Bike-Sharing Service Might Be the Answer

21 Comments »

 

Beginning in mid-May, city commuters in Washington, D.C., will have an alternative to stuffy bus rides and long traffic lines.  Clear Channel Outdoor (an outdoor advertising company), partnered with the district’s Department of Transportation, will launch the country’s first bike-share service, SmartBike DC.

Bike sharing services offer urbanites low-cost access to bicycles within the inner-city to ease traffic congestion, curb pollution and boost physical activity.  Bike sharing operates on a self-serve model (no attendants) and is geared toward short-term uses.  New technologies including GPS and RFID tags (radio-frequency identification) and automated payment kiosks make the systems more secure and user friendly.

The SmartBike DC system will offer bicycles at key locations in the central business district.  Bicycles are parked at docking points which use a proprietary locking system to ensure that each bicycle is securely stored.  The service is accessible via online subscription and subscribers will receive a SmartBike DC user card that provides access to every station of the program.  An individual annual subscription is $39.99.

Bike stations consist of a horizontal rack with docking points.  The docking points, as pictured above, are parking slots with locks, and they secure the bicycle when it is parked at a station.  An operational team manages the rotation of bicycles for each station to assure a proper ratio of available bicycles to drop-off locations.

How could most cities afford this?  As mentioned before, in the case of Washington, D.C., the district’s Department of Transportation partnered with Clear Channel Outdoor, a private advertising company.  The contract allows the private company to provide advertising on as many as 800 bus shelters.  Public-private partnerships are common among existing bike-share programs, according to Paul DeMaio, the founder of MetroBike LLC, a bike-share consultancy based in Washington, D.C.

Bike-share programs have proved successful in many other countries so far, including France, Spain and Austria.  Leading street-furniture company JC Decaux launched its Paris operation, Velib’, in 2007.  Today, more than 20,000 bikes are available at 1,400 stations.  Paris has four times more bike-rental stations than subway stations and the system is completely financed by advertising and rental charges.

The market in the U.S. is wide-open right now.  Most recently, Clear Channel secured San Francisco as the next city for which to develop street furniture plans, most likely including a bike-share component.  Chicago has expressed interest in bringing a bike-share program to its streets as well.

If Jacksonville had a bike-share system around its core neighborhoods, traffic and pollution would decrease and our city would be populated with a healthier group.  Some commuters would not be forced to wait for a bus if they did not have far to travel.  Also, commuters who bike already would not waste time locking their bike up properly and worrying that it might be stolen.

So.  Who wants to step up with the sponsorship?

Tags: , ,

21 Comments »

Trolley now rolls through Riverside, but at weird times

11 Comments »

Trolley in Jacksonville

The Riverside Avondale Preservation blog reported yesterday the new Riverside Trolley service is set to begin running Monday, May 5, 2008. When I read that I was like “Oh hell yeah! Public transportation for Riverside to Downtown commuters. Nice move COJ and JTA. Way to support public transportation.”

Then I read a little further and got to the operating hours:

Monday - Friday from 10:45 am to 2:30 pm

Riverside Trolley map

Huh? My first thought was “What about the people who live in Riverside and work Downtown and what about the weekends!” I was pretty angry thinking JTA is missing a great opportunity to encourage public transportation for people who live in Riverside and work downtown. Not to mention no weekend hours. Sheesh.

Then I realized JTA would seriously cannibalize their bus fares during those peak hours. With trolley rates at $0.50 per rider and bus fares at $1.00 they’d be losing $0.50 cent per rider.

Just curious: when would you ride the trolley from Riverside to Downtown most?

  • View Results
Loading ... Loading …

Tags: , ,

11 Comments »

Jacksonville’s Bus Rapid Transit is not news

7 Comments »

courtesy of the Times Union
photo courtesy of the Times Union

After seeing so much coverage and discussion of Jacksonville’s bus rapid transit system on Metro Jacksonville I was curious to see what the other media outlets around town had to say about the topic. Pretty much nothing is what I found. Here’s the scorecard:

(50+) Metro Jacksonville
(0) First Coast News
(1) News4Jax
(0) Fox30
(0) CBS47
(0) WJCT
(122) Times Union
(?) Folio Weekly

From these numbers you would think the Times Union cares about BRT more than anyone. A close examination of the numbers tell a different story. The most relevant article of the 122 bus rapid transit was written in Spetember by Liz Flaisig: JTA eyes land for transit station. But it’s more about acquiring right-of-way property than an examination of the proposed system. Here’s an excerpt from another beauty, see if you can guess when this was written:

This year, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority plans to start spending $100 million earmarked by the Better Jacksonville Plan to buy property for a 30-mile rapid transit system in which buses would travel in their own lanes, avoiding rush-hour traffic jams.

That would be January 13, 2005 in the article Park-and-ride lots show mass transit hurdles. So the last time any major media in Jacksonville questioned our plan for bus rapid transit was 2005? Almost three years ago? Most of the articles in the 122 Times Union articles are either duplicates, irrelevant or just plain old. Some that date back as far as 2002.

If it seems like I’m picking on the Times Union, I am. They should be asking the same questions and turning over the same rocks as Metro Jacksonville has and continues to do. When a small organization can produce so many good arguments against something that’s costing, or will cost the taxpayers of the city countless millions of dollars, local news hounds should perk up and take notice. And they shouldn’t need to be told to do so by someone like me.

A rapid transit system for our city is one of the most significant decisions being made in the city right now. It will impact us all over the next 20 to 30 years as Jacksonville begins bursting at the seams with people, roads and cars. You would think this is news. Not to Jacksonville. Bus Rapid Transit is not news.

7 Comments »

JTA’s Bus Rapid Transit Plan, a video by Metro Jacksonville

3 Comments »

A classic video from Metro Jacksonville. This is great, probably the best video of the year. Bonus points for using a track from the first Urban Jacksonville mixtape! BRT Holla!

3 Comments »

Conclusion: How Government Regulation Forces Americans Into Their Cars

No Comments »

credit: Gianni D.
credit: Gianni D.

This is part five 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 | part four | part five.

Does Regulation Matter?

It could be argued that Jacksonville’s regulations have little effect on the city’s urban form because those regulations might just mimic what the market would do without government interference. [FN60] To be sure, there is no way to know exactly what a city’s land-use pattern would be with less intrusive regulations. However, developers throughout the United States believe that government regulation frustrates compact, pedestrian-oriented development. [FN61]

In 2001, the Urban Land Institute (”ULI”) (a developers’ trade association) [FN62] conducted a survey asking developers about the impact of zoning upon “‘alternatives to conventional, low-density, automobile-oriented, suburban development.”‘ [FN63] 85.4% of developers surveyed agreed that the supply of such development was inadequate to meet market demand, [FN64] and 78.2% of developers identified government regulation as a significant barrier to such development. [FN65] So, if Jacksonville resembles the rest of the United States, its regulations are an obstacle to more pedestrian-friendly development.

Moreover, Jacksonville’s most walkable neighborhoods have experienced significant price appreciation–evidence that there may be substantial unmet demand for such environments. In San Marco and Riverside, two older, relatively walkable areas, [FN66] property values increased by 50% and 68%, respectively, between *852 1992 and 2001 [FN67]–an appreciation rate higher than the 37% region-wide appreciation rate during that period. [FN68]

CONCLUSION

Attempts to reform urban sprawl are often met with charges that critics of the status quo seek “to force people out of their cars.” [FN69] But in Jacksonville, the government arguably forces people into their cars through heavy-handed zoning, parking, and street design regulation: not just through traditional zoning regulations directly limiting land use and density, but also by enacting parking and street design regulations that force pedestrians to go out of their way to cross the street, by making those streets too wide to be easily crossed, and by mandating the creation of moats of parking between those streets and the ultimate destination of a pedestrian or bicyclist.

Footnotes

[FN60]. Cf. ROBERT BRUEGMANN, SPRAWL: A COMPACT HISTORY 105 (2005) (suggesting that this is generally the case in United States).

[FN61]. See JONATHAN LEVINE, ZONED OUT: REGULATION, MARKETS, AND CHOICES IN TRANSPORTATION AND METROPOLITAN LAND-USE 128-29 (2006).

[FN62]. Id. at 125 (describing ULI as “the premiere national organization of land developers”).

[FN63]. Id. at 126.

[FN64]. Id. at 128.

No Comments »

Streets for Cars, Not for People

1 Comment »

credit: moriza
credit: moriza

This is part five 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 | part four.

In addition to regulating parking and zoning, Jacksonville has a separate set of regulations governing street design. [FN42] Jacksonville’s street regulations consistently mandate wide streets and long blocks. The costs of these choices will be addressed below.

Fat Streets

Jacksonville mandates that the largest major streets be at least 150 feet wide, [FN43] which means that such streets may have as many as 140 feet of pavement [FN44] and ten lanes. [FN45] A second category of streets, “minor arterials,” must be 120 feet wide, and even “collector” streets, designed to interconnect residential and commercial areas, must be 70 to 80 feet wide. [FN46]

Even by the standards of the United States, such streets are unusually wide: the typical American “principal arterial” street in an urban area has only 39 feet of pavement, and the typical American collector street in a rural area has only 24 feet of pavement. [FN47]

Jacksonville’s wide streets discourage walking (and to a lesser extent, biking) in a variety of ways.

First, a wide street lengthens pedestrian commutes because “a wide[] roadway takes longer to cross” than a narrower street. [FN48]

Second, wide streets may also be more dangerous for pedestrians because a longer commute “increase[es] the [amount of] time [a] pedestrian is exposed to traffic.” [FN49]

Third, wide streets may also endanger pedestrians and bicyclists by encouraging motorists to drive faster. [FN50] Fast traffic may increase the number of accidents because a motorist driving 30 miles per hour has a field of vision spanning about 150 degrees, while a motorist driving 60 miles per hour has a 50-degree field of vision. [FN51]

Fast traffic also increases the severity of accidents: the probability of a pedestrian being killed by an automobile is only 3.5% where the automobile is traveling 15 miles per hour, increases to 37% if the automobile is traveling 31 miles per hour, and increases to 83% if the automobile is traveling 44 miles per hour. [FN52]

Finally, wide streets require government to take more land from landowners than narrow streets, thus reducing population density by taking land that landowners could use to build housing. [FN53] As noted above, low-density areas tend to have low levels of walking and transit use because the fewer the number of housing units that can be placed near a bus stop or other destination, the smaller the number of people who can comfortably walk to that destination. [FN54]

Long Blocks

Jacksonville limits the number of streets intersecting major streets, allowing only four intersections per mile (or one every 1320 feet) [FN55] on “major arterials” and eight per mile (or one every 660 feet) on “minor arterials.” [FN56] Thus, the amount of pavement between one intersection and another must be at least 660 feet long, even on “minor” arterials.

If a city has only a few intersections per mile, pedestrians have very few opportunities to cross streets and thus must spend more time trying to reach destinations between two intersections. [FN57]

By contrast, short blocks (such as the 200-foot blocks common in Portland, Oregon) [FN58] make it easier for pedestrians to cross streets [FN59] and thus to reach destinations without going out of their way to do so. Thus, pedestrians benefit from short blocks and suffer from long blocks.

Footnotes

[FN42]. Or more accurately, Jacksonville has two sets of regulations. Privately-built subdivisions are regulated primarily through section 654 of the Code, and municipal traffic engineering is governed by the city’s Comprehensive Plan. See CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEP’T, 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (2005) [hereinafter COMPREHENSIVE PLAN], available at here (follow “Transportation Element” hyperlink). The subdivision regulations incorporate the Comprehensive Plan. See JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE § 654.103(b) (1990), available at http:// www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=12174&sid=9.

[FN43]. JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE § 654.113; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, supra note 42, § 3.2.2. This classification is for “major arterials”–the most heavily trafficked streets other than limited-access highways. See JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE §§ 654.106(II)(6) (defining “major arterial”); 654.113 (establishing that only streets wider than major arterials are limited-access highways).

[FN44]. Sidewalks on Jacksonville’s nonresidential streets are typically five feet wide. JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE § 654.133(d). So if a 150- foot street has sidewalks on both sides of the street, the pavement can be no more than 140 feet. In addition, a street may have a few feet of landscaping between the sidewalks and the street, or between the sidewalk and the right-of-way line. Cf. Michael Southworth & Eran Ben-Joseph, Street Standards and the Shaping of Suburbia, 61 J. AM. PLAN. ASS’N. 65, 74-76 (1995), available at 1995 WLNR 3951363 (noting that in the 1930s, the Federal Housing Administration (”FHA”) recommended that streets have twenty-four feet of pavement, four feet of sidewalks, and eight feet of land reserved for plants and utilities; FHA standards adopted by many municipalities).

[FN45]. The city’s Comprehensive Plan provides that traffic lanes will be 16 feet wide on outside lanes and 12 feet wide for other lanes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, supra note 42, § 3.1.3. Thus, a ten-lane street might take up 128 feet of pavement (32 feet for the two outside lanes and 96 feet for eight twelve-foot interior lanes), allowing 22 feet of right-of-way for sidewalks and landscaping.

[FN46]. JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE § 654.113; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, supra note 42, § 3.2.2 (streets must be 70 feet wide if they contain curbs and gutters and otherwise 80 feet wide). See also JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE § 654.106(II)(1) (defining “collector” streets).

[FN47]. TODD LITMAN, VICTORIA TRANSP. POLICY INST., TRANSPORTATION LAND VALUATION: EVALUATING POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT AFFECT THE AMOUNT OF LAND DEVOTED TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 4 (2005), available at http:// www.vtpi.org/land.pdf.

[FN48]. Donavan v. Jones, 26,883, p. 15 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/21/95); 658 So. 2d 755, 765 (stating in its description of expert testimony “a wider roadway takes longer to cross”).

[FN49]. Id.

[FN50]. See Stephen H. Burrington, Restoring the Rule of Law and Respect for Communities in Transportation, 5 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. 691, 701 (1996) (stating that the government widens roads because of “solicitude toward fast traffic”).

[FN51]. Id. at 704 n.50.

[FN52]. Id. at 704.

[FN53]. See Michele Derus, Zoning Can Curb Lower-Cost Housing, THE MILWAUKEE J. SENTINEL, Sept. 21, 1997, available at http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19970921/ai_n10359570 (”Each [ten] feet of required street width reduces [housing] supply by [three] to [four] percentage points.”).

[FN54]. See supra notes 20-22 and accompanying text.

[FN55]. There are 5280 feet in a mile. Robinson v. Arrugueta, 415 F.3d 1252, 1254 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). So a street with four intersections per mile has one intersection every 1320 feet (5280 divided by four).

[FN56]. JACKSONVILLE, FLA., ORDINANCE CODE § 654.115 (1990), available at
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=12174&sid=9; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, supra note 42, § 2.3.1.

[FN57]. Jeff Gray, Police Blaming Accident Victims, Pedestrian Says, GLOBE & MAIL (Canada), Mar. 15, 2004, at A8, available at 2004 WNLR 18380258 (stating that in suburban Toronto there is “trouble for pedestrians” because of large streets that “barely allow pedestrians enough time to cross and the long blocks that provide so few safe opportunities to do so.” (emphasis added)).

[FN58]. See Robert Campbell, Lively City Neighborhoods Require New Blocks on the Block, BOSTON GLOBE, Jan. 13, 1991, at A4, available at 1991 WNLR 1732980. See also EWING, supra note 31, at 4 (300-foot blocks desirable for walkability); TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, MAIN STREET HANDBOOK: WHEN A
HIGHWAY RUNS THRU IT 35 (1999), available at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/TGM/docs/mainstreet.pdf (200 to 400 feet ideal).

[FN59]. See Gray, supra note 57 (stating that long blocks reduce opportunities to cross streets).

1 Comment »

Parking and Street Design: Why You May Have to Drive Everywhere

1 Comment »

credit: Today is a good day
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).

1 Comment »
« Older Entries