Cities Cut Parking Mandates - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324251504578579982643189770.html?K EYWORDS=parking+requirements)
Good article in the Journal today about the declining role of parking in American cities. The story focuses on DC but Jeff Speck isn't mentioned. Maybe thats a sign this is a trend with its own momentum.

As an update, the article is free now.

While I was a city planner I can't tell you how many projects got scrapped because developers couldn't fit the required parking. It resulted in many smaller lots being undeveloped despite the owners wanting to develop them. One of my favorite parking related quotes is from Enrique Peñalosa. When he removed all of the parking from central Bogota people asked him where they were supposed to park. He told them that wasn't his problem, that they might as well ask him where they are supposed to put their clothes. In other words, the automobile is a private good and it is up to the owner to find a place to put their stuff. The public provides public transportation.

Anyhow, I would be fine if parking requirements were dropped completely from zoning laws. Let the property owners and business people decide how much parking they need.

Anyhow, I would be fine if parking requirements were dropped completely from zoning laws. Let the property owners and business people decide how much parking they need.

I very much agree with this.

If this trend keeps up it won't be too long until we don't need parking at all.

Fewer young U.S. drivers seek learner's permit, study says (http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/upiUPI-20130712-131621-9028)


Only about 28 percent of America's 16-year-olds had a driver's license in 2010, down from 46 percent in 1983, CNBC reported Friday.

While I was a city planner I can't tell you how many projects got scrapped because developers couldn't fit the required parking. It resulted in many smaller lots being undeveloped despite the owners wanting to develop them. One of my favorite parking related quotes is from Enrique Peñalosa. When he removed all of the parking from central Bogota people asked him where they were supposed to park. He told them that wasn't his problem, that they might as well ask him where they are supposed to put their clothes. In other words, the automobile is a private good and it is up to the owner to find a place to put their stuff. The public provides public transportation.

Anyhow, I would be fine if parking requirements were dropped completely from zoning laws. Let the property owners and business people decide how much parking they need.

So, why is the public's responsibility to provide transportation either? It is a private need.

So, why is the public's responsibility to provide transportation either? It is a private need.

Because the economic wheels need to keep turning and mass transit is way more efficient than individual automobiles. Can you imagine what kind of mass transit would be possible if we took all the money spent on cars, interstates, state highways, gasoline, insurance, medical bills from injuries/deaths, insurance, auto repairs, wars for cheap oil, etc... over the last 60 years and spent it on mass transit instead.

There's nothing "evil" about the car. It's very useful and has contributed greatly to the development and growth the US experienced over the last half of the 20th century. The problem is that OKC has become so reliant on the car that we now find ourselves at a competitive disadvantage. It's like eating hamburgers for every meal. Sure you get protein, and you can put lettuce, onions, and tomatoes on it to make it more healthy. And you can eat lean beef hamburgers that have less fat. But eventually it catches up to you, and the guy who mixes in salads and fish and chicken will be in better shape.

Saying "what if we'd never become dependant on the automobile" is like saying "what if I was a vegan my whole life". You might not be so fat but you also might not have gotten as much calcium or protein in your meals. And there's no way to know how things would be. OKC just needs options other than the car. Being completely reliant on it hinders our potential for growth.

For several years I have had an internal debate if the automobile has produced more benefit than it has created problems. I have decided it has created more problems. I think it has become more like a drug that the user can't afford. Sure it is fun getting high (so I am told anyhow) but there is more to drug use than the 'high' portion. It allowed Americans to become very mobile, but are we better off for it? I don't think so. The mobility has come at a very high cost. I guess in your analogy it would be equivalent to the recreation drug user, although in the case of the automobile - the vast majority simply can't live without it.

For several years I have had an internal debate if the automobile has produced more benefit than it has created problems. I have decided it has created more problems. I think it has become more like a drug that the user can't afford. Sure it is fun getting high (so I am told anyhow) but there is more to drug use than the 'high' portion. It allowed Americans to become very mobile, but are we better off for it? I don't think so. The mobility has come at a very high cost. I guess in your analogy it would be equivalent to the recreation drug user, although in the case of the automobile - the vast majority simply can't live without it.

I disagree completely. it was this countries acceptance of the automobile that lead to one of the greatest economies this world has ever seen, help to contribute to a massive expansion of the middle class, and significantly improved the quality of life for millions for decades. It wasn't the Automobile that created the situation we are in, it was the lack of inovation of the automobile and other mass transit starting about 1970 on, that is the cause of the problem. We as a society got stagnant in developing transportation options for almost 40 years, and it is finally coming back and biting us. So i can't blame the Automobile, i blame Automobile manufacturers and manufacturers of other forms of transportation for accepting the status quo instead of continuing to be at the forefront of inovation.

There's no way to ever know for sure. Had we put all the resources that went into automobiles into better public transportation, perhaps we would be in a better position. Of course, there's no guarantee that we would have done that, even if we hadn't gone all-in with the car. You can't just compare society today to some theoretical world where we did everything perfectly. People bought cars because at the time they appeared to offer much easier transportation for relatively low cost.

I think what has happened today is that we've swung to the other end of the spectrum. Cars are more expensive and we've taken advantage of the low-hanging fruit they made available. It's one thing to move out into the country and commute 10 minutes by car to work. It's another to move to the country and commute an hour and a half. We're at the point where the old answer (buy a car! take the highway!) doesn't function correctly any more.

For several years I have had an internal debate if the automobile has produced more benefit than it has created problems. I have decided it has created more problems.
Of course it has created more problems. Despite the fact that most people buying houses in the suburbs cite their family's safety as a primary concern, teenagers are 20x more likely to be killed in an auto accident than by gang violence (source: Suburban Nation).

People bought cars because at the time they appeared to offer much easier transportation for relatively low cost.
No people buy cars because they've bought into the myth of individualism they've been sold.

the interstate system and cars have helped create the prosperity in this country over the last 100 years ..

No people buy cars because they've bought into the myth of individualism they've been sold.Please explain the "myth" statement. Any time I want I can go into my garage and get in my economy car, my wife's Jeep, my gas guzzling 60s muscle car, or on my probably too loud Harley. Then I can start off for anywhere, near or far, that I want to go. I can do this without routes or schedules. This fits very well into my definition of individualism, and freedom. Fitting my schedule into that of a mass transit system does not.

the interstate system and cars have helped create the prosperity in this country over the last 100 years ..I agree. Like it or not the automotive industry and all the related energy, aftermarket parts, repair and even anti-pollution, alternative fuel industries that would not have come about if not for cars have generated a great chunk of our nations economy in the last 100 years.

Well, technically all this 'prosperity' and 'growth' is the result of switching to a debt-based currency which insures that the money is only created if loans to build/buy things are taken out. Now one could argue that the automobile played a role in this because it is the second largest generator of loan origination - which is why we had cash-for-clunkers to help restart the economy and get the money supply growing again..

Well, technically all this 'prosperity' and 'growth' is the result of switching to a debt-based currency which insures that the money is only created if loans to build/buy things are taken out. Now one could argue that the automobile played a role in this because it is the second largest generator of loan origination - which is why we had cash-for-clunkers to help restart the economy and get the money supply growing again..

pretty certain there was technically more reasons than just the switching to a debt-based currency.

The growth probably had nothing to do with investments in infrastructure, research and development, education, etc. I am sure it didn't help to be able to move goods quickly from point to point all over the country where they could be consumed, or the movement of raw materials to places where they could be combined, and on and on and on. While some look at point to point transportation as the scourge of the earth, others who understand logistics and how it improves efficiency look at it as a good thing. While some blame social ills on the car, for much of the world that represents freedom. Some don't get why Route 66 holds a special place in the imagination of a huge group of people in Europe and elsewhere. While some would like make it difficult to have freedom of movement, others understand what it means to come and go as you wish, when you wish, and where you wish.

Being able to borrow money does indeed stimulate the economy. Doing it with no constraints and with no oversight is bad, but credit and availability of capital is mostly a very good thing.

The cities will be part of country; I shall live 30 miles from my
office in one direction, under a pine tree; my secretary will live
30 miles away from it too, in the other direction, under another
pine tree. We shall both have our own car.

We shall use up tires, wear out road surfaces and gears, consume
oil and gasoline. All of which necessitate a great deal of work...
enough for all.

-Le Corbusier, The Radiant City (1967)

Please explain the "myth" statement. Any time I want I can go into my garage and get in my economy car, my wife's Jeep, my gas guzzling 60s muscle car, or on my probably too loud Harley. Then I can start off for anywhere, near or far, that I want to go. I can do this without routes or schedules. This fits very well into my definition of individualism, and freedom. Fitting my schedule into that of a mass transit system does not.
Lol my point is much deeper. Cars do enable individualism. My point is that capital's controllers have sought to manipulate consumers' egocentric desires by playing to a myth. Its the myth of the rugged individual, that we should seek to impress one another with our vehicles and the convenient, gratifying lifestyle they afford and simultaneously sacrifice our quality of life by inhabiting an environment built not for people, but for the cars.

Stranded By Sprawl - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/opinion/krugman-stranded-by-sprawl.html?_r=2&

Finally, Paul Krugman agrees with me. :). Alas, I wonder what he thinks of the automobile subsidy. He was for the stimulus that was used mostly for new roads.

I think the realization of what nearly exclusively subsidizing one mode of transportation really costs is finally dawning on people.

Several years ago we were looking to move to Atlanta. I am here in the ATL on business this week so after work I drove to one of the subdivisions we were looking at. It was 42 miles from the office and took me 2.5 hours. Coming back to the hotel (which is a few blocks from the office) took me 58 minutes with no traffic at all. Someone without access to private transportation would be at a huge disadvantage in this city. All I can say is thank goodness I don't own a house here.

Yeah Atlanta is brutal if you have to drive just about anywhere. I was lucky to be able to do pretty much anything I wanted or needed to do around the GTcampus and Midtown. IF - and that is a huge if - I were to ever accept a job in ATL, it would probably need to be very close to Midtown where I would like to live. Alternately, if might be ok if it was near MARTA. No way in Hades would I voluntarily commute in Atlanta. I feel the same way about DC - like the city a lot as long I am not forced to drive to/from work.