walking, biking, working from home, or using rideshare apps for evening trips.

Agreed; I don't think former transit riders are now driving alone. Probably a combination of factors, include rideshare, people living closer to work, and greater telecommuting.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by harryc

The days of the private automobile are numbered, just as the days of horse and carriage.

It seems like you're comparing apples and oranges here. Cars replaced horses and carriages as a personal mode of transportation. So, the next step would be replacing cars with another personal mode of transportation: flying cars, or something like that. You would see something more efficient than cars replace cars, so that you can go door-to-door even faster than a car can take you, just like cars got people door-to-door faster than horses.

Public transportation is entirely different than personal modes of transportation. I don't see public transportation replacing personal transportation. In fact, I would guess that evidence suggests that more people are using their own methods of transportation now than 50, 75, or 100 years ago. A higher percentage of people own cars now than in the past.