Skip to Content
Streetsblog New York City home
Streetsblog New York City home
Log In

Today on the Streetsblog Network, Austin Contrarian counts the ways that too much parking can damage a downtown:

2559723208_231dc14e64.jpgPhoto by Amber Rhea via Flickr.
  1. Parking raises the cost of new development, which means less of it. This may be no big deal for a city with a built-out downtown, but it is a big deal for Austin, which devotes so many downtown blocks to surface parking or stand-alone garages.
  2. Parking not only raises the cost of new development, but it limits size and density. An on-site garage can only be so big to be practical. A developer who wants to provide enough on-site parking to cover peak demand must first figure out how much parking he can build; only then will he know how much he can build of whatever it is he wants to build. 
  3. Parking garages and surface lots blight the streetscape, triggering a negative feedback loop: the surface lots and garages make streets less attractive to pedestrians, which drives the pedestrians away, which reduces demand for pedestrian-oriented retail, which makes the streetscape even less attractive for pedestrians, etc. 
  4. Subsidized parking -- i.e., parking provided below cost -- distorts the market, encouraging an inefficient mix of driving and transit use.
  5. Plopping ever more parking downtown increases congestion. The amount of land devoted to streets is fixed. The amount of parking is not. Increasing the number of parking spots but not the amount of street space means more cars per square meter of street, which in turn means more congestion. (This very interesting paper (pdf) by Michael Manville and Donald Shoup explores this argument in depth.)
  6. Parking garages and surface lots are butt-ugly.

Elsewhere around the network: St. Louis Urban Workshop notes an apparent disconnect in the thinking of Sen. Christopher Dodd, chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The Overhead Wire asks why the US can't match India's commitment to funding new metro systems. And Human Transit wonders whether we should ride mediocre transit systems just because they need the "vote" we cast when we hop aboard.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog New York City

‘Trust Us’: Albany Pols Offer Only Promises To Fill Massive Hole In MTA Capital Plan

Gov. Hochul put a big "IOU" note in place of a real plan to fill the $33-billion hole in the MTA’s 2025-2029 capital plan.

January 15, 2025

Hochul’s ‘Heavy’ E-Bike Proposal is Light on Potential: Critics

Very few class 3 electric bikes reach 100 pounds. And they look a lot like class 2 e-bikes.

January 15, 2025

Wednesday’s Headlines: Curb Enthusiasm Edition

New York City will launch five "microhub" delivery zones in Brooklyn and Manhattan this spring or earlier, officials said. Plus more news.

January 15, 2025

GOP Governor Hopeful Mike Lawler Dishes Culture War Dreck In Anti-Transit Tantrum

The Republican congressman journeyed to Albany to spew the same empty rage that transit opponents have trotted out for years.

January 14, 2025

Gov. Hochul Eyes Parking Ban at Elementary Schools; Advocates Say It’s ‘Not Enough’

It's a start, but why not bring the safety benefits to the whole city?

January 14, 2025
See all posts