Parking and Street Design: Why You May Have to Drive Everywhere
08/23/07 • Posted in: Activism, Suburbs, Transit by Joey Marchy 1 Comment »
credit: Today is a good day
This is part four of the series “How Government Regulation Forces Americans Into Their Cars”, where I publish a recent paper by a local professor Michael Lewyn. Read the other parts: part one | part two | part three.
Of course, not all Jacksonville residents live in low-density, single-use zones. The city does have medium- and high-density residential zones [FN25] and allows some housing in some of its commercial zones. [FN26] But even apartment dwellers and other residents of higher-density zones are affected by the city’s parking and street design regulations–regulations that tend to make life uncomfortable for nondrivers.
Parking: Drowning in the Sea of Asphalt
Jacksonville’s Code requires landlords to provide 1.5 parking spaces per unit for studio apartments with under 500 square feet of living space, 1.75 parking spaces per unit for larger studio and one bedroom apartments, and at least two spaces for larger units. [FN27] Commercial landowners must also set aside large amounts of land for parking: most professional offices must create two off-street parking spaces for every 500 feet of office space, [FN28] and most other businesses must create one off-street parking space for every 300 feet of floor space. [FN29]
As a result of such regulations, landowners typically surround offices, shops, and apartments with parking lots thus creating a “strip mall” effect. [FN30] Government-mandated strip malls deter walking and encourage driving in several ways. First, the parking-dominated “dead areas” created by minimum parking requirements discourage walking by creating landscapes that are visually unappealing for pedestrians.
An Environmental Protection Agency report states that where buildings are set back behind yards of parking rather than being flush with the sidewalk,” [FN31] a pedestrian “has less to look at [and] feels more isolated.” [FN32] By contrast, “small setbacks and shop-front windows provide more interesting scenery for pedestrians and create a feeling of connection between the buildings and the public spaces bordering them.” [FN33]
Second, parking lots in front of buildings lengthen the commutes of pedestrians and bicyclists by increasing the distance between streets and destinations such as offices and shops. Where parking is in front of a shop, pedestrians and bicyclists cannot approach the shop without going through an uninviting (if not downright dangerous) parking lot, dodging cars on their way. [FN34]
Third, minimum parking requirements spread sprawl by reducing density, because land devoted to parking cannot be used for housing or businesses. For example, if a city’s parking code requires landlords to set aside half of their land for parking, the city is effectively reducing population density by 50%. In fact, Jacksonville’s Code sometimes requires even greater reductions in density.
Here is how: typically, a parking space takes up about 370 square feet. [FN35] So Jacksonville’s requirement that the owner of a 500-square-foot efficiency must provide 647 feet of parking for that unit (1.75 parking spaces times 370 square feet), [FN36] means that an owner, who could put 2.25 500-foot units on 1147 square feet, must, instead, build one unit and one parking space–a density reduction of 54%. [FN37] And as noted above, [FN38] low density reduces the number of people who can walk to bus stops, jobs, or shops; for example, an apartment complex with five or ten units per acre will support less bus service than one with twenty units per acre.
Finally, minimum parking requirements generate automobile dependence by subsidizing driving. While roads are at least partially paid for by user fees, [FN39] parking is nearly always “free” to its users. [FN40] But such “free” parking is in fact paid for by landowners, who build parking lots and pass the costs of those parking lots to society as a whole in the form of higher rents, and by the landowners’ business tenants, who then pass those higher rents on to society as a whole in the form of higher prices for goods and services. Thus, minimum parking requirements are essentially a type of tax that redistributes money from society as a whole to drivers. [FN41]
In sum, minimum parking requirements make even mixed-use neighborhoods more automobile-oriented by reducing density, by subsidizing driving, and by forcing pedestrians and bicyclists to waste time commuting through seas of parking in order to reach apartments, shops, and jobs.
Footnotes
[FN25]. JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE §§ 656.306 to 656.307 (1990), available at http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=12174&sid=9. In both districts, some nonresidential uses are allowed. See id.
[FN26]. Id. §§ 656.311 (establishing regulations for mixed-use “Residential-Professional-Institutional” zone); 656.315 (allowing mixed use in “Central Business District” zone).
[FN27]. Id. § 656.604(a)(2).
[FN28]. Id. § 656.604(e)(3).
[FN29]. Id. § 656.604(f)(1). In addition, the Jacksonville Code has numerous, more specific requirements for various types of businesses. Id. § 656.604(a)-(f). The rules discussed above are the “default requirements” that generally govern Jacksonville landowners.
[FN30]. Julie Mason, Urban Reviewal: Proposed Building Laws Seek an Appealing Look, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Aug. 18, 1997, at 1A, available at 1997 WLNR 6626553 (using term). In theory, parking lots could be set behind buildings rather than in front of them. However, this rarely occurs for two reasons. First, Jacksonville also requires many buildings to be set back from the street, thus, giving landowners an incentive to use the land between streets and buildings for parking rather than wasting it on uses not mandated by the city. See, e.g., JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE §§ 656.312(A)(II)(f)(1)(i) (explaining that buildings in “Neighborhood Commercial” district must be set back from street by twenty feet); 656.311(A)(ii)(f) (similar rule governs mixed-use district). Second, merchants may prefer to place parking in front of stores because customers find it more convenient to park there. Cf. Dana Knight, Open-Air Shopping: Lifestyle Centers, with Array of Upscale Stores, Are Bringing Hot New Trend in Retail to Indy’s Metro Area, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, July 6, 2003, at D2, available at 2003 WLNR 10918199 (”[Shopping] center is [more] convenient [when] customer[] [can] park practically in front of any store he or she wants to go in.”).
[FN31]. REID EWING, PEDESTRIAN- AND TRANSIT-FRIENDLY DESIGN: A PRIMER FOR SMART GROWTH 10, available at http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/ptfd_primer.pdf (last visited Apr. 14, 2007).
[FN32]. Id.
[FN33]. Douglas G. French, Cities Without Soul: Standards for Architectural Controls with Growth Management Objectives, 71 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 267, 280 (1994). For an example of shops flush with the sidewalk, see Michael Lewyn, Where I’ve Lived (and Visited), Avondale Shopping Center (Feb. 26, 2006), http://atlantaphotos.fotopic.net/p32879673.html. For a typical example of a Jacksonville strip mall, see Michael Lewyn, Where I’ve Lived (and Visited), Mandarin Strip Mall (Feb. 26, 2006), http://atlantaphotos.fotopic.net/p32439827.html.
[FN34]. Cf. Freilich, supra note 22, at 557 (stating that “large expanses of asphalt devoted to parking often discourages pedestrian mobility” and makes public transit inconvenient by impeding walking to and from transit stations).
[FN35]. See Richard W. Willson, Suburban Parking Requirements: A Tacit Policy for Automobile Use and Sprawl, 61 J. AM. PLAN. ASS’N 29, 37 (1995), available at 1995 WLNR 3952340.
[FN36]. See supra note 27 and accompanying text (stating that the city requires 1.75 parking spaces per unit for efficiency and one bedroom apartments with 500 or more square feet).
[FN37]. Jacksonville’s Parking Code also reduces job density; for example, a landlord who must provide two parking spaces for every 500 square feet of office space has to set aside 740 square feet for parking (370 square feet for each parking space). See supra notes 28 and 35 and accompanying text. Thus, a landowner with 1240 square feet can only use 500 square feet for offices–a 59% density reduction.
[FN38]. See supra notes 20-22 and accompanying text.
[FN39]. See Salvatore Massa, Surface Freight Transportation: Accounting for Subsidies in a “Free Market,” 4 N.Y.U. J. LEGIS. & PUB. POL’Y 285, 318-19 (2001) (illustrating that over half of state and federal highway spending is paid for by user fees).
[FN40]. See Willson, supra note 35, at 30 (stating that 99% of work-related automobile trips involve free parking).
[FN41]. See generally Donald C. Shoup, An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements, 61 J. AM. PLAN. ASS’N. 14, 15 (1995), available at 1995 WLNR 3950745 (stating that the cost of parking space construction per driver is higher than the typical commuter’s gasoline expenditures; thus, subsidy from free parking is more generous for drivers than provision of free gasoline).
Great points. Hopefully, a few of our leaders are taking notes.