This astonishing insight becomes obvious once we understand that the US has more motor vehicles than licensed drivers (over a quarter billion motor vehicles in 2012) and provides about eight parking spaces for each car. Each restaurant seat, each office work station, each retail store and each dwelling unit typically must provide parking based on peak usage. Assume that each parking spaces requires about 360 sqf of paved area including drive aisles and access ramps etc. and it becomes clear just how much land and real estate is devoted to storing those metal boxes.
 |
| Parking can destroy the city fabric |
This waste of space and the associated defacing of villages, towns and cities has long been decried by advocates for transit, the environment and smart growth. But only recently does this failed approach begin to hit a nerve with developers, banks, businesses and in due course with those who write the zoning codes.
The waste eventually hits the pocket book, not only of private investors who fund the parking spaces but also of government which not only doesn't see much return from that specific land use, but has to contend with the traffic that all the parking generates. Most of the eight spaces held ready for each car in the country are "free", i.e. there are no user fees they, therefore, don't generate a return on investment. Fewer people clamor for easy parking and more ask instead for urbanity, interesting shopping experiences and lively downtowns. Many put their actions where their wishes are by using ride-share, bicycles and their feet. No wonder, developers see all the concrete embedded in parking as a waste of their resources as well. It now often stands empty.
Parking has been a contentious policy focus in cities and towns around the United States for decades. Residents, visitors, and business owners often lament what they see as parking shortages or unfair prices. Meanwhile, surface lots and parking garages have chipped away at once vibrant urban centers, taking up what is often the most valuable land in the region. (Mayors Innovation Project)
 |
| Use distribution on a commercial building in Olympia, Washington |
Conventional wisdom has it, that the autonomous vehicle will lead to a drastic reduction in parking needs. Most planners optimistically assume that consumers will turn their back purchasing their own cars and will opt instead for fleet-based shared vehicles presumably because those autonomous vehicle won't be as much fun to own. Assuming that this speculation is applicable, parking demand goes drastically down because fleet vehicles won't be parked all day long as most private cars are. Instead, they will be on the move most of the time like taxis or Uber/Lyft cars already are, especially if dispatch is optimized by software similar to the current online apps.
In short, parking policies find themselves at a juncture where three trends form a perfect storm:
- Cities striving for urbanity, livability and quality of life which is antithetical to seas of parking,
- Developers shedding non profitable ballast such as parking and
- AV's making standard parking superfluous
Urban regulation and public debate is slow in catching up, even though cities are slowly adjusting their zoning codes to be more reflective of new trends such as mixed use, transit oriented development and adaptive reuse. Some even have now parking maximums on their books in lieu of the previous minimums. But generally, a future of possible AVs leaves urbanists entirely cold when they can't find a spot to park overnight.
 |
| More spaces through angled parking (Sun photo) |
Urban politics, just like politics in general, rarely considers the long-term but focuses on today, tomorrow and the years until the next election. Parking is still at a premium in many urban neighborhoods, no matter how popular Uber, Lyft, ZipCar or bicycling may be. In a rowhouse community such as Canton, where rowhouses are routinely less wide than a car is long, and many alleys or backyards can't be accessed by today's large cars and SUVs, curbspace is so precious that parking wars are common. The usual debate revolves around residential parking permits that keep non-residents out, angled parking that adds more curbside spaces, and in winter, whether putting chairs on shoveled spaces is moral or legal.
As a result, no matter how imminent the AV may be, complacency is still the norm across parking authorities, transit agencies and departments of transportation with very few exceptions. Movement can be detected in the Baltimore Department of Planning, not at Transportation. The planners just having barely survived the epic battle of re-zoning, sense that they didn't get everything right with their newly minted parking regulations. Citizens and developers are still unhappy, not necessarily because of the dawn of a new age, but because the rules of Title 16 (off street parking and loading) are as seen too lax by some. In response they will be convening a working group to review the parking requirements once again.
 |
| Sloped floors: Not suitable for other uses |
The department will arrange a series of public working sessions to wade once again through all the issues. The title 16 requirements are relatively flexible for downtown and old rowhouse districts, account for shared parking (overlap from uses that have an offset in time) and even include requirements for bicycle parking. The required minimums are not excessive and the most destructive forms of parking (in front of businesses, on vacant lots etc.) are mostly outlawed. So progress has been made.
maybe it would be best, instead of re-litigating the past once more, the City would get out of the tradition of mandating parking altogether. Parking may actually be an area where "the market" could function quite well as a regulator, not for the design of parking but for the amount that will be provided. Developers in the more expensive real estate markets have already begun to build garages with extra heights and level floors to be able to re-purpose them in the future for non-parking uses.
 |
| Managing parking on public space |
The City's efforts should concentrate on how to re-purpose public spaces, i.e. the streets which make up about 25-30% of the entire urban space. The red Baltimore bus only lanes are an example of re-distribution of public space. Bike-lanes another. However, with AVs even those rather rigid assignments may become obsolete. On the other hand, the spaces for loading, staging and unloading robotic share cars, delivery vans, drones and the like will increase. If the future is electric, those vehicles need to be charged and space for that needs to be designated as well.
AVs will also change transit, likely creating a much more fluid line between transit and share cars, requiring space for transfer hubs.
In spite of all that, though, walking will remain pretty much what it is and if people can get their eyes off the screens of their phones the desire for beauty and enrichment will remain as well. In other words, there is a good chance that architects, planners and designers can return, at least partly, to the tradition of their craft as it was practiced before the automobile took over.
 |
| Re-designating public space |
The working groups should consider this nightmare as well and what policies can prevent it.
Klaus Philipsen, FAIA
Zoning: Montgomery County Parking
2011 Montgomery Parking Study (Nelson Nygaard)
Philadelphia Parking Design Guidelines
Urban Planners' Enemy (Governance 8/2016)
Vox/Mobility Lab video: The high cost of free parking
The slow death of urban parking: Don Pittis 7/2017
Urban Parking Economics and LandConsumption: A Case Study of New Haven,Connecticut and Cambridge, Massachusetts
Urban Parking: Mayors Innovation Project
Parking the Bane of Cities
This from Baltimore Planning:
The NEW Baltimore Zoning Code has been in effect since June 2017, and the Department of Planning (DOP) has received comments from the public that parking requirements are still too high, while others are concerned that parking requirements are too lenient. We have decided to openly review the parking requirements for both cars and bicycles.
Any persons interested in this topic are invited to participate in a series of open meetings to discuss what works and what doesn’t work in Title 16 of the Zoning Code.
Interested in Parking Requirements in Baltimore City?
As part of our ongoing review process, the Department of Planning (DOP) is looking at this Title to see if additional changes are needed.
Per nationwide trends, Baltimore's new Zoning Code reduces parking minimums and encourages mixed use and shared parking arrangements. This sparked debate during the Zoning Update process.
Topics will include;
Are parking requirements too high or too low?
Should they be refined for different districts?
Other ideas?
The meetings will be held on the following schedule:
Wednesday Nov. 8, 2017 5-7pm
Wednesday Nov. 15, 2017 5-7pm
Wednesday Nov. 29, 2017 5-7pm
Wednesday Dec. 6, 2017 5-7pm
Wednesday Dec. 13, 2017 5-7pm
All Meetings will be held at the Department of Planning Boardroom
417 East Fayette Street 8th floor
Be sure to have Photo ID to enter the building. No need to RSVP, but questions may be directed to zoningcode@baltimorecity.gov.
No comments:
Post a Comment