Clarity Trumps Agreement -- and a Question for Peter

Peter and I seem to have an ongoing disagreement, or at least a heated discussion, over the number of parking spaces "required" for a vehicle vs the number of spaces that exist for a vehicle. This goes back to last month and a talk Peter gave at Oxford (I was in attendance.) It was really a critical venue as those in the audience had a lot of gray hair and were professors of transportation planning. They invited Peter to speak because they realized that although they know a lot about transportation and intermodal design, they knew little about parking.

Peter opened with a statement that I understood to mean that there were three spaces for each vehicle. One at home, one at work, and one for all the other places it goes. I commented here (below) that this was absurd on its face, that certainly not nearly that many spaces were required for parking vehicles. Don Shoup entered the discussion commenting that surveys have been done that in fact prove that a lot of our land is paved over for parking space that isn't used, and the three for one number is probably correct.

Peter has responded that I may have misinterpreted his comment, since he too was saying that there was a three to one ratio. He was not trying to say that that ratio is correct. That is where it stands.

Let me try to clarify. Don has caused much pain within the planning community because he believes that requirements for parking based on building usage is an inappropriate planning model. Developers should be able to provide the amount of parking THEY feel appropriate and let it go at that. The planning groups should stay out of parking.

In 'The High Cost of Free Parking" he spends a third of the book bringing forth facts and figures that show the problems caused by these parking requirements. These requirements lead to the provision of far more parking than is necessary at any given location.

Back to Oxford… Perhaps I didn't understand Peter's point, fair enough. But if I didn't, did the planners in the room? I don't know. Peter was giving a very general overview of parking, not getting into specifics of usage. But these guys live for bullet points. If they took that little tidbit away...

Let's be clear. Three parking spaces per car exist in the US and most likely the UK, and most other developed countries. That is most likely too many. The problem is not available parking, but allocation of parking. Who parks where and when?

In the UK, hospitals began charging for parking to keep local residents and merchants from poaching in their structures, taking spaces needed for staff and patients. It worked. However the government in its infinite wisdom decided that this was "unfair" to patients. It was called a "tax on illness." So they are removing the charges. The result – parking problems are back at the hospitals.

This problem/solution model can be seen to work in downtown after downtown. Cars are moved from short term parking to long term parking (if that's appropriate). Commuters make decisions on whether to drive, or carpool, or take the bus, based on their personal needs and the free market pricing of parking. When this occurs, parking is freed up.

With the exception of shopping centers at Christmas, the parking lots fill at a rate based on need and usage, and are seldom full. (You don't build a church for the requirements of Easter Sunday.)

I'm not sure Peter and I are in agreement, that's not important. But it is important to be clear in what we are discussing.

My question to Peter – Can you recommend a way to help the planners at Oxford deal with parking issues?

JVH

Peter opened with a statement that I understood to mean that there were three spaces for each vehicle. One at home, one at work, and one for all the other places it goes. I commented here (below) that this was absurd on its face, that certainly not nearly that many spaces were required for parking vehicles. Don Shoup entered the discussion commenting that surveys have been done that in fact prove that a lot of our land is paved over for parking space that isn't used, and the three for one number is probably correct.

Peter has responded that I may have misinterpreted his comment, since he too was saying that there was a three to one ratio. He was not trying to say that that ratio is correct. That is where it stands.

Let me try to clarify. Don has caused much pain within the planning community because he believes that requirements for parking based on building usage is an inappropriate planning model. Developers should be able to provide the amount of parking THEY feel appropriate and let it go at that. The planning groups should stay out of parking.

In 'The High Cost of Free Parking" he spends a third of the book bringing forth facts and figures that show the problems caused by these parking requirements. These requirements lead to the provision of far more parking than is necessary at any given location.

Back to Oxford… Perhaps I didn't understand Peter's point, fair enough. But if I didn't, did the planners in the room? I don't know. Peter was giving a very general overview of parking, not getting into specifics of usage. But these guys live for bullet points. If they took that little tidbit away...

Let's be clear. Three parking spaces per car exist in the US and most likely the UK, and most other developed countries. That is most likely too many. The problem is not available parking, but allocation of parking. Who parks where and when?

In the UK, hospitals began charging for parking to keep local residents and merchants from poaching in their structures, taking spaces needed for staff and patients. It worked. However the government in its infinite wisdom decided that this was "unfair" to patients. It was called a "tax on illness." So they are removing the charges. The result – parking problems are back at the hospitals.

This problem/solution model can be seen to work in downtown after downtown. Cars are moved from short term parking to long term parking (if that's appropriate). Commuters make decisions on whether to drive, or carpool, or take the bus, based on their personal needs and the free market pricing of parking. When this occurs, parking is freed up.

With the exception of shopping centers at Christmas, the parking lots fill at a rate based on need and usage, and are seldom full. (You don't build a church for the requirements of Easter Sunday.)

I'm not sure Peter and I are in agreement, that's not important. But it is important to be clear in what we are discussing.

My question to Peter – Can you recommend a way to help the planners at Oxford deal with parking issues?

JVH